Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 06	December 08 >

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Watson (Turks and Caicos Islands footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one of the two sources, a sports database, displays independent coverage of Watson, and minimal information at that. The other reference shows two sport team line-ups for a single game, with Watson being one of the players. As of now, there is no substantial coverage of this individual to warrant an article. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Girls' U17 Volleyball European Championship Qualification

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

Just a results listing of qualification stage for under 17s. No coverage in independent sources. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect all, Wikipedia is not the place for raw data on youth sports results, even if international. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about redirect, I don't think "2022 Girls' U17 Volleyball European Championship Qualification" would be much of a search term. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Single-purpose account creation with a single self-published source; no sources found in seven days and unanimous consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Bolivia

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

Not a notable company, little to no other (non-primary) sources online TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources. No media presence. Created by a WP:SPA. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo leaflet with no sources --多少战场龙 (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - laudable, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to warrant inclusion per N:ORG MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some references exist Book, and this Case Study of an NGO and this. Do we have enough for a stub on this NGO? Bruxton (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okiki Dft

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

This BLP lacks in-depth and significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The four sources: two is about an endorsement deal, the other is an interview. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP, not notable and no additional sources I could find. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sigh, more crypto fluff. Agreed, nothing close to GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being reposted is a bit too weak notabily sign, and websearch doesn't show anything better. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any indication of WP:GNG being met in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all - there is a clear consensus that "cultural icon" is not an appropriate WP:LISTCRIT. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Australia

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

List of cultural icons of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of cultural icons of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the deletion of List of cultural icons of Scotland (AfD), I'd like to see if there's consensus to delete this whole family of articles. The same arguments made in the Scotland AfD apply equally to all of these; the term "cultural icon" is so vague, so subjective, and so widely and variously applied, that these lists can never be encyclopedic. Either they include every object, person, place or concept which has ever been referred to as a "cultural icon"; or else editors must engage in an unacceptable amount of original research in deciding which items to include. (For at least one of these articles, List of cultural icons of England, an editor once attempted to devise an objective selection criteria – the resulting list had just seven items, and was even more arbitrary than before.) We can, and do, provide readers with well-sourced, encyclopedic articles on the culture of Australia, culture of England, etc., but this is simply not a subject which can be boiled down into a list.

Previous AfDs

* WP:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of England (2012) – Group nomination of eight "cultural icon" articles; closed as keep (despite an 8-4 numerical consensus to delete)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland (2014) – No consensus
The following (from 2014) were all nominated on the same day; essentially a group nomination spread out over several discussions, with mostly the same participants. All closed as keep except Wales, which was no consensus.

Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Lists, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, England, Wales, and Australia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, per review of prior "Scotland" AFD discussion Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all it's very subjective how one decides if something is a "cultural icon". LibStar (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unfortunately, too haphazard of a collection to be tied together. BD2412 T 02:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree. These should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all To respective "Culture of" articles. I wonder if these could be a basis for any expansion there. I agree these aren't suitable as encyclopedia articles but they're nice to skim as an outline. Reywas92^Talk 04:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the "Culture of" articles would contain reference to all items in the "List of cultural icons" article. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Pages are a mess as the criteria for addition of icons on the page are open for wide interpretations and personal bias. BarcodeIII (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Scotland (2nd nomination): I'm not seeing any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and I'm not sure any could be constructed; a collocation like "cultural icon" being applied to something (or someone, for that matter) is no basis for a list. TompaDompa (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious criteria. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not incredibly familiar with list policy, to be transparent, but WP:SALAT recommends against excessively broad lists; either way, such a list as this seems ridiculous on the face of it. Would we have an article called "list of cultural icons of Malaysia" or "list of cultural icons of Indonesia"? Or a list of words in English? I struggle to think so. 223.255.225.69 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a conspicuously similar comment to the one made by blocked WP:SOCK CPORfan at WP:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Scotland (2nd nomination). TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sober musicians

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List is not notable or verifiability. Sources included are also pretty outdated given the topic. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—blindlynx 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up WP:LISTN indicates that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I will note that ~~one~~ two of the sources in the article as nominated appears to meet the criteria of treating the list topic as a group or set, namely "11 Rock Stars Proud to Be Sober." July 6, 2017. Sober Recovery. and "29 Musicians Who Won't be Drinking on St. Patrick's Day." WCBSFM 101.1 New York. March 15, 2013. (although I'm unsure about the reliability of the first source). I do think the article needs an overhaul; and it needs to define what it means by Sobriety for purposes of that list. However, I do think the topic meets our definition of notability for list purposes. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, move to List of sober musicians, once the AFD closes. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News sources simply celebrating an artist's (or even a set of artists') sobriety are not a good basis for an encyclopedic list. An article about substance abuse and sobriety in music, sure. But a list of musicians who are sober is and will never be an encyclopedic list. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, and the excellent, pithy comment added by Why? I Ask.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a poorly-defined topic for a group or set per WP:LISTN. The title is wrong too, because it's actually a list of musicians with substance abuse problems who then GOT sober, with their newly clean lifestyles getting well-deserved coverage. But that is a matter for each of their biographies. A list called simply "Sober musicians" with no further explanation would have to also list all other musicians who have always been sober because they never abused illicit substances in the first place. Now that's really unencyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking sources. If someone wanted to develop this topic they could start from Drug use in music or instead of a list develop something like "sobriety in music culture". If someone has data about individual musicians then they could take the concept to Wikidata in d:Wikidata:WikiProject Music. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Renate Reuss of Köstritz

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

A purely genealogical entry. I have not been able to find any other coverage. I am nominating this for deletion because Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—blindlynx 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobility is not notability and we are not a genealogical directory.Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Heinrich I Reuss of Köstritz

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

A purely genealogical entry. I have not been able to find any other coverage. I am nominating this for deletion because Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—blindlynx 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability made. ITBF (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to refer to the present-day Hank Reusses as "Princes" in wikivoice (and apparently we are, when we're reporting #14 calling #13 a crazy old Nazi, and so forth), then I think we need a bit more context for their genealogy and such, notwithstanding the legal abolition of their titles. Otherwise such references are mystifyingly out-of-context, Accordingly, best to merge this content to Imperial County of Reuss (with or without a redirect, no strong opinion in that), or some other such article, in line with the situation on :de. Absolutely no evidence of independent notability, so certainly shouldn't be a stand-alone article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the subject's son, Heinrich XIII, has been in the news lately. But I don't see this as contributing any notability. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed from 'merge') - the contextualising dynastic information is constructive for the Heinrich XIII and House of Reuss articles, but there's no separate indication of this guy's notability. That said, I might have a source; I'll check. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I've now looked at his wife's page, and she's just about notable (last member of her dynasty, centenarian, involved in a contretemps of actual royals) so as long has her page clearly states who he was, this page is entirely redundant and there's nothing to merge. There is literally nothing about Heinrich I that isn't better covered in articles about his son, his wife, or his family. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into his son's bio. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2604:B000:C208:982:9D76:724A:1F38:8435 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article may not be great and he may not be notable for much of any reason other than he is a minor "noble" and has an infamous son, but it seems like as applied in practice the threshold of notability on Wikipedia is pretty low. Nogburt (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a minor noble and having a infamous son confers zero notability and this article on it's own merits fails WP:NBASIC. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because other non-notable articles have thus far not be deleted doesn't change the requirements at WP:BIO. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Weak Merge - Article has all of two sources: one is a book of nobility genealogy, and the other is an article about his son's involvement in yesterday's coup plot to support the information about his son in the list of Heinrich I's children. Until the second cite was added on 12/7, it was a clear violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, as the nominator stated, and it is now split between that and a violation of WP:NINI. I was considering the arguments for merging, but the Heinrich Reuss article is flourishing; I don't see anything relevant to the latter's article that this article could contribute. Heavy Water (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails the basic notability requirements per WP:NBASIC. No coverage in WP:RSs of Prince Heinrich I Reuss of Köstritz himself in depth. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperial County of Reuss: not GNG for now, but can be redirected to the main House article until someone finds something notable to write about the subject and expands on the article. – robertsky (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tidal wave of Deletes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Schlichter

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

PROD declined, Ohnoitsjamie's reasoning is: "Doesn't quite meet WP:BIO; notability claims based on a photo appearing at the Austin airport and interviewing Tommy Chong." LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Fashion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article with thin notability claims, mostly around some of his art hanging at the Austin airport, and interviewing Tommy Chong on a podcast. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there seem to thousands of people on wikipedia with far less notability behind them.

I've been following this young man for sometime and believe that his working with an internationally recognized celebrity, winning a regional multi-state call for art, having an separate art exhibit, and being considered repeatable enough to interview the aforementioned celebrity warrants a page.

I totally respect your belief and only ask that you look more into this because based on your proposal to delete the page you have a pretty clear misunderstanding of the page and the person the page is about.

His art is NOT in the Austin airport it's located in the Rochester INTERNATIONAL airport. He did not ONLY interview Tommy Chong, he's is the apparel head for the Tommy Chong brand and oversees their international sales and distribution along with the design and manufacturing.

I look forward to your response and hope you are doing well.

MapleviewLounge (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering the very tenuous claims to notability, with a lot of the sources primary. Not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are far more people with far less notability on wikipedia. MapleviewLounge (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MapleviewLounge (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep, all imma say is that I come from a small town area where we got lots of people on Wikipedia with 1 link citing any info about them. I think having a few interviews with reliable and independent publications and working alongside a globally recognized celebrity meets the requirements for significant coverage and means there's a presumed assumption that people from his area would be looking him up and wanting info on a wiki page that they can trust. but like that's just my two cents based off the info on the Wikipedia notability section. IBurnTrees (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — IBurnTrees (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of MapleviewLounge (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage outside the two local news writeups cited in the article. (@MapleviewLounge and IBurnTrees: On Wikipedia, the word "notability" isn't a value judgement about the importance of the subject; it's simply a question of whether we have access to enough reliable information to write a decent-sized article. If you think the article should be kept, you need to demonstrate the existence of multiple reliable sources on the subject.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find much else for sourcing than what's given in the article, and that's not GNG. And the sock is a red flag that this isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I mean I ended up here because I came from a wiki search after fixing a citation error on Tommy Chong’s page. Even though there are only 3 small town interviews all with just BARELY enough info to meet my personal definition of significant coverage and all with varying info, I still found the answer to my questions about how Tommy Chong ended up letting this dude use his name and likeness. That’s literally a successful use of Wikipedia and arguably the definition of what Wikipedia is about; spreading knowledge and making it accessible. The puppet is sus but usually that indicates someone either has fans trying to impress them or hired some scammer to get them a wiki page. You can’t attribute something to malice if stupidity is equally applicable. Seems like people put the bare amount of effort into this stuff but maybe I don’t know anything but I know knowledge should be free and EASILY accessible. XavDaPlug (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of MapleviewLounge, see investigation) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any reason to believe this person is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Suzann

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

NN business with promotional sources. UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No significant secondary source coverage apparent. 162 etc. (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, among the citations are two articles in The New York Times, one in Women's Wear Daily, one in Quartz, one in Cup of Jo, and an EconTalk interview. All of those appear to be specifically focused on this topic with in-depth coverage. That's not nothing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; struck vote. 162 etc. (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The references mentioned above by User:BarrelProof are real. The concept behind this company appears significant even if ithe business did get shut down due to COVID. The sources that commented appeared to think that the company was making a point about the economics of women's clothing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death

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

POV fork of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge so we follow the WP:Preserve policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a merge if great care was taken that the current balance of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death -- which is based on the overwhelming consensus of experts that Hitler committed suicide -- is not biased by any material added from this POV fork. That means that the merge can certainly not be carried out by the creator of this article, and must be done in pieces so that editors on Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death can weigh in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to move this out of mainsapce while that's happening?—blindlynx 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition would be that the contrary reports are just that, and are generally not invoked by conspiracy theories that I'm aware of. As it doesn't reproduce much material, I don't think it's actually a fork (having been spun off instead from The Death of Adolf Hitler). Although some of it could be summarized within other articles (such as those for various eyewitnesses), I don't think that’s imperative, with the main point that this article isn't about conspiracy theories; it simply also revolves around discussion of Hitler's death. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the commenter above is the creator of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

I just want to make it clear as nominator that my preference is deletion, not merger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, this is a much longer page, but the two essentially cover similar ground. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the lead's second paragraph might be usable in a section summarizing the eyewitness contradictions. Details related to the Soviet disinformation campaign should already be pretty well covered. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that the article you created almost entirely overlaps with a previously existing article. Why, then, did you create it? (I think I already know the answer, but I want to hear what your reasoning was.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what your comments so far amount to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although it overlaps with some other articles, no others cover the extensive discrepancies between eyewitnesses. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony is an indication of something wrong. In fact, there are always inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts. People actually get suspicious when eyewitness testimony is too consistent, because it points to possible collusion. This article is nothing but conspiracy-minded trivia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Seem to believe", etc. That's your interpretation. The article cites RS & points out how historians explain discrepancies. It's 100% up to the reader if they interpret the conflicting reports otherwise. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork created by an editor who has a history of using the Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death article to push the fringe view that Hitler's death was faked. This article appears to be a vehicle to continue this POV pushing, and nothing in it is suitable for merging. Nick-D (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as an unambiguous POV fork. Anything remotely relevant either belongs in the Death of Adolf Hitler article, or in Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear POV-FORK. This discussion should probably be WP:SNOW closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:POVFORK. Tercer (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just a POV fork, but one with an awkward title that practically screams "conspiracy theory". XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:POVFORK. A POV fork of both Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death and The Death of Adolf Hitler articles. In fact, much of this article rehashes (in some areas, word-for-word) the content of "The Death of Adolf Hitler" book article, so those parts would not need to be merged. And what is presented otherwise does not need to be merged into either the GA rated Death of Adolf Hitler article or Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. Those two articles are well RS cited and present sufficient information on their subject matter to the readers. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yadaman (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic P-06

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

Not notable (unreleased fangame) Yadaman (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, reasoning is self-evident. Attempted to do a reverse 'Pokemon Test' to determine merge-ability, but due to the name of the page, searchability is difficult, ranging from ~36k results to possibly 44 million (inclusive of irrelevant results). Further determination of merge-ability would require some way of determining the absolute number of relevant search results, which is more trouble than it's worth. Yadaman (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm counting at least 8 reliable third party sources dedicated to the subject already in the article. That easily passes the WP:GNG. Fan games are historically less likely to receive coverage that would meet the GNG...but there's nothing keeping a fan gamr from having its own article if it does receive coverage, as this one has. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, no evidence of failing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it's fanmade or unreleased doesn't matter, it's mentioned by reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No reasons provided by Nominator. Being a fan game isn’t a reason to delete. definitely meets WP:GNG. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I count three sources from what I'd call reputable sources. In general, fangames represented on Wikipedia are things like Pokemon Uranium or AM2R that are historically notable. P-06 barely gets around 15,000 results on Google, and all three of the sources I noted are editorial fluff pieces. I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia, rather than at best being merged into the main Sonic 06 page. Yadaman (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what you're referring to without listing what three sources you mean (which itself is technically enough the meet the GNG), but I think you need to do to a closer cross-check with WP:VG/S, the community's current consensus for what sources are considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over all the sources. We have:

* Kotaku article from 2019, appears to be a filler piece

* Engadget article from 2019, fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development

* TeamXbox interview, about Sonic 06, not about P-06

* GameInformer article, about Sonic 06, not about P-06

* Vice article, about a different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06

* GameZone article, about the same different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06

* VK social media post, about ANOTHER different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06

* Twitter post by the creator of P-06

* Promotional YouTube video by a contributor to P-06

* The same source a second time???

* GameRevolution article, appears to be a filler piece

* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06

* Siliconera article, appears to be a filler piece

* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06

* YouTube video by The Completionist, BRIEFLY mentions P-06 once.

I count 12 out of 17 sources actually being about P-06, down to 5 if we don't count promotional posts(!). Kotaku, Engadget, and Siliconera I'd count as reputable sources, and even then the Siliconera article is a three-paragraph blip about a new demo release. I've never heard of GameRevolution, but checking they do appear to be on the list, my mistake. The Completionist mentions P-06 *once* in the video in the sources, only to briefly compare it to Sonic 06 itself. The Kotaku piece is almost as short and insubstantial as the Siliconera piece, and is again a blip about a demo release. The Engadget piece is the one I'd call the most substantial, but one or two good sources I wouldn't call a good basis for an article's notability. Yadaman (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yadaman, what do you mean by fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia? Fan games should have around equivalent standards with WP:GNG, perhaps somewhat stricter but your criteria of historical importance seems vague IMO. VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that 'two substantial articles from a reputable source' is a fairly low bar to clear to demonstrate relevance/notability. If that's the standard the community has set, so be it. I'll probably be opening a merge request, because it still eludes me why this deserves its own entire page. Yadaman (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you're trying to just handwave some of these sources away. Like the GameRevolution article. What do you mean "filler piece". It's a detailed, lengthy write up that goes over a ton of the aspects of the game. Same with the "Engadget" article. Your assessment is "fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development. How would a lengthy editorial from a reliable source somehow not count as significant coverage? There's a complete disconnect here between your views on reliable source coverage/notability and the community's accepted views currently. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the statement "I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia" OP seems misinformed on what GNG actually means. Importance is proven solely by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, not any one editor's subjective judgement. And the sources do in fact clearly exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced and well written. I don't see what we would gain from deleting this. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See what I said above. If not an outright deletion, I think it should be merged into the page for Sonic 06. Yadaman (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you open up an AFD then? And not even mention merging in the nomination? Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because, at the time I hadn't considered the possibility of merging it. If the consensus is to not delete it, I'm suggesting a merge as an alternative. Yadaman (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even with the above discussions in mind, the article meets WP:GNG no question. Even if we were to accept the nom's argument that there were "only" three sources, that would still meet WP:GNG. However, the article has much more than those three, so notability seems well-established for the article. Being "fan made" is not a criteria for any notability guideline that I'm aware of, so it being fan made is not a consideration for its notability. I don't think a merge is a good alternative to deletion here, since deletion is not even on the table in my mind, and the sources more than justify a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see lots of high quality sources. The article has healthy sections about development and reception. It's a fan game, but that's not a disqualifier. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SSS islands

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

This is just an unofficial name that has no standing. There are articles for each of the 3 SSS islands. Each can include a note there they are collectively called the SSS. This should be nothing more than a re-direct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Netherlands. — Ætoms ^[talk] 14:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where would you propose redirecting this to? I'm open to that but don't see a good target. The ABC islands (Leeward Antilles) are also an unofficial name for nearby islands, and this seems to also a reasonable way to describe the island grouping. There are a number of book and news results in English and Dutch about these together. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, if redirected it would be to Dutch Caribbean. You can read below that this is not an option I support. No need to answer, your opinion is clear and I respect your opinions! Just thought it would be nice if someone would answer the question. gidonb (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The grouping of the three islands is of historical significance, being a former colony of the Netherlands and a former island territory (comparable to a province or region) of the Netherlands Antilles. The grouping is also used a lot in modern contexts as a subdivision of the Dutch Caribbean. Perhaps the article could be renamed "Windward Islands (Dutch Caribbean)", which is more formal and more commonly used. — Ætoms ^[talk] 15:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's no issue of notability here. And it seems likely worth being more than merely a redirect, so discussion on content can occur outside AFD. Its not a neologism, i see it in books from the 80s [1][2] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep significant for historic reasons—blindlynx 19:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the acronym/moniker is used in RS. There is historical significance Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ætoms. This is a historical name for these islands, and redirecting the article to Windward Islands would remove an explanation of a historical category. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond the history already highlighted above, these three Dutch territories continue to share services. Most notably in healthcare. gidonb (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing to add — TheThomanski | t | c | 17:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Seng Freefloat Index Series

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I found websites about the Hang Seng Index but not the Freefloat Series. This specific company fails WP:ORGCRITE.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillisation of English

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

Also included:

Cyrillisation of Italian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyrillisation of Portuguese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyrillisation of Spanish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because these articles were all created around the same time by Thiscouldbeauser (talk · contribs), and are sourced only to Omniglot. Prodded by Fram (talk · contribs) for failing WP:GNG, but deprodded by the creator on a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basis. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find evidence that any of these creations of a cyrillic alphabet for Latin languages were actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no evidence of actual use. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:LISTN is the applicable criterion here, and substantive evidence has been provided that this topics meets the criterion. Those arguing to keep are quite correct in stating that NLIST does not require every list entry to be discussed in reliable sources, only the group as a group. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl

AfDs for this article:

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

I understand that there may be information about the rise and popularity of issuing video game soundtracks on vinyl (as discussed in the History section), but that information can be incorporated into Video game music. Aside from that, there is not really a need for a list to include albums with such a trivial intersection. Of course, you can always claim "coverage" in the form of routine announcements (e.g., "X Game's Soundtrack Releases on Digital and Vinyl"), but that would set an unneeded precedent. Otherwise you could have articles such as "List of vinyl reissues" or "List of movie soundtracks released on vinyl" which both could have just as many "reliable" sources. The last nomination had fairly poor keep rationales (such as "vinyl releases are interesting these days"), so I am renominating. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Video games, and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging contributors from the first discussion: @GamerPro64, Thibbs, Sergecross73, Clarityfiend, ONUnicorn, and Letcreate123. IceWelder [✉] 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still find myself persuaded by Thibbs in the first discussion, it's a reliably sourced list. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being verifiable does not mean there's a reason to make a list. It's run-of-the-mill release announcements. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, as Thibbs pointed out, there's are reliable sources that discuss the concept in general as well. Reliable sources that point out the role of video games soundtrack releases in the late 2010's larger upswing of the medium. And not just once - there's detailed coverage of it. And each individual entry is reliably sourced too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I directly mentioned that the information about vinyl and video game music is fine. It's the actual listing of them that's the issue. Discussing a notable practice in an industry is fine, but not listing albums simply because they happen to be in a certain medium. I can find articles about the transition to digital music. A similar list of albums only released digitally would also be silly to have. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've got sources for ever item, and sources documenting the overall concept. Not sure what else you want here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the amount of coverage there is for every entry on the list (too much on a few if you ask me but that's another matter) and how reliable it all appears to be, I think notability overrides this concern about necessity here. The publications care a lot about reporting on these vinyl releases and it's hard to call that indiscriminate. Could use some cleanup and especially some MOS:MAJORWORK attention but otherwise I don't see anything wrong here. QuietHere (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The fact that vinyl music was partially helped by VGM soundtrack sales has nothing to do with keeping a list of them. It fails the "will only fans care" test, as the info is literally only relevant to fans of video game music and vinyl records. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that video game albums released on vinyl is a trivial intersection. This may work better as a category, but it is not really a defining characteristic either. I do not think "lots of reliable sources" is a good argument in this case to justify notability, when items on the list are mostly supported by run-of-the-mill routine announcements. RS can report on itmes we deem unimportant and trivial as well. Information about vinyl and video game music can be kept, but I do not see the necessity of keeping the list. OceanHok (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LISTN: the subject "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:LISTN is fairly vague, I don't believe that the criteria of has been discussed as a group or set has been met. There are sources discussing the concept and practice, and there are release announcements. I'm not seeing sources that actually attempt to tabulate a list of video game soundtracks on vinyl. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is focussed and has focussed criteria for inclusion - see WP:LSC Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN - concept has been discussed as a group in secondary sources. ResonantDis_tortion 10:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an indiscriminate list, type x of music release on type x of physical media. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments in the first AFD, and per ResonantDistortion and Sojourner in the earth. The article cites a lot of sources, and not all of them meet the criteria of discussing the concept as a group or set. Note that discussing them as a group or set does not necessitate the source to be a comprehensive list. I'm looking at sources that discuss the concept of videogame soundtracks being released on vinyl along side a variety of examples of the phenomenon. There are sources in the article that limit themselves to discussing a specific release, which is reliable sourcing for the inclusion of that album on the list but does not contribute to the WP:LISTN criteria, and there are sources in the article that discuss the broader concept more generally. To make it easier on others; some of the specific sources currently cited in the article that I feel meet the criteria of discussing the concept as a group or set include (but are not limited to) the following:
- Napolitano, Jayson (23 May 2012). "The Sound Card 007: Game music on vinyl". Destructoid. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
- Diver, Mike (22 September 2015). "Vinyl Fantasy: How limited edition records are taking video game soundtracks to the next level". thevinylfactory.com. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
- Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (27 August 2015). "Music: The Megadrive megamix – how classic videogame soundtracks went from background noise to cratedigger gold". theguardian.com. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
- Greenwald, Will (30 March 2017). "The Wide World of Video Game Vinyl". Geek.com. Archived from the original on August 22, 2017. Retrieved 21 August 2017.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, those sources really don't. Obviously, an article about video game soundtracks on vinyl is going to have examples, but that does mean they have been discussed as a whole set. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage doesn't need to be a whole collective set though. We've got all sorts of video game library lists like List of PlayStation 4 games even though there's no other reliable source on the planet that lists all of the 1000s of released games. Why? Because there's no shortage of sources discussing its library in a general sense. Same applies here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really comparable; the are tons of lists of PlayStation 4 games, not just articles that mention examples of games. And in this case, it would be more similar to "List of digital PlayStation 4 games", divided by medium. If it was just a "List of video game soundtracks" that just had a column listing the available mediums, that would be better. A lede discussing the use of each medium would be better too. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NLIST "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So a source that says (for example):

one of the first instances of game music on vinyl was in 1978 with Yellow Magic Orchestra’s self-titled record. It contained remixes from Circus and Space Invaders and paved the way for other releases through the late 1970s and early 1980s that included lots of Pac-Man, Asteroids, Yars’ Revenge, Missile Command, and others. These even got their own drama albums complete with read-along books that told brief stories from these games. Jump forward to 1983 and you have Do the Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong proper. Through the mid-1980s, Namco came on board with Xevious followed by their compilation album, Namco Video Game Graffiti which featured Dig Dug, Sky Kid, New Rally-X!, Mappy, and more.

is discussing videogame soundtracks on vinyl as a group or a set. It's not a comprehensive list - our list doesn't copy and paste that article, but it is still discussing them as a group or set. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not discussing them as a group. It's simply name-dropping examples. And also from WP:NLIST: there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") which is what this is. Citing that as a be all end all is not helpful. For such a cross-categorization of "X of Y", there needs to be further proof that a list is justified. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Then what would you look for in determining if something discusses something as a group or a set? How are you interpreting that criteria? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would propose merging this article and List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms and doing what I discussed above where there is simply a master list of video game soundtracks (with the medium listed, obviously) with a lede that can discuss the use of CDs, vinyl, and digital, or whatever else. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer this option, but I do prefer it as a 2nd choice over deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:NLIST because sources discuss it as a group, and I agree that comments by Thibbs in the previous AfD are persuasive in this regard. I don't find the WP:OSE rationales for deletion particularly compelling reasons for deletion; notability guidelines should not be discounted because of the perceived flaws of hypothetical articles that don't exist; this AfD is about this article and it must be judged on its own merits, not on the merits of movie articles that don't exist. - Aoidh (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above arguments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urowoli Hazel Kimberly Tesigiwa Oburoh

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR declined at AFC multiple times but tendentiously moved to main space by creator. Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (probably speediable, but happy to let the AfD run its course); promo piece (possibly self-written) on a non-notable author; the sources don't add up to a hill of beans. All of this was repeatedly pointed out at AfC, of course. Fails every flavour of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above; might well be 'self-written' and the books self-published(?) Could be notable in time but not enough at this point to validate inclusion. Eagleash (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, where to start. Unsourced promo, must sources are pastes of text from her books. The two refs giving substantial coverage have identical content so aren't intellectually independent of each other. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fine collection of ~~references~~ sales sites - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Santos Laguna season

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I created The article 1994-95 Santos Laguna season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links:[3], [4], [5], [6], and RSSSF. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to repeat yourself three times when protecting your own article. The Banner talk 17:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF Reference is useful to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman, Jogurney has found added a couple of SIGCOV to the article, and listed below. And I've added some other supporting references, and flushed out some of the irrelevant references and material in the article. Can you review your vote? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Giant Snowman 18:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved by wikipedia users now is censored using unknown terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. No one has provided enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability here. I don't see that the article meets GNG and therefore deletion is appropriate. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources provided do not discuss this particular Santos Laguna in any great detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Fram (talk · contribs) wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm simply pointing out a simple fact, which is that there is no evidence of significant coverage for this season. RSSSF doesn't count. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. Delete this trivia! The sheer number of these pages demonstrates that this is too specific and obscure. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed ~~(or will soon do)~~ as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which come from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was previously placed on hold. Relisting to enable a full week of discussion to take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Waggers TALK 10:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just reopened and relisted this discussion following my close yesterday due to a request on my talk page. For reference, here is my closing statement:

The result was delete. This discussion seems to have become quite heated, perhaps due to events elsewhere on the project. It's sad to see that there are lots of accusations flying around, bordering on personal attacks. My role as closer is to ignore that and find arguments that relate specifically to the matter in hand.
The central question in this discussion is whether the supplied sources are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the General Notability Guideline, i.e. multiple sources providing significant coverage of the subject. Those preferring deletion - and there are more of those than keep !votes - assert that the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject itself. Those preferring keep talk about the format of one source in particular, and talk about the behaviour of the nominator elsewhere on the project, but do not refute the assertion that the coverage in the sources fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements for significance.
So despite the apparently contentious nature of this discussion and the commentary on various other issues within it, the overriding consensus is quite clearly in favour of deleting the article.

The request on my talk page pointed out that this discussion has been on hold to allow a related DRV to take place, and asked for it to be relisted to allow a full week for discussion to take place.

As observed in my statement above, some of the comments on this discussion so far have fallen short of our civility policy. I hope that improves in the discussion below; please be warned that I (and/or other admins) will likely take firm action if it does not. Waggers TALK 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been yet again been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 1994–95 Mexican Primera División season. I like keeping team season articles where the team is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Such season articles must be supported with multiple independent reliable sources which directly detail the subject. Sources surely are available somewhere. Not seeing that here. Fine with a redirect to the season or the team itself. It is indeed a "real shame" User:HugoAcosta9 got themselves indef blocked for sockpuppetry. That has nothing at all to do with my assertion here. As an occasional closer, I'm sympathetic to Waggers's comment above. If it's not accurately sourced, it might as well be pure fiction. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what's here is already sourced to a reliable source that directly deals with the subject - see [7]. The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation is pretty much the gold-standard for such references. What's your concern with that User:BusterD - it's bog standard for many, many, articles. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that such a work by itself does not constitute multiple independent reliable secondary sources which directly detail the subject. IMHO the link you provided consists of accumulated routine sporting results, a tertiary source. I didn't say the page was fiction. I said without adequate trusted sources, it might as well be fiction. I asserted that sources must exist, but that's my opinion. And I've also asserted that a ~~merge~~ redirect is fine with me. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the (more than) adequate source though to prove it's not fiction. I'm confused why you believe that sources must exist, but you vote delete. That seems to be against the policy of WP:ATD which requires improvement rather than deletion if the article is believed to be notable. I'm about to go on a deep dive or sources; can you tell me User:BusterD where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RSSSF is literally pure stats with zero independent secondary commentary, it is nowhere close to contributing to GNG. Information existing in a database does not mean a topic is notable, obviously, and even actual prose coverage of the individual matches would be discounted by NOTNEWS, ROUTINE, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's existence (obviously) doesn't hinge on the RSSSF reference. BusterD expressed a concern that "if it's not accurately sourced, it might as well be pure fiction". The general consensus for an article for the season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world is that there exists suitable references to meet GNG. How, JoelleJay, is this article any different from many other seasons articles (that all meet WP:NSEASONS such as 1994–95 Crystal Palace F.C. season which contain less prose, and far less references, than this one. The only difference I can discern is that team is English. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of prose and number of references are irrelevant if there isn't any SIGCOV of the topic. The other sources cited in the article are worthless for notability since none of them contain SIGCOV and only the database ones even mention the season at all. So, considering RSSSF has been the only source proffered since the relist, it does appear the article's existence at AfD hinges on it, and I am pointing out that it does zilch to address the reason for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, AFD isn't based on the sources that are in the article, but the sources that could potentially be in the article. As I mentioned above I'm doing a deep dive into the sources. Can you tell me User:JoelleJay where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? I've already removed and replaced those (lousy) references that didn't mention the season. BTW, why do you think there wouldn't be significant coverage for a season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world, given how football-mad the Mexican media is? How is this different than, say, Crystal Palace ... we have scores of teams each year in England that we think are significant - even though significant sources are frequently not listed in articles. Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I presume coverage exists when a BEFORE didn't turn up anything for me, or you, or anyone else in two months? AfD is where sources are supposed to be produced, and nothing was forthcoming until Jogurney searched some archives that you yourself failed to find anything in. That said, I don't see how coverage of preseason activities is in-depth treatment of the topic of the article, which is the actual season itself...? JoelleJay (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the thought that the coverage of the pre-season tour of Colombia may not actually be about the season, however I think it is. When I read coverage of sports club seasons (not just football), there is always discussion of arrivals and departures of players and staff and there is always discussion of the pre-season tours. Also, I wouldn't discount the Medio Tiempo coverage of the play-offs. Note that each of these articles were written years after the conclusion of the season (so it's apparent that the season was noticed outside of routine/contemporaneous coverage). I'd like to find a recap of the portion of the season prior to the play-offs (the club finished top of its group which is an achievement), but I haven't spent more than 10 minutes looking yet. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And see the references below - SIGCOV is met. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I quickly found this in-depth coverage of the Laguneros' performance in the quarter-finals. If I can have a day or two more, I'm quite certain there is in-depth recaps of this season elsewhere. Jogurney (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a good one - I'll add it to the article. I'm doing some major work on it. I remain puzzled on why some think there wouldn't have been significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an in-depth recap of the club's pre-season activities, including discussion of player arrivals and departures and a pre-season tournament in Colombia. It's solid enough with the Medio Tiempo article to get to SIGCOV on their own. El Siglo de Torreón covers Santos Laguna regularly, so a stroll through their archives will certainly uncover more in depth coverage of the season. Jogurney (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work! I'd found their archive, but I wasn't having much success mining it. You are a lot more proficient at this than me! Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Siglo also had in-depth coverage of the club's managerial change during the season here. This piece does a brief recap of the first of the season as well. The unfortunate thing is El Siglo's online archive isn't working, so I had to manually search to even find that article - everything else that's available is from the 2000's or later. Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am inclined to keep the article, it has some sources on it, I tried to find sources for football player transfers, but alas, didn't do very well. Had a go at a little cleanup, it still feels a mess. Mexican football really isn't my thing know. But it feels like it passes the mark for general GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more sources to the article and did some copyediting so it's not as much of a mess. I don't like some of the prose, but it's more NPOV or based on the sources now. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added. Giant Snowman 18:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hey. Thanks to all those cooperating in sourcing this page. It looks much more anchored by independent RS now. BusterD (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvement by various editors. Meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how links to the Spanish language Wikipedia are used to hide red links. The Banner talk 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Rose Cuvelier

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

I have not found any in-depth coverage of this subject in reliable sources. Yes, there exists an essay (WP:NBEAUTY) claiming that Miss World participants are presumed notable. But given the lack of coverage, I believe that this presumption of notability would be wrong. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Dakota. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis we should easily be able to prove WP:GNG notability for a title holder only 3 years ago. I can find nothing but announcements of her winning the title. There is a lengthier biography published in her local newspaper, The Conan Daily [link blocked by Wikipedia], but that is it as far as anything more detailed. From what I can see, Miss World America is different from the Miss America competition, and isn't an automatic fast-track to notability via WP:NBEAUTY. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In GNews, CONAN Daily and the India Times are the only sources I see, and they aren't enough for GNG. They simply confirm she won and talk about the pageant. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And CONAN Daily is a wordpress site, so it's useless. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural close, nomination by a sockpuppet and no support for deletion of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Hill

~~The article has a link to a dead/unfound webpage as its only reference; tried moving the page to draftspace but that was reverted, so this seems to be the proper avenue. WeWorkGuest (talk)~~ 08:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. He is a former member of parliament and a clear pass of WP:NPOL, with a reference link that was broken but replaceable in seconds with the most basic Google search. (The citation gave you all the information you need to find it, since the source still exists, just had a URL change!). @WeWorkGuest: no, draftifying and then nominating for deletion is not the "proper avenue" when someone explicitly meets the relevant notability criteria but just had a reference with a dead URL and you were literally too lazy to whack the key parts of the citation into Google. I had intended to revert further back to the long-standing version, which made his notability more obvious than the recently-edited text by someone with a possible WP:COI. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination. No attempt at Before, and OP is now CU blocked as latest sock of user:Awolf58 (AKA user:Mrbeastmodeallday) Meters (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrumedia

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

~~Promo of the dead company; no RS Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~ striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find much reliable sources that cover this company. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but nothing in GNews, only SEO sites found in regular Google. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the article was recently edited from "is" to "was" and the rationale describes it as a "dead company", it appears to be still in operation (site), providing website development and support, etc, AllyD (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: The best of the given references is the Eurogamer short article (2004) but its focus is founder Tim Wright (Welsh musician), and searches don't find evidence that the company itself attained notability. A redirect to the article on Wright could be a plausible WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Hai

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

~~Not sufficient reliable source, notability questionable. Delete Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~SOCK STRIKE Cielquiparle (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is prominently known for hosting numerous media events in Taiwan, has plenty solo articles on them in their Mandarin native language, particularly in Taiwanese media. A simple search for their English name on Google also shows up substantial results, including on notable Asian media databases. The subject was also previously nominated for Taiwan's leading TV industry awards. Hence, there's no question on their notability at all.

@Benedikt Gerendeg, I have also noticed you are a relatively new user with less than 100 edits and account created less than 6 months ago. Are you sure you are familiar with notability guidelines, or you are just randomly picking articles to put up for deletion without sufficient knowledge about article subjects, and deterring good-faith contributors in the process?

Treysand (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hockerty

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

~~Moved to mainspace by a new user. Reads like promotion Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. MER-C 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was made by a sockpuppet so that doesn't help. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no reason who is the author. the notability is being checked here. 77.251.59.79 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's a red flag at least. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The French articles look like PR stuff, from a website called masculin.com, which is mostly pop-up ads and click bait stuff. Feels promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all I find are articles about how to "Look Like Gatsby" or wedding attire this or that, listing one or two products by the company. Nothing about them. Even limiting it to .ch websites, it's all only their own that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous reliable sources with in-depth coverage and the notability established by independent reviews or mentions in national relialbe newspapers and magazines. Here I picked some: La Vanguardia - gives a report on Hockekrty and its history [8], El Periódico de Aragón made a good coverage on company in 2011 which was named back than as tailor4less [9]; Expansión (Spanish newspaper) analyses the startups and chose Hockerty as one of examples; French magazine Masculin made a deep review of company and its products: [10]; another review on Modern Fellows [11]; a decent coverage on Fashin Network [12], Okdiario provides a good coverage [13]; ABC (newspaper) praises the company saying “it’s one of the firms that does it best” [14]; Vanity Fair (magazine) gave a coverage on Toledo shoe production [15] having featured the company as it's favorite week choice. However the page has many promo blogs/site which must me removed. 多少战场龙 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to any of those references (paragraph number?) that contains "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ejikela. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it was undisclosed paid-for spam. Not only that, none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Rather than showing an analysis of all the sources in the article (overkill) I'll focus on just those put forward by 多少战场龙 above.
- This from La Vanguardia is a puff piece. All of the information has been provided by the company and their execs. Every paragraph attributes a quote to one of the founders. There is no Independent Content clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company, fails ORGIND
- This from El Periodico is based entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
- This from Masculin.com is primarily a review of their made-to-measure shoes and the website configurator. This website also produced a similar review of other clothes and although the website accepts advertising and affiliate marketing, it is unclear which parts are truly independent. Putting that aside for now, the article in question fails NCORP criteria. It has a small paragraph (2 sentences) in the opening section that simply regurgitates the standard description of the company (i.e. Created by 3 friends in 2008...). There is no in-depth information here *about the company*. Fails CORPDEPTH.
- This in Modern Fellows is a puff piece that is marked as "including affiliate links". It is essentially paid marketing, fails ORGIND. Even if we ignore that, this article also regurgitates the standard company origin story and then focuses on a product, not the company. Also fails CORPDEPTH.
- This in okdiario.com is another puff piece, very similar to the piece in La Vanguargia (and only a month between them in date). It also relies on information/interview with one of the co-founders and does not have any in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. For example, the announcement about $20m in future sales appears in this announcement.
- This from Sumum is another puff piece, fails for the same reasons as above (information from the company and execs), fails ORGIND
- This from Vanity Fair is a mere mention with a total of 4 sentences, not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.

The references are advertorial and/or purr pieces. None meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a now blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellabeat

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

~~appears it doesn't meet WP:NCORP and RS are not there. I may be wrong though. Reads like advert Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~ striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and California. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Bellabeat has been a notable company on the market for over 8 years now and received numerous public mentions, I believe it is not suitable for deletion as the page represents a company that is notable and is according to the wiki policy. Gh2022 (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources and searches I did say otherwise I found this and this.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. czar 02:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StairMaster

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

~~No sources to prove WP:NCORP. Online websearch did not help much Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~SOCK STRIKE[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Washington. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's history dates back to the 1980s, so a simple online web search only gets you so far; you have to look at print and other databases, and/or do more sophisticated searches on Google, for a more accurate picture of what is out there. This is one of those cases that the brand is so pervasive and the history is so long that basic searches (even in Google) tend to return "too many" results, and it requires a considerable amount of time to sort through it all. I don't have time for that right now, but to give you an idea of sources that could easily be added, a quick search from Newspapers.com yields coverage like this 1989 feature article in the Ottawa Citizen; an in-depth product feature on the Gravitron by Stairmaster in The New York Daily News; this 1992 Tulsa World article on the company's merger (yes, we need to be careful with these types of news articles, but this one appears to contain independent analysis and context); and this comparison product review in the Chicago Tribune found via ProQuest. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the idea that one of the first major workout machine manufactures is not notable is a thing.Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is an abudance of academic literature where the company's work is a key part of the study. Some quick examples follow:

BUTTS, N. K.; DODGE, C.; MCALPINE, M. Effect of stepping rate on energy costs during Stairmaster exercise. / Effet de la vitesse de montee de marches sur les couts energetiques lors d ’ une epreuve de montee de marches sur le stairmaster. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, [s. l.], v. 25, n. 3, p. 378–382, 1993. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=SPH342407&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
RYAN, N. D.; MORROW JR., J. R.; PIVARNIK, J. M. Reliability and Validity Characteristics of Cardiorespiratory Responses on the StairMaster 4000PT®. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, [s. l.], v. 2, n. 2, p. 115, 1998. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=7598275&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
SCHAUMBURG, L. von et al. Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill. Journal of Human Kinetics, [s. l.], v. 83, n. 1, p. 121–129, 2022. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=159009024&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.

This company is way beyond the minimum threshold for corporate notability. CT55555(talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been found of this well known exercise machine. The article needs some work though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1997/03/19/bummed-out-on-the-stairmaster/6e4f1aca-a808-4a3a-9faa-4a12f678efdb/ shows an entire article written about whether or not it gives you a larger butt. Dream Focus 18:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable exercise product - I am hoping that some terrific editors help put the references in the article: that way we will not be back here again with an AfD. I have only added one Smithsonian reference to an unreferenced paragraph. It may be beneficial to just erase the unreferenced paragraphs which I have tagged with ^{[citation needed]} - WP:TNT style. I have had to do that with several product articles like this example Gibson ES-175. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Product line has sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well-recognized brand and product in the fitness space (for decades!), to the point where it verges on being genericized as a shorthand for any sort of aerobic machine. Thoroughly satisfies our notability standards; we just need to improve the article. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I wouldn't say that a page should be kept because "everyone's heard of it" but...everyone has heard of stairmaster. There are enough references out there to show that it's culturally significant. The improvements to the page have already gone a long way towards fixing any sourcing and POV issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a now blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuvera.in

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

~~Not sufficient sourcing according to WP:RS and not meeting WP:NCORP Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~~ striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found this, this might pass NCORP.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think the situation will change with an additional relist so I'm closing this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance for Banking on Values

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

This is a bit of an unusual case. This organization clearly exists, and has been active enough for long enough that it would normally be no-brainer 'notable' by Wikipedia standards.

However, the current page is obviously not acceptable; if I remove the unsourced statements, the material sourced only to their own website, and the outright fabrications (this company clearly does not have more employees than Toyota or Coca-Cola), it would literally mean blanking the page. I was hoping to clean it up or at least replace it with something sourced to reliable sources, but I'm finding no reliable sources at all; just assorted bits of coverage clearly sourced to press releases.

If someone can find some way to salvage this I'd be delighted and obviously would withdraw this nomination. As I say, it's probably a topic which should be covered on Wikipedia, but I'm really not finding anything at all that would constitute a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. ‑ Iridescent 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily sufficient SIGCOV from RS financial press newspapers on Google News. I'll start shovelling out the unsourced claims later today, and adding some reliable sources. Storchy (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess changes post-nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Clearly improvemnts have been made which deal with the reason for nominationTheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, as I'd welcome review from the nominator, Iridescent on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Looking at the current version, I don't have access to sources 1 & 2 so can't assess them. At a skim, the remainder appear either to be reprinted press releases (either from the organization itself or from its members), or tangential mentions such as [16]. My gut feeling is that the organization probably is notable in Wikipedia terms but that neither the article as nominated nor the article as rewritten demonstrate notability, but it could probably do with input from somebody with knowledge of the financial services sector to make the call. ‑ Iridescent 07:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely sources 1 and 2 that demonstrate notability. Sources do not have to be freely available online, but Google Books displays them for me: [17] and [18] along with others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brighton Beach. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Freddy

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

Seemingly non-notable figure. The only non-primary sources cited in the article do not focus on him. A WP:GOOGLE search does not turn up sufficient secondary sourcing about Disco Freddy. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as fun as the article is, the coverage appears to be marginal at best, with mostly trivial mentions. I would love for reliable, in-depth sources to be found, but I'm not seeing any. Possibly Merge some basic information in a sentence or two to Brighton Beach. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – references 1 and 4 as numbered in the current iteration of the article are enough to establish notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "Jews of Brooklyn" book has a couple of short paragraphs describing him, which is OK. The "The Future of Folklore Studies in America: The Urban Frontier" paper, however, is, as far as I can see, nothing more than a namedrop that does not actually describe or discuss him at all, and is certainly not significant coverage. Doing some searches for both of the names the article states he performed under turned up very little, and that one OK-ish book source alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the press in China

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

Per WP:OVERLAP. Everything in this article is already covered in censorship in China and mass media in China. At best, pieces of this article could be moved into those two, but there's really no purpose for a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why are you suggesting we should not do what you say is "at best"? Thincat (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm not sure whether the overlap is too much for separate articles to make sense, but this is a likely search term and the topic is notable, so it shouldn't be deleted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important page from Category:Freedom of the press by country, especially because of the wide spread censorship in China. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by best wishes, we have articles on this subject on several countries from a variety of places both with high and low press freedoms. In terms of notability, when there is a whole book written about this subject GNG is clearly met. There is opportunity for expansion, for example elaborating more on the history of press freedom in China, and how it has become more and/or less free from the emperor era to today. Jumpytoo Talk 00:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Keep notable and important subject with delimited subject matter. Although it overlaps with related articles, this does not necessarily describe a policy based reason for deletion. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (selective merge possible) as this article is duplicative as the nominator has stated. We already have target articles: censorship in China and mass media in China. Bruxton (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice of building consensus in the article talk page for a merge, which can happen without AFD. MarioGom (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a something that would likely be of interest to many people searching on Wikipedia. If there are concernes that the article is too short/unsourced, a discussion to redirect or merge the article can be started later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 02:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crungus

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

AI "creature" similiar to Lobe. Barely any info on it and it could possibly be redirected into that article. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Internet. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and some of the sources are in depth. This passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the sources. They point to conversation on twitter, but such as it is, there is media coverage of some guy talking on twitter about this AI art experience. That passes GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron Robotics

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

Small company covered only by brief mentions in a couple local newspapers. Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another nondescript company; no evidence of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage.LibStar (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Driving Licence (film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfiee

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The film has not been released yet. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Driving Licence (film), which it is a remake of. While principal photography has begun, available coverage thus far is purely routine and does not establish notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Driving Licence (film) as a WP:ATD per Rosguill. Per WP:NFILM, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. In this case refs are routine announcements listing cast, stating that production has began, the released date etc... and does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Chamis

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A "before" search shows passing mentions as a cast member, but I was not able to find anything in depth about her. No apparent significant roles in multiple notable films, or other productions. Archer1234 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find much sources that prove the actor's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also couldnt find much about the actor. Fails all above.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper Brewing Company

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage. Only existed for 5 years. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find sources that prove the article's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the same as above. No reliable sources to help the page. --多少战场龙 (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some breweries, even local ones, are notable; this is not one of them. BD2412 T 02:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten Track Brewery

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

Fails WP:CORP. Coverage is only local as per WP:AUD. Created by a single purpose editor so possible WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't find anything to suggest that it's any more notable than any average one of the thousands of other small craft breweries in Australia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. I could not find a single RS via a NewsBank database search (wider and deeper than Google) nor via Google. The single source on the page is good but not sufficient to meet notability guidelines. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some breweries, even local ones, are notable; this is not one of them. BD2412 T 02:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutchmor Public School

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the oldest public school in Ottawa. That is notable. 65.94.103.54 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say public elementary school. 65.94.103.54 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make it notable even if its old, there are countless wikipedia articles that have been deleted even if they are from the 1900s.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If indeed this is the oldest school in the province or country and reliable independent secondary sources can be found for that, this !vote will become a keep. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is an assertion of notability for this school.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building is a registered heritage site, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act [19]. Template perhaps needs updating. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is already indicated in the article, but without sourcing. It has a link to the historicplaces.ca listing at the bottom of the article, but needs inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If one was so inclined, you could poke around the by-law section of the City of Ottawa's website and get a copy of the by-law that would explain why it was registered; I've dealt with many municipalities in Ontario and the by-laws are easily found. Ottawa's seem to be hidden, or "they are somewhat digitized, but not entirely so". I wish you luck if you take this particular route. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING as a registered heritage site.4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WP:NBUILDING.

I just did some light editing and sourcing. Other stuff I found, about which I'm insufficiently sure to put in the article now: this newspaper article from its 50 year anniversary, which I cannot find anywhere except this one website; this article from either a community newspaper or someone's blog (can't tell which) claiming they switched buildings with another school in 2015. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 09:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Huffman

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT; sourcing appears to all be WP:ROUTINE at best; nothing approaching significant. Wikipedia is not a database - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Video games, Motorsport, and North Carolina. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is more than databases as references, including this and this. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these are, respectively, a non-independent press release ("VMS PR" is written at the bottom of the release) and an article covering a video game competition that has only ROUTINE coverage of the subject. These do not meet WP:GNG criteria for notability. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 04:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree Jhawi 3897 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough non-routine WP:SIGCOV already on the article to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 21:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Frank Anchor, there is enough to pass WP:GNG Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Huffman - A lot of the coverage does not seem to be relevant to establishing notability, either being non-independent or from what appear to be blogs. Those that remain all seem to be in the context of "Robert Huffman's son competes in race" from what I can tell, which does not indicate independent notability from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective. User:Jhawi 3897 who do you strongly agree with? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With @GhostOfDanGurney Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage where they talk about this person found; some sourcing for his father it looks like. Sources are mostly confirmation of the races he did, so are simple statistics like time it took him to finish the race. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was content to let the discussion run its course, but with a second relist, I think it's fair to ask Frank Anchor which sources he was referring to earlier. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4 and 5 (which is the same article picked up by multiple outlets so counts as one) offer significant biographical information, ref 7 indicates that he will start for another driver (far from a routine event in NASCAR) in addition to some routine coverage allowing it to go past the GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 13:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's run in the NASCAR Trucks series—if that's not good enough for notability, then why are we even here? Andy Saunders (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NMOTORSPORT; these guidelines were updated recently and the language is such that a full season in Cup is usually what is looked for now. Regardless, they are subordinate to the WP:GNG. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG (most of the sources are primary and are from NASCAR's official website). The coverage currently is WP:ROUTINE at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ROUTINE is a subsection of the notability guideline for events. A person is not an event, and so ROUTINE does not apply here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat, Clay County, Kentucky

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

A former post office that is not on the National Register of Historic Places? And one that "served" a creek? Sources, not surprisingly, are sparse. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the Kentucky placename articles mass-created by this user are not notable, and this appears to be no exception. Post offices are not the same as notable communities. Reywas92^Talk 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find some reference to this as a place, Birth, Birth, but Reywas92 is rarely wrong about these geoland fails. I do not see any RS we can use to write an article and I do not see that this is a populated place on a map. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Under-15 Women's Oceania Championship

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. No third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears to get a lot of coverage in Australia though? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the other similar events nominated, there are several sources found coveraging the competition, such as [20][21][22]. Alvaldi (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Alvadi passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Folino

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

Non-notable director with only two films, BEFORE shows no coverage or critical discussion of the person. Could perhaps redirect to "Sparks (film)", his more notable work. While they don't appear in the article, Rotten Tomatoes shows reviews of the film in Village Voice and a few other publications, so it would pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any in-depth coverage either—just the occasional passing mention in the press. I suppose one could argue that he's notable under WP:NDIRECTOR crit. 3 due to the reviews of his films, but personally I don't find that too compelling: for one thing, those reviews don't discuss the role of Folino himself in enough depth to let us write an encyclopedic article about him, which is ultimately what the notability criteria are all about. And although I'm not averse to a redirect, I'm not convinced it'd be helpful given that Gamers: The Movie and Sparks (film) would both be plausible targets. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South American U18 Women's Basketball Championship

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. No coverage in third party sources. Also nominating:

FIBA South America Under-15 Championship for Women

LibStar (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Some sources exist [23], [24] and [25]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and South America. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Sportsfan 1234 and others such as [26][27][28][29]. I also must disagree with bundling these two together, one is a tournament season article while the other is a article for a separate tournament (although held by the same organization). On a sidenote, in my experience, these competitions generally receive coverage in the participating countries. However, the coverage is often not in english, so it can somtimes be tricky to find them when performing a WP:BEFORE. In this case, Googling for Campeonato FIBA Sudamericano Sub-15 Femenino (or Sub-18) turned up several sources from multiple countries. Alvaldi (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Domínguez

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

Basically unsourced article, tagged as such for a decade. Absolutely no Google news hits, a general Google search returns not much more (and nothing really reliable). Fails WP:NBLP and WP:SIGCOV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find photos of her on various runways, but nothing we can use to build an article here. Beyond simply confirming that she exists, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the only source link provided for the article, I tried to verify the first few items in the "Magazine Covers" section, and it turns out that none of them lines up with the magazine covers that they claim to be. It is pretty clear that the source site Fashion Model Directory can not be used as a reliable source of Information. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I find are just name drops because she was the model in the image. Useless for Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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