From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 05 June 07 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants to imptove this in DRAFT, happy to provide with the contingency it goes through AFC. I'm going to check the page protection now. Star Mississippi 16:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Arjun Malhotra

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

NN person, UPE-created article, PROMO violations, poor referencing Cutlass Ciera 15:00, 17 May 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 23:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN person and passing mentions. JunitaWorker ( talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I cannot see notability for encyclopedia-worthy coverage as a biography. As a businessman, the subject is a millionaire. He joins the ranks of 56 million other millionaires in the world. -- Otr500 ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Since references are now quite adequate, and he was among the team of founders of HCLTech which is now among the Indian IT Giants, WP:GNG may finally pass. However, I agree that there is not significant, independent coverage and, for this reason, WP:DRAFTIFY may be a solution to improve the neutral point of view and resolve concerns of policy violations. Chiserc ( talk) 15:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough reliable sources with significant coverage. The person who loves reading ( talk) 01:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non notable. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What I can't understand is how this article was created. This page was fully protected from creation in 2017 and salted good. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 14 June 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! 22:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Tyger Valley College

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

Non-notable private school Park3r ( talk) 23:34, 6 June 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. As this is due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Liberty Institute (Georgia)

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

It seems to fail on WP:NORG. The whole article is written as an over-detailed advertisement without any references. The official website of the organization is not working and other sources are scarce. Chiserc ( talk) 23:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to 2022–23 EuroCup Basketball#Final. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 EuroCup Final

2023 EuroCup Final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This final match seems to be adequately coverable in the article 2022–23 EuroCup Basketball. At best create a redirect from this article to 2022–23 EuroCup Basketball. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 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 06:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

4 Carats

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

Fails WP:NSONG. The song did not receive significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources outside of album reviews. It was included in this article by Billboard in 2018 for a grand total of one, short sentence. I do not see a strong justification or rationale for an independent article. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Jajeh

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

Doesn't pass GNG. There's this article [1] and an interview (which doesn't count towards notability) [2] but not much else. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 18:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: She may be notable. I agreed with Pburka. CastJared ( talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply
CastJared, just clarifying that you agree that this could be a redirect? HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 19:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. CastJared ( talk) 00:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources both cited in the article and found by clicking on "books" in the nomination statement. Whether we should have an article on the writer, the show or both is an editing, not a deletion, decision, but, as the late lamented User:DGG once put it (I paraphrase), a living writer can write something more, but a written work can't acquire more writers. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A redirect has been mentioned but not what article target it should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I strongly agree with the DGG quote above. As noted, I wouldn't object to a redirect to her notable play, if and when someone writes that page. Until then, keep the bio. pburka ( talk) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. She may be notable. The article needs more attention and has to establish the notability. Kinkordada ( talk) 06:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "She may be notable" is not a strong argument to Keep an article and no redirect target has been offered on that front so I'm relisting this for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete. I saw the WP:CITEKILL added since the article was nominated for deletion [3] and looked into them. [Citation 3] is the subject's appearance on a podcast. Non-RS, primary source, not independent of the subject. [Citation 4] and [Citation 5] are 2 short interviews made on the same day with her alma mater's school newspaper. Not exactly RS, primary source, not independent of the subject. [Citation 6] is another interview. [Citation 7] is another interview and non-RS. [Citation 8] is a short interview. [Citation 9] has 3 sentences about her and non-RS. All of these added sources are a combination of interviews, trivial mentions, low depth, or non-RS. The edit [4] is evidence, if anything, in favor of deletion. I did more research. Across sourcing I could find, I see a lot of trivial mentions and namedrops like when clicking on the "Books" and "News" links in the nom, low depth sourcing (non-SIGCOV), non-RS, webpages insulting the subject, interviews and other primary or non-independent sourcing. Aside: I can't help but notice this AfD is getting canvassed. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
If you followed the "books" link then you must have seen this and this. Which do you class them as, trivial mentions or namedrops? Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes I did see them. Thank you for your question. Both, regardless of reliability, give a short summary without much depth of the article subject's solo performance monologue "I Heart Hamas". About the subject it only mentions she wrote this monologue, is a writer, producer, comic, playwright and that her family is from Ramallah, which is trivial. They may be mediocre sources for "I Heart Hamas", but are trivial for the subject. If grasping at anything available, like I addressed in my vote, and sarcasm are the best case for keeping, then in my view, it is more evidence for deletion. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 19:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I would invite anyone reading this discussion to look at those sources to see whether what Saucysalsa30 says is true. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello, I kindly ask you to not cast aspersions. Sarcastic responses [5], implications of lying [6], and false accusations [7] do not belong in any discussion. You are getting into the territory of bludgeoning this AfD (I already count 5 comments). Pinging me 18 hours after your last comment, which no one responded to, to get a response is part of it. I recommend WP:FOC.
The ping was off-topic but I'll address it because threats are being made [8]. Three of the comments are, verbatim, "She may be notable". The relister recognized this too [9]. I've seen dozens of reasonably trafficked AfDs with verbatim repeated responses like this so I got curious and went to Wikipedia IRCs to ask about it. An admin said yes but those votes don't count for anything. Nothing special. Then I made my comment, which included the short aside. No one said you have been canvassed. I respect that you at least tried to make some form of argument, although much of it is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. My condolences to DGG but the quote lacks relevance here and we can't know that the subject will be notable. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Saucysalsa30, you say you "can't help but notice this AfD is getting canvassed". I haven't been able to find any evidence of this, so could you please provide it so that the canvassing can be taken into account in the close of this discussion. I, for one, have not been canvassed. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Saucysalsa30:. I see that you edited this discussion to remove both my comments and Phil Bridger's comments. You said above that there is canvassing related to this AfD. This is a serious accusation. Please clarify who is canvassing and where the canvassing is occurring. pburka ( talk) 23:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Saucysalsa is currently blocked and is the subject of an ANI for similar unfounded claims in other discussions. pburka ( talk) 15:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
At the moment the block is only for 31 hours, so may be lifted before this discussion closes. Saucysalsa30, I will not accuse you of bludgeoning this discussion if you make a reasonably concise reply, but will not hold back from saying that you are lying if that turns out to be the case. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk) 01:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I've been notified by Phil Bridger to comment on this AfD again. It was implied that I was I'm dishonest, a serious charge, about two sources [10]. This is what the sources say about the subject biographically in full.
  • Contemporary Women Playwrights: "Jennifer Jajeh, an American actor, writer, and producer whose parents are from Ramallah in the West Bank, wrote and performs the monologue."
  • Middle Eastern American Theatre: "Palestinian American solo performer, playwright, and comic Jennifer Jajeh’s I Heart Hamas: And Other Things I’m Afraid to Tell You is another personal journey of a Christian/Catholic Arab American woman who journeys back to her ancestral homeland of Palestine. Jajeh, whose family has lived in the West Bank town of Ramallah for the past 450 years, decided to create the play because she was tired of explaining herself and her beliefs about the conflict."
In both, the following few paragraphs shift to focus on summarizing her "I Heart Hamas" solo performance, which is a monologue in which the subject describes a few humorized, dramatized events from her own life. I hope that clears it up. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 22:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You say that the following few paragraphs focus on her work. Just as sources for politicians and sportspeople are usually about politics and sport sources for creative professionals are about their work. Why do people treat this topic area differently and expect sources to be about their pet's name or their favourite colour rather than about what makes them notable? Phil Bridger ( talk) 06:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I see that Saucysalsa30 has now been indefinitely blocked. At least I tried to hold a civil conversation, but it seems that that was in vain. I suppose I will have to leave my last question as a rhetorical one, unless someone else would care to answer it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Just about scrapes it (sympathy to the nom), but I think her play is notable, and per Phil Bridger (quoting DGG) above, I have no problem with this being the main WP article for that. I added another ref for good measure “I Heart Hamas” explores identity. We can always revisit it again. Aszx5000 ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 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! 22:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Heidi Lavon

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

Coverage is limited to non-RS tabloids and clickbait sites, does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 6 June 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! 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Eastern Quay

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

Apartment building in London which doesn't look notable. It is claimed the building won "various awards", but the only one in the sources given [13] [14] was actually for the project manager. I couldn't find references for any other awards, or any significant independent coverage. the wub "?!" 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ CastJared: your deletion rationale doesn’t make sense. Can you explain please? Mccapra ( talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It's because if any buildings in London are not notable, It can pass by editing it or suggest delete. CastJared ( talk) 21:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense either. Clearly there are many buildings in London that are notable and already have articles. If this article can pass by editing then it should not be deleted. Mccapra ( talk) 03:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG greyzxq talk 21:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Haven't come across anything that suggests this apartment block is notable. Makes it difficult to evaluate without proper sourcing. Will reconsider if sources are found, but without firm evidence I feel this doesn't pass the GNG. Rupples ( talk) 03:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:08, 11 June 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 23:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt Sanchez

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

This person is apparently deceased per [15], but there is no coverage of this in reliable sources. Looking at the sourcing more broadly, this appears to be a WP:BIO1E, with all reliable source coverage that is specifically about Sanchez being confined to coverage in March 2007 of the exposure of his prior career as a gay pornographic actor and his alleged wrongful solicitation of funds. His career as a gay pornographic actor does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR. Other sources in the article relate to Sanchez's journalism, which are either articles Sanchez wrote or only mention him in passing or not at all, which does not indicate notability. His activism at Columbia University is only covered by the local student newspaper, which doesn't indicate notability either.

The last deletion nomination was in 2008, and the discussions were in my opinion low quality, so I think this new nomination is justified. In the 2008 nom it was mentioned that Sanchez requested the article be deleted, though its obviously impossible to know if he later changed his mind in the decade afterwards. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:31, 6 June 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! 23:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Jamal Yorke

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources; fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:54, 6 June 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! 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ruensley Leuteria

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources outside of this 2016 story about a jail sentence he was handed. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:46, 6 June 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! 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ean Lewis

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

Unable to find a single piece of third-party, in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:41, 6 June 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! 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Carl Osbourne

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

The most I am able to find on the subject in independent sources are passing mentions of his 2019 goal against Curaçao. Nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:37, 6 June 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! 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Donnegy Fer

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

Unable to find sufficient third-party, in-depth coverage of the subject. What I did find are transfer news pieces like this and this, which would be the closest thing to GNG there is on him. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:25, 6 June 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 Hereford F.C.#2015–16 season. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

2015–16 Hereford F.C. season

2015–16 Hereford F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

9th tier season that doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article. This topic is already covered sufficiently in Hereford F.C., which, somewhat ironically, covers this season in a much better way than the stand-alone article! Previous PROD logged by User:Number 57 for failing WP:NSEASONS, however, was not eligible as previously deleted with rationale Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Also WikiProject Football cut-off point for club season article is level 5 at least (i.e. fully professional club). Whilst I don't agree that a season being semi-pro or amateur should automatically exclude it from having an article, I would argue that this one is redundant as it adds nothing useful that isn't already in the parent article. We certainly don't need a stats article for such a season, even if the results can be verified as Wikipedia is not a sports stats database.

All reasons above seem like valid deletion reasons to me. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 19:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. Hey man im josh ( talk) 20:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS. Agreed with Number 57 and Hey man im josh. CastJared ( talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It appears that User:Pascopedral has entirely sourced the article to the football club itself. Is there no media coverage - which could show GNG; normally I'd not even suggest this for a ninth level team, but it's a bit different when an EFL team collapses and is reformed in the 9th level, and wins the season, gaining immediate promotion; between the reformation and league win (and league cup win), in a relatively large city, I'd expect there to be quite a lot of coverage. Is there any media coverage, Pascopedral. Though even if there isn't ... why would this be a delete, and not simply a redirect; which is what you see in similar cases like 1989–90 Newport County A.F.C. season. Nfitz ( talk) 05:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I was tempted to redirect, however, was conscious that that would look like a 'backdoor deletion' so felt AfD was a more appropriate venue as WP:BLAR is a type of deletion in my view. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I don’t believe there to be enough media coverage beyond what I’ve already sourced to warrant an exception here. Perhaps if they Hereford were Football League at the time they went bust but they had been demoted to the seventh tier anyway. Pascopedral ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 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! 23:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Henceforth

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:NBAND. Completely unsourced. UtherSRG (talk) 19:12, 6 June 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! 23:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Queen's Park High School (Cape Town)

Queen's Park High School (Cape Town) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable school, Found [18] [19] but that's been it, No evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL, SIGCOV and GNG – Davey2010 Talk 18:47, 6 June 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! 23:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdulaziz Al-Dhiyabi

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

Badly sourced BLP created by banned editor and edited occasionally by their socks. No evidence of complying with WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which would be the bare minimum requirement. Best Arabic sources that I could find were El Sport, a basic transfer announcement, Sport KSA, a similarly weak transfer announcement, the only significant detail being a portion copied from his club's own press release and Arriyadiyah, an image caption. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 6 June 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! 23:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Travist Joseph

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

Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find a single piece of independent, in-depth coverage. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:00, 6 June 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! 23:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Jose Elcius

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

Unable to find a single piece of independent in-depth coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:57, 6 June 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! 23:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Charalampos Loizou

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

Seems to fall short of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 according to my searches in more than one language. Turkish searches yielded nothing better than Spor Yeni and Arena Sporkolik, both of which are only trivial mentions of Loizou. Greek searches (Χαράλαμπος Λοϊζου) yielded nothing better than a few passing mentions published by CFA, such as this one, which is trivial coverage in a non-independent source. All of the other hits seemed to be about namesakes. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 6 June 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. There isn't going to be a consensus to remove this content. Whether it should remain on its own or merged is a discussion that can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The Sacrifice (Higson novel)

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

Notability challenged since 2014. Sources are a combination of primary and user-generated. No showing of SIGCOV. Could possibly be merged to Charlie Higson, along w/ the other books in the series, as a possible AtD. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Would a merger to an article on the entire series be appropriate? I agree it's far from great shape now. YA Horror is not my thing, so I'll defer to better topical specialists, but it looks like something could be made of this series. I'll note that this article doesn't even appear to acknowledge that the rest of the series was ever published. Jclemens ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's no demonstration of notability for the series as a whole either. According to the author's article, there are seven books, five of which have individual articles here on WP. All the articles have issues similar to this one in that they just retell the plot w/ long, crufty character descriptions. For some reason, this was the only book article to get tagged. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 19:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm willing to be someone like Cunard could come up with enough reviews for each to pass NBOOK. I'm just not sure that's the best way to present them. Jclemens ( talk) 20:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    A new article for the series would need to be written from scratch, so if we go that way, where does that leave this AfD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Do you even write articles? Of course it would not have to be written from scratch; wherever did you get that idea? Jclemens ( talk) 02:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Because there isn't an article for the series as a whole. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't understand what "from scratch" means in your usage, then, because when I grab five existing files, redirect them, and use their best contents as the nucleus of a new article, I most definitely am not terming that "from scratch". When I open the editor and start from a blank screen, that is what I mean by "from scratch." Jclemens ( talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'd call that "from scratch," simply because you're still writing a new article, but let's not argue semantics. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Give me no more than a couple of days, and I'll see if I can get three reviews via WP:Library to save this article. Wish me luck! -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Slgrandson As discussed upthread, most of the other books in this series have articles w/ similar problems. Perhaps it would be better to start work on a single article for the series as a whole? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the ping, Jclemens ( talk · contribs).

    Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Ehde, Ava (October 2013). "Higson, Charlie. The Sacrifice: An Enemy Novel". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 36, no. 4. pp. 81+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "This suspenseful, longed-for, fourth novel of the Enemy series takes the reader into the heart of London where the kids must now venture out to find family or replenish their food and water in order to survive. ... The solid writing is, at times, brilliant, such as the Kid's description of music. The unanswered questions will prime readers for the next in the series. This popular, dark dystopian tale with its combination of adventure, horror and suspense will appeal to many at both public and school libraries."

    2. Kraus, Daniel (2013-08-01). "The Sacrifice". Booklist. Vol. 109, no. 22. pp. 90+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "But the introduction of an intelligent sicko named Wormwood is a thrilling game-changer, and Higson once again impresses by largely avoiding sentimentality and romance to focus more realistically upon the "pulped, scabby, pus-oozing" threat."

    3. Articles about the book and its trailer:
      1. Tregoning, Jenny (2012-10-15). "Horror for kids". Southern Daily Echo. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "The Sacrifice is the fourth book in Higson’s successful The Enemy series, which follow groups of children as they fight for survival after a disease has turned everyone over the age of 14 into a flesh-eating zombie. Things take an even darker turn in this instalment. Small Sam and his sidekick, The Kid, have left the safety of the Tower Of London and set off on a frantic search for Sam’s sister Ella. Out in the Forbidden Zone they bump into all sorts of horrors and as the children desperately try to understand what is happening, they end up turning on each other in a terrifying Lord Of The Flies-style twist."

      2. Golder, Dave (2012-09-07). "Charlie Higson's The Sacrifice: Zombie Book Trailer". GamesRadar. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "Welcome to what must be the most epic book trailer ever created. It’s for The Sacrifice , the fourth book in Charlie Higson’s young adult zombie series, The Enemy , and it’s been written and directed by Higson himself. Shot in locations around London, including on the Millennium Bridge, the trailer features young actors from Forest Hill School, South London and a cast of zombie-sickos played by fans who entered a nationwide competition to appear in the short film. They bring to life some of the scenes from the new book and a give a taster of the action to come."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Sacrifice to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:56, 7 June 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! 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Daryush Shokof

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

Same reasons as my previous deletion nomination, that being fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and now, WP:BLP. In fact, the creator of the page, Üpolkj, appears to be none other than Daryush Shokof himself, making this page self-promotion. There also appears to be a lot of other content on Wikipedia about this person, such as Narges Rashidi and entries on articles like List of Iranians (which I'm already trying to remove), which is possibly more self-promotion, so I'd like to get those out of here too if possible. RteeeeKed 💬 📖 16:37, 6 June 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Cecilie Struck

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are three interviews, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed stats and promo. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  02:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep With the references provided already, I think is just about scrapes by on GNG. Looking in Proquest, there's more; Viborg Folkeblad has stuff on her for years, with articles like ProQuest  1528377756 from 2014, long before her Liga F play. Nfitz ( talk) 16:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 6 June 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 23:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Anett Griffel

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

NN bio - fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 June 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 Tales from Turnpike House. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A Good Thing (song)

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

NN single. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only source is not RS. Delete and redirect to Tales from Turnpike House. UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Tales from Turnpike House: found no reliable coverage. Song appeared on the UK singles chart for one week at #70 which doesn't help much. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:51, 6 June 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 23:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

GNAT Programming Studio

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

NN application. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 6 June 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. After three re-lists there is no consensus to delete this article, whose sources have been difficult to verify (understandably); can be revisited again (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 ( talk) 20:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Khaled Soliman

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

I don't believe this former Olympian has enough notability for a standalone article. There are some small pieces online relating to his coaching career and brief mentions in newspaper archives. But nothing I can find contributes to GNG.

As Soliman competed in both the foil and epee events, and is not mentioned in the Fencing at the 1984 Summer Olympics article, there is no obvious redirect target here as far as I can see. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

٤ دول تشترك حتى الان ببطولة اكتوبر الدولية للسلاح بالقاهرة (4 countries are participating so far in the October International Arms Championship in Cairo) July 31, 1978, pg. 10
فوز عبدالحميد صبحي ببطولة الجمهورية لسلاح سيف المبارزة (Abdul Hameed Sobhi won the National Sabre Fencing Championship) September 30, 1985, pg. 10
"لجنة المسابقات تقرر بداء لدوري غدا وتأجيله بعد اسبوعين إلى يوم ١٤ ديسمبر" (The Competitions Committee decides to start the Games tomorrow and postpone them after two weeks to December 14th) August 31, 1989, pg. 10
All of these sources discuss, although admittedly do not feature, him and his fencing, and I believe that, given their span and sustained coverage, it should satisfy the general guidelines at WP:N. If I had more time, I might be able to overcome the search engine issues - and it doesn't help that there was a footballer active at the same time with the same name - but hopefully this is sufficient to at least keep the article. Canadian Paul 03:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 ( talk) 22:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to 1984 Summer Olympics BLP, fails GNG and BIO, single ref in article is a database record, BEFORE showed routine sports news and mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  19:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Surely Egypt at the 1984 Summer Olympics is a better redirect target as he is mentioned in that article? MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note that that part of the BLP guideline is there to make sure that information is truly verifiable, not gossip - it's saying where there are sources present about any detail that could be contentious, make sure they are good ones; it is not saying that a BLP cannot exist if the major sources supporting it are newspapers. Just to make sure you're applying the guideline correctly, since I've seen you quote that line in a few deletion discussions and it doesn't have anything to do with N. Kingsif ( talk) 09:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per request for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per Timothy. Therapyisgood ( talk) 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Although they don't sound too in-depth, I'm willing to trust that Canadian Paul's offline sources are sufficient if he believes them to be - especially since the vast majority of sources potentially covering him are very difficult to access. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:19, 8 June 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Tirishan ( talk) 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Basilica of Guadalupe, Monterrey

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

Unsourced for over a decade. Lacks coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tirishan ( talk) 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Mexico. Tirishan ( talk) 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A very cursory search brought up lots of potential Spanish-language articles to pass GNG such as [20] and the Spanish-language article is sourced. Strongly disagree with the nom. SportingFlyer T· C 15:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. I had placed this nomination because I had failed to find sources - I was able to successfully find sources by using a different browser, and I'll add them onto the article. Tirishan ( talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Basilica of Guadalupe, Monterrey. Star Mississippi 02:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Old Basilica of Guadalupe, Monterrey

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

Unsourced for over a decade. Lacks coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 15:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, cannot find any coverage of this specific basilica and its successor as per nom. Tirishan ( talk) 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge, with Basilica of Guadalupe, Monterrey, changing my stance after information from here. Tirishan ( talk) 16:46, 6 June 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 23:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Université Club Kankan

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

Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Africa. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I see a few database entries on non-RS, but nothing at all in RS, so possibly doesn't even exist? Giant Snowman 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. We currently have no evidence this meets the notability criteria. It amazes me that an article in such a poor state has remained on the site for 15+ years. However, I would like to investigate a few matters before !voting.
  • First, can we access historic tables of the Guinée Championnat National? The article creator indicated the club played in this league around 2006/2007. If we could verify this, it might point to the fact the club existed and help us to find more info.
  • Also, what university did this club represent? Presumably Julius Nyerere University of Kankan (I think it's the only university in the city?). Again, this knowledge might help in a search for info.
  • Finally, do we have the means to search Guinean newspapers or other media sources? I'm not sure if any of them would have covered a presumably minor University team playing in the top flight in any detail but it's worth looking into. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
RSSSF shows that it appeared in Ligue 1 from 2003 until its relegation in 2008/09, and was then relegated from Ligue 2 “due to multiple forfeits” in 2009/10. 98.97.8.17 ( talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks, good info! MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 21:10, 10 June 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 LGBT culture in New York City#Recreation. Content remains available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge it. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Fresh Fruit Festival

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

Non-notable festival. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 6 June 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 23:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Foster (Australian writer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 6 June 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 23:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Lutier

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

This topic lacks the independent coverage that would indicate notability. Fails both general notability and WP:ORG criteria. A redirect to List of automobile manufacturers of France, which includes it, is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Searching finds Lutier in lists and mirrors of Wikipedia but no significant coverage. PROD was declined with the justification that "we usually keep automobile marques". Gab4gab ( talk) 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Transportation, and France. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it appears they built one car or car model in 1907, nothing before or since. All Gsearch results are basically wiki mirrors of this rather short entry. We would keep them if we had sourcing of some kind, but nothing has been located. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd prefer any alternative to deletion here, but it doesn't pass GNG and I'm not sure what a valid place to put this would be. SportingFlyer T· C 19:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:15, 11 June 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 05:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Winnie Nantongo

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

I believe the article fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:POET, WP:N and lacks WP:SIGCOV.

The sources added by two editors with possible COI do not really fall under WP:RS. Half the sources used do not even mention the article subject. Equine-man ( talk) 10:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

being new to this, i would appreciate being pointed to which of the sources doesn’t mention the subject. thanks 41.210.145.220 ( talk) 11:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
None of them are about her, we need stories about the person, not simply articles they've written or where they've worked or went to school. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 6 June 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. ✗ plicit 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Macau Anglican College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl ( talk) 13:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you for directing me to the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources in the current article below per WP:SIRS.
(added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.
In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 Macau Lifestyle Partial, seems to be advertising Partial, potentially sponsored content No, only a brief introduction No
2, 9 Macau Anglican College No, owned by the article subject No, owned by the article subject Yes No
3 Macau’s Languages in Society and Education Yes Yes No, only a single mention/data point in a study No
4 AAMacau Media Yes Partial, seems to be a online tabloid No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON falling under WP:INHERITORG. No
5 The Macau News Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON falling under WP:INHERITORG. (Same event as No.4) No
6 Macau Business.com Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially based on a press release No
7 Jornal Tribuna de Macau Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially based on a press release No
8 Jornal Cheng Pou Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event , potentially based on a press release. (Same event as No.7) No
33ABGirl ( talk) 16:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I would say the Macau Lifestyle source is clearly significant coverage (two paragraphs of fairly detailed information about the school). I don't see any evidence that it's not independent, but am open to being proven wrong. The news sources and Andrew Moody's book are more borderline, but some of them do give some background information about the school in addition to the events they're reporting. WP:ILLCON doesn't seem to apply to the asbestos situation as it was caused by someone else's illegal conduct, not the school's. In any case I've added two more sources with somewhat more detailed coverage [21] [22]. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Please find my response to your points below.
  • I note that the tone for the Macau Lifestyle source is entirely promotional. No objective analysis or neutrally written content is presented in the article.
  • I agree that I misunderstood the event in Source 4 & 5, which do not fall under WP:ILLCON. However, as the event is primarily related to another entity, it falls under WP:INHERITORG.
For your two new sources, please find my assessment per WP:SIRS. In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 Macau News Agency Yes Yes No, only a brief mention as part of a bigger event. Falls under WP:INHERITORG. No
2 Macau Sports Weekly Partially, owned by CTM, a government-owned utilities company. Partially Partially, as the report is on a routine sports event. No
33ABGirl ( talk) 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your assessments. The asbestos-related sources are primarily about the school, the Macau Lifestyle source contains a number of objective facts, and the two sources in the second table contain significant coverage of the school. If Macau Sports Weekly is owned by a government-owned utility company, this doesn't affect its independence in reporting on a private school. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment Additionally, I found an interview from a principal which includes journalists' statements on the school itself WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for finding the source. In my opinion, this source does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV. The article is an account of an interview with the principle of the school, without any analysis of the content, so should be considered to be primary research. 33ABGirl ( talk) 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for replying. The criteria for SIGCOV is very simple: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So long as the journalist writes about the school himself to some degree, at least say a paragraph or two, the aritcle fulfills SIGCOV. The text "The institution was termed as such because[...]Michelangelo’s famous painting, ‘The Creation of God’, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel." is written by the journalist, not Mr. Brown. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:28, 8 June 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. ✗ plicit 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Escola Dom João Paulino

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl ( talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.
(added 11 June) In general, most sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. Some of the sources are also state-owned or party-owned, which precludes the sources as WP:RS in principle per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.
In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 澳門教育史 No, published by the People's Education Press, a publication owned by the Government of China. No No, seems to only be a brief mentions in three sections. Could not ascertain further as full text was not available. No
2 同舟共進：澳門中華教育會史略 Yes Yes No, seems to only be a brief mention in a single section. Could not ascertain further as full text was not available. Partially
3, 4, 5 澳門日報 No, the publication is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. No No, brief press release format one-paragraph article on a event. No
6, 9 TDM No, government owned broadcasting company No No, release of a government planning document No
7, 8 正報 Yes Partially, seems like a tabloid No, only brief articles on events in a very promotional tone No
10 Tribuna de Macau Yes Yes No, article based on the release of a government planning document (same document as 6, 9) No
11 Hoje Macau Yes Yes No, article based on the release of a government planning document (same document as 6, 9) No
12 O Clarim Yes Yes No, only a brief article on a event in a very promotional tone (same document as 8) No
33ABGirl ( talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
As I've said elsewhere, the news sources' indirect national government ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As I've replied elsewhere, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl ( talk) 06:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've responded at the other AfD. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 June 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. ✗ plicit 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Colégio Mateus Ricci

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl ( talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.
(added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.
In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 Hoje Macau Yes Yes No, seems to only be brief mentions in three sections. Could not ascertains further as full text was not available. Partially
2 Department of Education Taipei City No, press release No No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis. No
3 Macau Cultural Affairs Bureau No, government department No No, only brief coverage of the school building in the context of historical building in the city. No direct mention of the school (as its own entity) is made in the main text. No
4 University of Macau No, press release No No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis. No
5 Macau Sports Weekly No, published by the Institute of Sports, a government agency Yes Partially, extended coverage, but tone is very promotional, without holistic analysis. No
6 台灣好新聞 Partially, style make it potentially a tabloid Partially No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis. Partially
33ABGirl ( talk) 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think WP:INHERITORG, applies here, as the school (as an organization), and the building itself, are two separate entities, so the notability of the building should not be inherited by the school. 33ABGirl ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 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 Withdrawn‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

1869 (video game)

1869 (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source currently in article, WP:BEFORE check turned up nothing. QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Austria. QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Both MobyGames and Kultboy list numerous reviews, definitely meets GNG. Kultboy also notes that the game won numerous awards from publications such as ASM and Amiga Joker. Waxworker ( talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are the listed reviews from reliable sources? QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For the MobyGames reviews, I see a review from Amiga Format (archive.org link: [41]) and Joystick (magazine) both of which seem pretty typical video game magazines of the era so would normally count as reliable and independent since they are fairly full reviews. The reviews in Amiga Joker and Play Time. Apparently a write for Amiga Format also had a syndicated column excerpting reviews from there and had a multiparagraph review of it with pull photo in newspapers (this one I could find in newspapers.com): [42] So solid mid-tier notability for an early 1990s Amiga/DOS game. Skynxnex ( talk) 01:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pretty sky high notability due to the huge amount of magazine reviews about the game, which can be seen in Mobygames. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In the future, I would recommend checking Moby Games for old games like this. It's not an RS, and you should try to double check whether the reviews truly exist, but if there are multiple print sources listed, at the very least I would recommend not nominating it for a merge or an AfD. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw per sources located on MobyGames. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable game but the article needs some improvements, more citations, and expansion. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 08:16, 8 June 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 05:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Wenqing Zhang

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

One sentence biography, lacks WP:SIGCOV JoeNMLC ( talk) 12:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 6 June 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 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Spyder Rodeo

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

Unsourced, promotional and notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming equipment Ajf773 ( talk) 09:44, 6 June 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. RL0919 ( talk) 14:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Jaya Vaidhyanathan

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

Previously soft deleted at AfD but I still don’t see that the subject is notable. She has an impressive career but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and a BLP can’t be based on various non notable awards, blogs and authored columns. Mccapra ( talk) 08:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The refs may be new but which of them are in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources? Mccapra ( talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not meeting the criteria, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor Linkedin" Citations101 ( talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She is Notable and Passes WP:GNG, She is the winner of the Stevie Awards and hence passes WP:ANYBIO. She's contributing to Major websites of India, First Post, Forbes, TOI, Business Today, The Economic Times, Outlook Money, Business Line and many more websites. Look at these references [43] [44] [45] Mr Goldberg 16:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I can’t get 1 to load; 2 is just her profile on the PWC website and 3 is a press release about a pay-to-play award. This isn’t in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk) 20:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Genuinely perplexed here. Being on the Global Board of PWC is a big deal, and when I saw that did a search expecting to find lots of RS on her but it is very thin. This article in The Times of India is on her, but aside from articles she writes herself, I can't find any other RS that gives her SIGCOV. On the current RS presented, I can't see her making GNG here. Aszx5000 ( talk) 09:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The only one there that is a proper RS is the Times of India (which I also felt was an RS). The awards are not notable, and the others are trade discussions. I was surprised that The Hindu etc, would not have interviewed her? Aszx5000 ( talk) 11:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable person who Passes WP:GNG, holding prominent roles with news coverage. 33ABGirl ( talk) 17:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - aside from the TOI coverage, which is limited but does begin to establish a case for notability, the other sources are press releases, non-secondary, or trivial coverage. I'm unconvinced that Stevie Awards, which are pay-to-play, should be considered a viable case for WP:ANYBIO. Keep arguments thus far demonstrate a lack of understanding of the kind of coverage that contributes to notability. The case for notability here seems to be largely based on wishful thinking. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • We are told that the subject is notable because she won a silver and a bronze Stevie Award. The worth of that award is expained in the first two sentences of our article on the subject:

    The Stevie Awards are a set of fee-based business awards staged annually by Stevie Awards, Inc. Entrants pay to nominate themselves for awards and approximately 30-40% of entrants receive an award.

    Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per Rosguill and Phil Bridger (very good find), and my own searches above. There is only the TOI RS that would qualify for GNG, but TOI is caveated in Wikipedia per WP:TOI as: "The publication is also known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage". She is very promotional, and I can see that this article was written by an editor with a very unusual editing profile (very few edits but using proper referencing style etc), like a UPE-farm. Maybe her self-promotion will get her enough RS for GNG in the future, but as it currently stands, there is not enough. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the main plank in her online notability. Aszx5000 ( talk) 11:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any GNG coverage either. TOI is maybe. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comments- This sources is significant enough for her to pass WP:GNG see [53] and [54]. Also found this interview of her aswel. [55], [56]. Epcc12345 ( talk) 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I thought that The Nation, the first of the non-interview sources you provided, was reliable until I saw that the paragraphs about Vaidhyanathan were immediately followed by

Abuja doctor reveals a unique way to permanently cure weak erection, small and shameful manhood, and infertility issues without side effects within a short period. Click now to see!!

Do reliable sources carry adverts that are indistinguishable from the ridiculous spam that I receive in my inbox every day? As for your second source, WP:TOI has already been linked above. Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It is a paid company advert you highlighted, which is different from the original contents itself been discussed. The Nation (Nigeria) is a daily newspaper and is second-most-read newspaper in Nigeria.The media house is strongly a reliable sources. Epcc12345 ( talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Being read by lots of people doesn't make a source reliable. In my country the highest circulation paid-for newspaper is The Sun, but it is certainly not a reliable source. You don't see ads for penis enlargement in sources like The Times, The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I found this [57], same contents from another reliable platforms Epcc12345 ( talk) 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It gets curiouser and curiouser, Again, The Tribune seems at first glance to be a reliable source, but I can't help wondering why the same content is attributed to "Our Reporter" in both The Nation and The Tribune although they do not seem to have common ownership. Do they share reporters? Something is just not right here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 06:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The issue here is that Wikipedia is the main plank in her notability, trying to tie the scraps/fragments of poor RS (as shown by Phil Bridger) together to be GNG. It should not be so. Aszx5000 ( talk) 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found her notable to satisfy WP:BIO1E.The news that I found can be considered as reliable sources. Links are- 1, 2. I think the Times of India and The Nation coverages are independent and in-depth enough to satisfy WP:BIO1E. Kinkordada ( talk) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
What a dreary collection of abject promotional rubbish. Mccapra ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Personally, I think it's an interesting argument to cite "satisfies 1E" in favour of retention. Or at least a funny way to phrase it. The same content being published by two alleged newsorgs without attribution, also a little funny to cite in favour of retention. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The Last Monk

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

No coverage in reliable sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Was screened at Cannes in 2006. [58] There was coverage in the offline editions of India Today [59] and The Hollywood Reporter [60]. 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790 ( talk) 16:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Being screened at Cannes — alongside sixty five (!) other films in the Indian pavillion — confers no automatic passage of notability. There would have been some merit in your argument if the film was atleast in the long list for any award.
    The Hollywood Reporter catalogs every single movie screened at Cannes (or any other festival of some repute) and this is no exception. The details — cast, plot, runtime, etc. — are sourced from the filmmakers themselves; the coverage is not even independent. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790.There is coverage. Zealspar100 ( talk) 11:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790. The article would greatly benefit from improvements though. Alexcs114 ( talk) 07:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero coverage in French media for the film, using .fr websties, showing how non-notable it was at the time it was at Cannes. It wasn't a feature of the festival, simply shown at the same time in a pavilion. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 6 June 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 04:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Jessie Zhao

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

The article does not provide a single reliable source for in-depth media coverage. Fails notability and anybio guidelines BoraVoro ( talk) 07:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 6 June 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 Virilization#Prenatal virilization. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Defeminization and masculinization

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

Uncited since 2007 - with political hot topics in the USA it is important for Wikipedia to have verifiable info on sex and gender Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Virilization#Prenatal virilization while saving the text on that article's talk page, per Prototyperspective. Merge into Sexual differentiation. I'm not a biologist, so very much an outsider's perspective, but there is quite a bit of published research available on this. I'm not sure if there's a case for having a third article in addition to defeminization and virilization (masculinization). The topic is certainly notable, but the information across these three articles might be better reorganized into 1 or 2 articles. As it stands, I would probably favor merging the article into virilization#Prenatal virilization or sexual differentiation. Would be good to have someone weigh in with a knowledge of developmental biology, though. Edit: after looking at other commenters' suggestions, I agree merging Defeminization and masculinization and defeminization into virilization would make sense in the long term. The virilization page is about a lot more than just prenatal virilization, but that's okay, and if that section ends up becoming to long we can split it out. I also agree that because none of the information currently in this article is cited, it shouldn't be directly copied into virilization, but rather onto that article's talk page, from where it can be worked in as appropriate.-- Tserton ( talk) 12:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
If the result ends up being "keep", I would volunteer to clean up this article and cite it properly. Will wait for the outcome before I do so, though. -- Tserton ( talk) 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you whichever way it goes Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll ( talk to me!) 04:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I think there probably should be one article containing info currently dispersed across or missing in defeminization, virilization and Defeminization and masculinization (agree with Tserton) with a Further-wikilink to it in Sexual differentiation. However, since this article is uncited it's not really useful for merging – instead copy it to the Talk page of whatever becomes the comprehensive article on this (possibly in a collapsed template so it doesn't hide other Talk page contents). Prototyperspective ( talk) 09:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Sounds good - I would be happy to copy this to a talk page. Which article talk page please? Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is great but I'm looking for more specific directions that a discussion closer can act on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect as above, there's no need for two articles here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect as above, agree there's no need for two articles here. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect since they are essentially discussing the same biological process. (but without any citations, nothing should be transferred to the other article) Cinadon 36 19:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agreed; I think Prototyperspective's suggestion of copying it onto one of the other articles' talk page is a good one. From there we can work out what's sourceable and what isn't. Tserton ( talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that is reasonable. Cinadon 36 21:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect given identical biological process, but avoid merge given the material is uncited (but agree with Prototyperspective's suggestion of copying on the target TP). Aszx5000 ( talk) 00:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several articles are mentioned in this discussion. What is the sole redirect/merge target that this article should point to? Once that is clear, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed, the redirect is to Virilization#Prenatal virilization (to be exact). @ Liz:, maybe you could close this now as a Redirect to that target (and others will paste the unreferenced content to the TP as also agreed). thank you. Aszx5000 ( talk) 17:19, 6 June 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. RL0919 ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Plug and Play Tech Center

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

Clear lack of attention, WP:GNG fails. ALSTROEMERIA🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 02:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete coverage is all press releases and other stuff we can't use to prove notability. Kudos for this crypto spam [61], even has a fancy Eiffel Tower graphic and a quote from twitter! This just isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per X750 Alexcs114 ( talk) 08:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV, sources are unreliable as well. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk) 09:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Plug and Play Tech Center has a global impact as an innovation platform, connecting startups (engaged over 35,000 startups, including tech giants like Google and PayPal). However, better sources should be added as well. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 11:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of coverage which clearly demonstrates notability. Article badly needs a non-promotional rewrite if kept. SportingFlyer T· C 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Going through the 13 pages of ghits, none of them even plausibly meet CORPDEPTH. Bing and yahoo results are much the same. Neither WP:CCSI nor routine coverage are considered suitable for establishing corporate notability. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:21, 11 June 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 04:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Maurício Guilherme Silva Jr.

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

Article fails WP:N, WP:MINIMUM and WP:PROF. None of the source are about the author, let alone being "significant coverage". Also, the creator of this article, has a long history of WP:PAID and WP:PROMOTION and this article is yet another attempt to use WP as a means for promotion. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 6 June 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. There is consensus to keep, and someone has offered to rewrite the article. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy ( talk) 08:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Pandit Lakhmi Chand State University of Performing and Visual Arts

Pandit Lakhmi Chand State University of Performing and Visual Arts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Few sources, and those few are low quality. Content at this time is almost entirely promotional and largely a screed lauding the accomplishments of one person. Geoff | Who, me? 00:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, but start over. Previous versions of the article have better sourcing, but are also not neural. It goes either promotional or critical. We just need to blow it up and start over. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Almost certainly notable, but the copyvio text taken from https://hshec.org/welcome/university_details/68 needs to be removed. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would like to hear your opinion on the neutrality of the article, particularly this paragraph:

    The PLC SUPVA campus is spread over 36 acres of land, beautifully designed by world renowned architect Raj Rewal, with a healthy and verdant campus. It is centrally located in the state of Haryana, at a distance of about 75 kms from the national capital, 90 kms from IGI Airport, New Delhi and about 200 kms from Chandigarh, and is well-connected with the road and railway network. With magnificent buildings and state-of-art infrastructure, it has spacious seminar halls, laboratories, workshops and studios, well-equipped with latest machinery, equipment and IT infrastructure.

    I think it’s very promotional and that’s another reason it should be deleted. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Haryana. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This earlier version of the article omits the copyvios and has more references, but also has some inadequately referenced criticism of the university and its vice-chancellor. I'd suggest reverting to that older version and removing the unreferenced criticism. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Honestly I don't think the prose in that version is much better. It's very critical of the organisation, and is very poorly written. We have both sides of WP:NPOV, however I think the refs in the version you linked push it towards Keep but WP:TNT. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. State-established universities are invariably notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: Could you back this up with policy/discussions? I agree with you that this article should be kept, but I'd like to know for future AfD discussions I may have. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 07:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The options for a closer are very limited. I don't understand the opinion to Keep but TNT or start over. How can an article be Kept but blown up? No one here is offering to rewrite this article. So, unless you are suggesting that you will take on this job, your choices are pretty much limited to Keep, Delete, Merge or Redirect. A closure can't order an article to be rewritten, this task has to be taken on voluntarily by an interested editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I would be willing to re-write the article in a neutral manner if this discussion is closed as keep but TNT. Closers: please ping me or leave a comment on my talk page if this happens. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but the article should be completely remade. The article is full of promotional material and isn't neutral. Though I've fixed some of it, I've had to remove a ton of information to make that happen. @ Liz: JML1148 here is offering to rewrite the article. I could also help with the rewriting, if it ends up being a Keep. Cheers! // 🌶️ Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I haven't even clicked on the article, but in response to Liz's comment - Keep but TNT isn't an option for the closer, but deletion is rarely about the state of the article, and it's not in this case, it's about notability. SportingFlyer T· C 15:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments, JML1148, Jala and SportingFlyer. I appreciate it. Since I relisted this discussion with a comment, I will let another admin close this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 7 June 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 06:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ariadaha Kalachand High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources present are either primary, or school/college databases. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything useful. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:29, 6 June 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 12:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Kawthekar High School

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

Since the last 2 AfDs we are a lot stricter on schools. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Previous discussions: 2011-09 (closed as ✓ keep) ← 2011-05 (closed as ✓ keep)
Logs: 2011-05 ↻ restored ← 2011-05 ✗ PROD
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed, the article in question fails to meet style guidelines, employs poor grammar, and has questionable notability. Alexcs114 ( talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG as it is unsourced, and the RfC on secondary school notability made it clear that secondary schools are not presumed notable. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 07:38, 6 June 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 Monash University, Clayton campus. ✗ plicit 06:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Lot's Wife (student newspaper)

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

Article reads as promotional and was likely written in large part by someone with a COI. Also possible copyvio. But most importantly it has zero sources to establish notability and I was unable to find any. WPscatter t/ c 06:06, 6 June 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! 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Binge (Bangladeshi streaming service)

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

None of the sources provided are independent or reliable; instead, they all appear to be press releases. The information in the sources listed is also promotional. Fails WP:GNG. DreamRimmer ( talk) 04:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to say but you are totally wrong. The sources from The Daily Star, UNB, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard are very much reliable and not promotional, rather they are informative. I have mentioned these articles so that you can learn about the sources. And let me know where you exactly found the promotional materials. (Obviously mentioning about packages is not promotional because we can see the same in Amazon Prime Video Diptadg17 ( talk) 05:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Dhaka Tribune said: From now on, viewers from more than 120 countries around the world will be able to enjoy endless content on Binge including live TV, web series, movies, dramas and exclusive originals, reads a press release. Do you think this is neutral? There are numerous such paragraphs in these sources. DreamRimmer ( talk) 17:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The Dhaka Tribune article is attributed to "Tribune Desk" and not a staff writer. This normally indicates promotion (branded content) or churnalism and should be treated with caution as such. When looking closer, this article posted by Robi.com on the same day contains the same quote that was provided by the company, indicated it in in fact churnalism.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Bangladesh. AllyD ( talk) 06:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 15:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • comment Websites robi.com.bd, Facebook, binge.buzz, thefastmode.com, and advanced-television.com (refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12) have no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that I'm aware of. Turning to the sources published by generally reputable news organizations:
    • Ref 3 [62] "inaugurated through a Facebook live" (content is regurgitated from a press conference)
    • Ref 6 [63] This isn't reporting, it's publicity for an upcoming launch event.
    • Ref 7 [64] "reads a press release", see original at [65]
    • Ref 9 [66] This is mainly about a web series, but includes six sentences about Binge. The origin of the information isn't clear.
    • Ref 10 [67] "marketing lead of its parent company ... told The Daily Star"
    • Ref 11 [68] "said ..., director of Red Dot Digital, which owns the service"
    • Ref 13 [69] Wrong company, this is about Binge (streaming service), an Australian company.
    • Ref 14 [70] "according to a media statement"
  • WP:ORGIND sets an especially high bar for the independence of sources used to demonstrate notability of a company. With the possible exception of ref 9, none of the references are both reliable and completely independent. I have no objection to editors in good standing like Diptadg17 recreating a topic that has just been speedily deleted (G5) because it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, but anyone doing so should be sure that the topic meets WP:NCORP. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Robi Axiata, the parent company. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Worldbruce's source analysis. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 20:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only weight I would give towards WP:ORGCRIT would be to The Daily Star. However, I do not think they would be enough. Most of these seem like churnalism. Even if we did consider them to meet ORGCRIT, it would not be enough as it is a few routine announcements in a single publication. See my comment above about the Dhaka Tribune. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:28, 8 June 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 05:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

World Trade Center in film

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

This list is essentially trivial in nature, and fails WP:LISTN. Random films in which two buildings appear in the background for a scene or two is not a notable topic. Although I think the article should be deleted, I think that redirecting it to List of films set in New York City is also a possibility. Di (they-them) ( talk) 04:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete it was an iconic part of the new york city skyline for decades, how could it not be in tons films? Films about 9/11 is probably notable, but not “list of all movies with a particular building in them” Dronebogus ( talk) 13:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete I mean it was even in the TV show Friends a few times until it wasn't there anymore. I don't think having a list of "building in background" in xyz movies serves any kind of purpose; most (if not all films) set in New York pre-9/11 will likely have a shot or two of the towers. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete I remember seeing the Annie (2014 film) trailer as they were panning across the skyline and I'm thinking "something's wrong here— oh shit." Yeah, the towers were in the background of many movies, and the new tower is going to appear in many more, but this is just trivia. Mangoe ( talk) 19:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to World Trade Center in popular culture; failing that, delete. There are so many problems with this article that it's best to start over from scratch. I would not say the topic of the article isn't notable; it's discussed by books like this and this (and to a lesser extent this and this. However, this article seems to list nearly every film in which the Twin Towers were featured (without any sources or context), thus failing WP:NOTTRIVIA. In fact, the original title of this page was "List of films featuring the World Trade Center", which seems to indicate that this article is less about the WTC in film and more about every single appearance of the WTC in film, which indeed is trivial. – Epicgenius ( talk) 21:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is listcruft. The list includes films that are not centered around the WTC but have some scenes where the building can be seen in the background. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Guilty Gear characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Faust (Guilty Gear)

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

The article contains again mostly listicles/rankings and passing mentions. The only useful source per WP:BEFORE was maybe this [71], thus still failing WP:GNG. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 00:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Faust is honestly a really compelling character, but there's no real discussion I've ever found for him, and I've revisited the subject quite a few times over the years. There's some bits but never enough to make a full article.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:22, 7 June 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 05:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Scott Sankey

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

Fails GNG and SNG (NBAD). PROD objected by User:Florentyna but issues not fixed. Only non-primary source is not independent and does not provide SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk) 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:48, 6 June 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 E. W. Scripps Company. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Scripps Sports

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

While it has sufficient sources, they don't mention Scripps Sports itself except in passing. Can be suffciently covered in E. W. Scripps Company. Esolo5002 ( talk) 03:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect not enough coverage to be a standalone article, anything worth keeping from the article should be merged with and redirected to the E. W. Scripps Company article. Only passing metions and press releases are available for sourcing. Bingobro (Chat) 08:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Women's National Basketball Association#Media coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

WNBA on ION

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

Fails WP:GNG with only one non press release source. Can be sufficiently covered in 2023 WNBA season. Esolo5002 ( talk) 03:39, 6 June 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 XFL (2020)#Broadcasting. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

XFL on ESPN

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

Fails WP:GNG with only two non press release sources. Does not seem notable enough for its own article. Can be sufficiently covered in XFL (2020) Esolo5002 ( talk) 03:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Khalilur Rahman Chowdhury

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

The politician in question appears to lack notability as there are no available credible sources or external references to support their significance. The links provided lead to dead web pages, and no additional information or reputable sources could be found to establish their importance.

Non-notable politician who fails to meet  WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Thesaurabhsaha ( talk) 03:05, 6 June 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 June 6. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 03:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now at least. Subject passes NPOL though the sourcing is poor. Refs 1 and 2 are from the same publication which seems to have deleted the relevant pages. Ref 2 has no bearing as it’s for the 2011 elections so does not mention the subject. If someone wants to argue this is a hoax that’s one things, but otherwise it’s a notable subject with shoddy sourcing. Mccapra ( talk) 06:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG as all sources are unreliable. It is crucial to have reliable and credible sources to support the notability of any subject on Wikipedia. Without proper sourcing, there is a risk of promoting unverified or potentially false information. I will recommend you to read Wikipedia's core notability policies WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Thesaurabhsaha ( talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Assam. Shellwood ( talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Thesaurabhsaha: Please strike your delete !vote as you are double-voting (your nomination already counts as a delete vote). Also what is your view on sources such as 1, 2 and 3? Mccapra ( talk) 22:42, 6 June 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 Sanford, Florida. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Bel-Air (Sanford)

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

No claim of notability for what seems to be an unremarkable city neighborhood. Mangoe ( talk) 02:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

BTW there was a discussion under an earlier name { Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bel-Air, Florida) but from what I can see the article hasn't seen significant improvement since its creation back in the Dim Times. Mangoe ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to Sanford, Florida provided it's a rationale WP:ATD. – The Grid ( talk) 12:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Gurukula Vidya Peeth

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The single source present is primary. An editor did find a couple of more sources, but they are school database sites. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 01:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete no significant coverage. DreamRimmer ( talk) 05:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Aboriginal Democracy in Nigeria

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

WP:OR essay with no hope of being developed into a valid article. Cited sources, with the exception of one interview with Chris Okotie [72], where he advocates for it as a political slogan, do not mention the term. Searching online, I was able to find one paper that mentioned the phrase in the context of Cameroon (not Nigeria), but did not define or describe it other than to express approval and which would not be usable to expand the article [73]. Otherwise, I found the phrase "aboriginal democracy" in passing to describe Australian and North American societies, but not enough coverage to satisfy creating Aboriginal democracy signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Nigeria. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Is an essay rather than an article, and fails WP:GNG for specifically Nigeria. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    To clarify "fails WP:GNG for specifically Nigeria", which now that I read it doesn't make sense, I mean that although there may be GNG for Aboriginal Democracy in general, there isn't any for Nigeria specifically. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 07:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    My sense is that while pre-colonial democratic forms of government by indigenous peoples is almost certainly a notable topic on the global scale, its primary topic title is not going to be "aboriginal democracy" unless either a) Australian examples are the overwhelming majority or b) "aboriginal" arbitrarily becomes the preferred term for indigenous peoples internationally. That having been said, it's not clear that "precolonial democratic forms of government" is the intended meaning of "aboriginal democracy" in the fleeting African examples I was able to find. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The whole concept of Aboriginal democracy has the feel to me of some one's political ideology of what they would like there to be, not soemthing that has ever existed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading ( talk) 15:13, 11 June 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! 18:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

N7 Real Estate

N7 Real Estate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Repeatedly created and moved to mainspace after being draftified. Possible WP:UPE and WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba ( talk) 07:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Jamiebuba ( talk) 07:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per general notability: N7 Real Estate appears to be a company of notable size and significance. It has a global footprint with presence in Dubai, Melbourne, and Pakistan. It was also recognized as the top real estate company in Dubai in 2019. The company's recognition, operations, and coverage by notable sources like Forbes Middle East suggests it meets the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. -- 74.141.27.27 ( talk) 09:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — 74.141.27.27 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    "It was also recognized as the top real estate company in Dubai in 2019" may be true but that doesn't translate to automatic notability. LibStar ( talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to the company's global activities, local business reliable media coverage, and industry recognition and cooperation with the biggest Dubai construction companies. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 11:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would mention the same as the people above if it wasn't there already. The list of its sources a priori suggests it meets WP:GNG. It's easy to find out this yourself if to google the company name. As it was written above, the article was repeatedly draftified, moved to the mainspace, etc. Fmpov, I think the editor should be warned on this for the future and addressed via his Talk page on the proper procedure for publishing on Wikipedia. But the subject article itself, from what I can see, worth being kept. M85ße ( talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've read the comments from other editors who published below and am changing my vote to Delete after finding out the references were fake. I should definitely be way more attentive in the future and check those by its links, not just checking the names. Although there're still mentions on the Internet, these fake references shouldn't be tolerated. M85ße ( talk) 11:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's a reason we don't have supplementary criteria in the subject specific criteria for organisations and companies. There is a paucity of sources that even mention the company, hell, even some of the sources in the reflist fail that test (anyone read the Haaretz article? The Forbes Middle East article currently authored by "East, Forbes Middle" currently sitting at ref 7?). Actual coverage meeting CORPDEPTH? It's a desert. For reference, we do not accept coverage of corporations going about the course of their daily business. We do not accept coverage of a business that merely mentions its name. We most definitely do not accept "coverage" of a business that does not even mention it at all. That the article is refbombed to hell and back with these supposed references does not change that. Also, I cannot verify that what is currently ref. 5 supports the claim made. In fact, it seems to fall in to the last category. Hard fail. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm honestly tempted to tag it for G3, db-hoax. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Zero chance of this passing NCORP. Per User:Alpha3031 above, when you go through the long list of refs, they either don't mention the company or its a marketing/promotional piece about their aims. Zero encyclopedic value in this company, but clearly the UPE who made it (and it is a UPE article) wants the credibility of Wikipedia on their name. WP:SALT may be needed. Aszx5000 ( talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've taken out all the fake refs where there was not mention of N7 in them (e.g. Bloomberg, Haaretz, Forbes Middle East etc.). The two remaining online refs are promotional pieces of by the company, and two others I was not able to search for (they are not online), so I left them in; maybe not a hoax, but their notability (and article) was heavily faked. Aszx5000 ( talk) 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possible WP:PROMO. No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Zica Manuhi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 ( talk) 05:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - there appear to be sources on the Vanuatu Daily Post, but paywalled and in what I assume is Bislama.-- IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see a paywall right now, User:IdiotSavant; perhaps it's regional ... I'm in Canada. Nfitz ( talk) 23:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It may depend on javascript. With it, there's an interstitial, and a redirect back to the home page. Without it, the articles are only previews, but you can extract the full text from the source (which is something those assessing source quality may want to keep in mind). IdiotSavant ( talk) 03:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:18, 6 June 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 Antonio Puerta Trophy. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

2016 Antonio Puerta Trophy

2016 Antonio Puerta Trophy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Pre-season friendly of an annual nature, IMO appropriate for the trophy to have an article but not individual matches - no significance to this one in terms of the events other than the opposition being a foreign invitee, which can be summarised in a couple of lines in the overview article as has been done with some other years. Crowsus ( talk) 09:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I almost closed this as No consensus as the Keeps are indeed very weak but they still are Keeps after reviewing the article and sources. A future AFD might have a very different result but in this one there is a Weak Keep consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert K. C. Forman

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

Fails WP:PROF and part of a now crumbling WP:Walled garden of TM/ Integral studies that was once a pretty bad corner of Wikipedia. I just don't think we have any WP:FRIND quality sources to write a biography of this obscure professor. jps ( talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - minimally updated, most sources are self-published from the 90s. Nothing newsworthy or really notable. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Google Scholar says one of his book has is cited by 577 citations and another by 314. That may be enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I think that with this particular area citogenesis runs a bit wild. Most of the articles and books that cite him, I think, are not the kind of independent, reliable source we would want for an establishment of notability. But happy to defer to others who may be able to suss out something from that list of sources that are essentially championing TM-style approaches as the key to happiness. jps ( talk) 19:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I found and added to the article nine reviews of his books, published in academic journals. That would normally be enough for a clear keep from me, per WP:AUTHOR, but in this case I have no idea how to judge whether a journal is a mainstream religious studies journal or a fringe journal (from my uninformed point of view they all look the same) and adding these doesn't solve the main problem with the article that essentially all of its text is primary-sourced and needs gutting or replacing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep This man is a big name in scholarly studies of mysticism, and is widely cited in areas such as religious studies, philosophy, anthropology and transpersonal psychology. YTKJ ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Please note that Wikipedia has an article on Walter Terence Stace, another man who did important research into mysticism. YTKJ ( talk) 13:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep This is the weakest keep I think I've ever given at an AfD. The journal he was the editor of is a real journal but it's by no means a large or important one like Psych Science is for the APS. I read a few papers and the work that's published there makes almost no sense to me. The IF of the journal floats between 0.8-1.1 so again this is a pretty small journal. He's written books which were reviewed and are from academic presses, his older works hold up better than the newer material. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_6&oldid=1160153760"