Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 25	February 27 >

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. ✗plicit 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tundenny

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

I can't find any coverage in WP:RS for "Tundenny" or for "Sulaimon Babatunde" at all in my searches. The references provided are his social media pages, two unreliable content scrapers and two thinly-veiled press releases. There is no evidence of actual notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree there's a lack of notability here. I poked around, couldn't find much beyond what's in the releases; social media channels are also not very well followed in the grand scheme of things. Needs a lot more to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7, no credible claim of notability.-KH-1 (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable individual, fails WP:GNG. Social-Informers (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails all of Wikipedai′s notability guidelines. ZanciD (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any independent reliable sources either. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, cannot find any SIGCOV about subject. Elbatli (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per comment of KH-1. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find coverage of this individual outside of WP:SPS. There is no indication that he passes WP:NBASIC or WP:NARTIST. This might well be a WP:G11, but we're already this far along in an AfD... — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G7 per Fastily. ✗plicit 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis P. Cholle

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

Author does not seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR- individual lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find enough coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few book reviews for his first book, published by Jossey Bass, "The Intuitive Compass":
- The Intuitive Compass: Why the Best Business Decisions Balance Reason and Instinct. CIO Insight. 2011;(120):32 (One paragraph)
- Andrew Keen - TechCrunch. Keen On. Francis Cholle: Why Entrepreneurs Should Trust Their Guts (TCTV). Chronicle, The (Centralia, WA). November 6, 2011. (two paragraphs)

That book is held in >600 WorldCat libraries; however, the only "bestseller" list I glimpsed he was at #72.

His second book is self-published (Squirtle Academy) and shows up as in exactly one library, plus I don't find any reviews of it. I also don't find anything about his academy or about him. Blurbs relating to his first book say that he teaches at Wharton but I see no sign of him there. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above discussion. Upon Googling, I found a single Today news article from 2017 about him; otherwise, I only see blogs and other unreliable sources. A quick review of social media show zero tweets and even zero likes of tweets about him. On LinkedIn, he has about 6200 followers, not a huge amount in the scheme of things. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Willing

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in RS. Not sure if belltower.news is a RS for blp articles but even if so there's only about 1 paragraph of coverage. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with each and every one of Buidhe's objections to this article's existence, and would add that it's been extremely poorly translated into English, likely from a German-language original. It's probably not a machine translation because even translation algorithms that we know to be problematic for this language pair, such as Google Translate, would have caught "puphlished" and "Philosoph". The translation also contains false friends such as "facist theory" (for "fascist theory"). Because of this, I think the author's proficiency with English is so poor that we can't even be sure the article says what the author meant it to say. This combines with the allegations of far right sympathies to create content that I think is highly problematic on BLP grounds.
If kept we should look for the original and see if we can satisfy ourselves that the text is copyleft or used with permission.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:S Marshall, for more context on the editor's behavior see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Friedjof/Archive. They are banned on dewiki for various issues, and based on past behavior, it's likely this is based on a deleted article over there but as far as I can tell de:Angelika Willing never existed. (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Buidhe: any opinion on the link, if any, to User:Bestof2022? Fram (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I notice similar phrasing and spelling idiosyncracies in Karlheinz Weißmann.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly not, Friedjof/Outdoorbro's MO is to translate articles that dewiki won't let him publish, i.e. ones that have been deleted there. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why I wrote the articel about Angelika Willing: She is one of the very view intellectuals of far-right NPD. She has a proper University education and puplished in a lot of right-wing media. The relevant-regulations are different from German Wikipedia, so there is no articel about her. If you think Angelika Willing is not relevant as author, delete the articel.
A wrd to the source: Belltower is the name of an project of Amadeu-Antonio-Foundation, which is serious institution and so the informations are. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the article had been created at the right title, Angelika Willig instead of Angelika Willing, then people could find both the sources (if any) and the actual fate of the same article on dewiki (yep, deleted as copyvio). But of course, if you are incapable enough to not only machine translate your article, but even your article title (Willig is the German for "willing"...), then it is time to stop dealing with individual articles and to block the involved editor(s) instead, certainly in light of earlier issues and issues at another wiki. Fram (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and that makes this article a lightly obfuscated copyvio of an article that the blacklist won't let me link, but the url is de.metapedia.org/wiki/Willig%2C_Angelika, from the right-wing "encyclopaedia" Metapedia. I looked at it briefly and couldn't see any reason to think Metapedia's content is licenced under the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but that is not the case. I did not take anything from Metapedia (which is an right-wing site). Please make a decision, if you want to keep the articel - than I put more effort in - or if you going to delete it. Thanks. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find that doubtful.
      You
      
      "Up from 1994 to 1996 and from 2002 to 2004 willing puphlished texts in the main newspaper of German Neue Rechte „Junge Freiheit“."
      
      Metapedia
      
      "Von 1994 bis 1998 and von 2002 bis 2004 betreute Willig das Kulturressort der Wochenzeitung Junge Freiheit."
      
      belltower.news
      
      "1994–1996 und 2002–2004 schrieb Willig für die neurechte Wochenzeitung „Junge Freiheit“"
      
      You
      
      "Up from 2002 she also writing for „Nation und Europa“ and for NPD-newspaper „Deutsche Stimme“ (DS)."
      
      Metapedia
      
      "Seit ihrem Ausscheiden bei der JF publiziert sie auch in der Monatszeitschrift Nation und Europa und schrieb für die NPD-Parteizeitung Deutsche Stimme (DS)"
      
      belltower.news
      
      "ab 2002 publiziert Willig auch in der rechtsextremen Monatszeitschrift „Nation und Europa“ und schreibt für die NPD-Parteizeitung „Deutsche Stimme“ (DS)."
      
      You
      
      "Willing puphlished in a number of far right publications like Criticon, Münchener Freiheit and "eigentümlich frei"."
      
      Metapedia
      
      "Sie schrieb u. a. auch für die Junge Freiheit, Criticon, Münchener Freiheit und eigentümlich frei. "
      
      belltower.news
      
      "Sie schrieb u.a. auch für die Junge Freiheit, Criticon, Münchener Freiheit und eigentümlich frei."
    - Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find her mentioned in books and articles about the German right-wing but I don't find anything substantial about her. Even the metaverse article does not have what we would consider sufficient sources. Lamona (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see notability on the page as written, it is an orphan and in this case I am nervous about using Belltower as a reliable source. Gusfriend (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Mørtlund

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

Fails GNG and NOLYMPICS. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of notability, either provided or available in a search - note that Olympedia has their name as Morten Mørland, not Morten Mørtlund. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect - Move it to Morten Mørland. Also notable to having competed in the Olympics despite not medaling. I thought we wanted biographies on every Olympic competitor even if they did not medal. Chris (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last October we decided that in fact having a biography on everyone of the 150,000+ people who have competed in the Olympics (that may be a very low estimate) is just not doable. We require significant coverage for every article, which is lacking here, and only Olympic medalists are presumed notable. Even if this person had been a medalists we would still want something more than just sports reference . com. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of sports data pages masquerading as biographies, which is exactly what this page is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet NSPORT or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tibbetts

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

I'm not seeing anything here that amounts to an NPROF pass. Once you filter out a few unrelated people – an ophthalmologist and an astrophysicist – the citation results for this individual (Michael F. Tibbetts) aren't too impressive, particularly since he's not the lead author on most of these articles and since biochemistry is a fairly high-citation field. Tibbetts doesn't appear to pass the GNG or any other NPROF criteria (no named chair; no noteworthy awards; etc.), so he does not seem to be notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a poorly-written CV. And Wikipedia is not a resume. KidAd • SPEAK 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only complaint were that this reads like a cv, I would point to WP:DINC. But his citation record on Google Scholar is too weak for WP:PROF#C1 (following nominator's advice to use the middle initial to disambiguate from the somewhat better cited Michael D. Tibbetts) and I see nothing beyond that to point to any other form of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of both scientific citations and significant independent coverage make me believe he fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no mention of this scholar or his supposed research in my AP Bio textbook. I'm literally wrapping up today the unit in genetics, evolution, and development, and I've never heard of this person or the PTM1 gene. I found a single image on Research Gate. He is an associate professor. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of a WP:NPROF pass from what I can find. My search for sources similarly turns off a fail for WP:NBASIC, so I don't think that this individual is notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Johnson

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

Non-notable, private person

This person is non-notable and private, I am related to this woman and she is asking for its' removal.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears genuinely to have quite a low profile online; the sources in the article aren't great, and there seems no enormous value in retaining the article (which in any case contains a wildly inappropriate level of detail about her school career etc.), certainly not against the subject's wishes. Of course we would retain the article anyway were she obviously notable, but although no doubt a lovely person, I don't think she's notable in the WP sense. Elemimele (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps the article should never have been created, as the creating editor has a very similar editor name to the relation who is now asking for it to be deleted, so probably created with COI. She seems to have blogged until 2016, but the last archived version of that blog site seems to be this in 2019, nothing online now. I wish her well and hope that her blog helped other people living with lupus. PamD 11:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Teresa Johnson died from lupus in 2019: see here. May or may not be the same person. PamD 11:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; of marginal notabilty, and personal privacy should prevail. Kablammo (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; As I checked out, subject does not meet GNG.ZanciD (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she's dead, I really don't think that there's a WP:BLP-related privacy issue here that should be accounted for. However, she fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NJOURNALIST as far as I can tell, so I'm inclined to delete the page anyway. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not address the reason for the nomination (lack of sourcing). Sandstein 14:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minna Rautajoki

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

Following a recent RfC, the Fed Cup was removed from WP:NTENNIS and therefore Rautajoki no longer has automatic notability. Also worth mentioning that she only played in regional group games in 1999 Fed Cup Europe/Africa Zone according to BJK Cup rather than the latter stages of the tournament. The 10K doubles tournaments don't confer notability either.

I conducted a few searches and found mostly database and stats coverage. A Finnish search yielded one decent source; HS but it's little more than a basic match report. We wouldn't keep sportspeople in other fields with so little coverage so I'm struggling to see a good keep argument here unless other sources turn up. WP:GNG does not appear to be met on current evidence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This player meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. A tennis player is presumed notable if he/she:

Has competed in one of the international team competitions: Billie Jean King Cup vs fed cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup. User:Vecihi91^{User talk:Vecihi91} 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG even mildly. It has been established in multiple forums that meeting a sports SNG but failing GNG means we need to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This rule still applies so it's ridiculous to be nominated for deletion.User:Vecihi91^{User talk:Vecihi91} 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines is a WikiProject essay and not an official policy or guideline and certainly not a 'rule' in any sense. The fact that this article fails the SNG (WP:NTENNIS) and general notability (WP:GNG) is way more important. Do you have any significant coverage of this player at all? I've struck your second vote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of the Helsingin Sanomat digital archive finds a billion match results, but also these (paywalled, titles translated): "Minna Rautajoki barges to the tennis Finnish national championship finals" (~200 words), "Minna Rautajoki continues to surprise" (~300 words), "Minna Rautajoki wins the 14-year olds' tennis championship (~100 words). Seems somewhat borderline: not massive coverage, but more than passing mentions. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these. I'm still leaning delete for now but it does show that there is at least some coverage of her that could add a sentence or two to a bio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a perfectly valid stance to take. On the other hand, I would probably also find a stance of "barely scrapes by" undertandable. It really is annoyingly borderline. I really can't say I'd personally oppose either outcome :/ Philosophically this feels like something I'd like to merge to another article, but I can't think of a good target. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something like List of Finnish tennis players existed then it'd be a great merge & redirect location. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vecihi91 do you have any evidence of significant coverage for Rautajoki? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:13, 26 February 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 00:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhtar Chorfi

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

Fails the notability test. There are plenty of sources that confirm that Mokhtar Chorfi directed a film called Queen Lear in 1980 (we don't have an article for the film) but these sources are all basically databases. I find no coverage of significant depth about Mokhtar Chorfi or for that matter Queen Lear which, according to the databases, is his sole film. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Shroyer

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG or BLP PepperBeast (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, not a lot of sourcing to be had for this one. Web searches turn up little to nothing. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I found a few sources on Google News and [1], but little on Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bramwell Long

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG PepperBeast (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This is a strange nomination, since we have two reliable sources given in the article already. Perhaps the nominator did not believe they provided significant coverage of the subject - in that case, here is another: [2] Whether it "meets" WP:BLP or not is a completely different matter, and not grounds for deletion. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:Basic so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improper nomination, when WaPo and Chicago Trib have profiles in the article at time of nomination. Looks a bit flowery, but not so promotional that it would have to be fundamentally rewritten, and WP:DINC. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to references in article and his notable position, passes WP:GNG.ZanciD (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long is mentioned a few times in a WP long article about a church - the article is not about him and does not give much information about him. The Chicago Tribune is a dead link (did anyone else check this?), and both that (from its citation) and the Battle Creek Inquirer are about the deaths of his children and how that affected his family (not just him). Searches don't pull up anything more. I can't see how he reaches notability. Lamona (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can see the Tribune article just fine. St Anselm (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Parades

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 26 February 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 00:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utalk

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

Non-notable mobile phone software. PepperBeast (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 26 February 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 00:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nickie Lum Shapira

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

This article was created on 1 November 2011. Within two minutes of being created, User:OlYeller21 nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:G11. User:Kudpung reviewed this nomination and declined it the next day, saying that it "makes claims to notability" (being, perhaps, a little confused between A7 and G11). Kudpung then proposed it for deletion under BLPPROD. Two days later, User:The-Pope added sources:- this one (which appears to be a wordpress blog which accepts user-submitted content), and one that no longer exists but appears not to be independent. The-Pope then tagged it as requiring various kinds of improvement and "possibly" not being notable. Then nobody did anything substantive for ten years. I put it to the community that this article has never met our inclusion criteria. —S Marshall T/C 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, found nothing talking about this person. Jumpytoo Talk 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's now apparently Nickie Lum Davis, under which name she's received a fair amount of press coverage (e.g. [3]) related to her guilty plea on charges of illicit foreign lobbying. That coverage is still fairly minimal, and I think both WP:NOTNEWS and BLP sensitivities counsel against retaining such an article based solely on her legal woes. Since my search for coverage pertaining to her business career was unavailing, deletion is in my view the best choice. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources for "Consultant charged in covert lobbying of Trump officials". WP:BLP1E says:
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Reliable sources cover her only in the context of this event, she is and remains a low-profile individual (Rachel Maddow said, "Nickie is Nickie Lum Davis, who is not a famous person. There's no reason you would have heard her name in the news."), and the event is not significant.
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NuSphere

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

I didn’t find sig coverage in reputed sources. I am not sure about the software product they created that also has a page. Might also not be notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Nevada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 26 February 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 00:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renasant Financial Partners

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

Doesn’t meet company notability policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability whatsoever, as noted. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tiny, 25-employee firm that was briefly listed on an exchange. I've taught middle school classes that had more students. Fails WP:NCORP rather badly. Potential WP:BLP violations mentioning connections to scandals. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AusRegistry International

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

Only because it is subsidiary of one notable company, it is not notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:22, 26 February 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 00:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Chaturvedi

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

No important roles for notability. Only small roles. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Can't find sources on subject. Mommmyy (talk) 07:36, 27 February 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 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kahaner

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

Not a notable person. Writing one report doesn’t mean that the person will become notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. He seems to have gotten some publicity in 1992-1993, per Google news, but he had his 15 minutes of fame. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ringwood. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ringwood Town Council

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

Small local town council, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are the criteria that define "small" for town councils in England and thus justify deletion of pages? Not having the general power of competence? A category "parish councils of England" exists with 33 pages. Should these all be deleted? A category "Town Councils in Cheshire" exists. Should these pages all be removed? If we're going to remove pages on local government units over perceived small size or importance the there will need to be clear defensible criteria otherwise it makes more sense to leave them be.Ringwodian (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ringwood. There are 9000-odd town and parish councils in England alone, so the fact we've got 33 in a category isn't a very persuasive argument. Some parish and town councils may achieve notability by their actions and scandals reaching the attention of secondary sources. This one hasn't; the article contains nothing but the town's population (in the main article already), a statement that the council run such amenities as the allotments (information leeked to the press?) and cemetery (the subject of many grave council deliberations), and the results of the last election. If we allow articles like this, we're opening the gates to the creation of hundreds of thousands of such articles covering tiny councils the globe over, a stub-creator's paradise, but not much use to anyone else. Elemimele (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do to discourage such awful puns? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just emitted an audible groan. Naturally, I disagree, but as a connoisseur of awful puns, I salute you. Ringwodian (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - definitely don't need every council with its own page, that'd be quite a lot. Certainly could be mentioned on the community page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The size of the area which this council covers is not a reason to delete this article. It's independently sourced and the article can always be expanded in the future. Rillington (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parish councils should normally be covered in the parish its self unless perhaps like Northampton are so large they may need a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ringwood. I'm on the fence regarding whether or not it's notable. However, I think that a better structure for the information would be to place information on the governance of the municipality within the article on the municipality if the whole of the information on its governance structure is approximately two paragraphs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diners of Allentown, Pennsylvania

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

The main source Diners of Pennsylvania profiles 239 diners in the state. I don't think it's encyclopedic to compile these generic non-notable restaurants in this way, among the many other restaurants in the city as well. Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Gusfriend (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The War Room (secret society)

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

aside from the independent article (of which I doubt it's veracity) there is minimal coverage of the war room - this article is also heavily whitewashed/promotional nonsense about what is effectively a red pill version of Mary Kay. CUPIDICAE💕 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Super Ψ Dro 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm still not convinced that this isn't a hoax. Sourcing is inadequate, an inherent problem with a "secret society" that no one knows much about, including whether it actually exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's so secret that it fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax? I could find absolutely nothing on it, except its "official website". The one reference seems to be a dead link. Delete. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masyukur

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

While playing 5 games of football and then disappearing is usually enough, there have been a few recent cases where it was seen as insufficient despite playing 5 games when WP:GNG was failed badly; see Asuka Nose (AfD) and Masato Ishiwa (AfD). An Indonesian source search and Google News returned no relevant WP:RS hits. All that I can find are Soccerway mirrors and Wikipedia mirrors so clearly Masyukur does not meet GNG and falls into that very small group of players that technically meet the low bar of NFOOTBALL but aren't truly notable enough for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 27 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Apparently it is I who am mistaken. Some editors might question the notability of individual townlands in Northern Ireland, which are plots of land often smaller than individual farms, but I see no need.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beagh (Spiritual)

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

The person who wrote this article seems to have been under the impression that Beagh (Spiritual) and Beagh (Temporal) are separate places. On this point they were entirely mistaken. I suspect they may have been confused because Beagh seems to be in one parish for local government purposes and in another parish for church administration purposes. I think someone has made a note to this effect in the article's (only) source which, I suspect, the article creator has taken too literally. In any case, Beagh is one place, and it's a townland—a subdivision of a civil parish. I leave it to the community to decide whether it meets WP:GEOLAND. —S Marshall T/C 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather you are entirely mistaken. Beagh (Spiritual) and Beagh (Temporal) are two seperate townlands that simply have names that have the same origin, in this case the Irish An Beitheach, meaning "place abounding in birch trees". They are also in seperate neighbouring civil and Church of Ireland parishes (Maghera and Killelagh) with quite a few townlands in between them both, though originally most of Killelagh along with the townland of Beagh (Temporal) was part of Maghera, hence the need to distinguish the two. In this case Spiritual refers to the Beagh that is church land [not part of the erenagh land however as far as can be told] of Maghera parish, Temporal refers to the Beagh that was civil land.

All Irish townlands have sub-divisions, each with their own name and in some cases these names were used interchangably with the name they were commonly known as. Some became the name of sub-divisions of townlands that became detached for various reasons. In the case of Beagh (Spiritual) this appears to have been the case for it first appears in any form in the Civil Survey of 1654 and associated with the likewise then apparently new adjacent townland of Tamnymartin, whereby Beagh (Temporal)'s earliest record goes back to 1609 and was originally known in forms similar to Ballynabeagh and only was shortened to Beagh by 1663.

By your logic Cloughfin in Kilcronaghan civil parish and Cloughfin in the neighbouring Ballynascreen civil parish are also the same? Or for two townlands that are directly beside each other in two different parishes what about Ballynahone Beg in Maghera parish and Ballynahone More in Termoneeny parish?

This map shows the clear distance between the two Beagh's, and illustrates my point on the two adjacent yet seperate Ballynahone's. Indeed, PlaceNames NI gives pretty much the same overview as myself. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the aforementioned map and the link to the academic Queens University PlaceNames NI project aren't enough:

From Townlands.ie:

Beagh (Spiritual), electoral division of Maghera, civil parish of Maghera, borders the townlands of Carricknakielt to the east; Curragh to the north; Knocknakielt to the west; Slaghtybogy to the east; Tamnymartin to the north
Beagh (Temporal), electoral division of Swatragh, civil parish of Killelagh, borders the townlands of Culnagrew to the north; Granaghan to the west; Keady to the east; Macknagh to the south; Moneysharvan to the south; Swatragh to the north; Upperland to the south

From the official Irish government department on townlands:

Beagh (Temporal) and Beagh (Spiritual).

At the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland you can search the Valuation books from the latter 19th-century, which clearly has Beagh (Temporal) and Beagh (Spiritual) as seperate townlands. Select County Londonderry and then parish of Maghera as well as Killelagh and go to the index page where the townlands are listed.

1901 census: Beagh (Spiritual) and Beagh (Temporal), note both in seperate District Electoral Divisions [Swatragh and Maghera].

Same for 1911 census: Beagh (Temporal) and Beagh (Spiritual)

Public Records Office of Northern Ireland parish townland lists: Maghera parish and Killelagh parish (downloadable PDF)

Clearly not the same townland. Case close as far as I am concerned. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Knight

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

This appears to be a bit player and stunt double. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and comes nowhere near close enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR#1 — multiple roles in nine films and career span 2007–2021, definitely noteworthy! Nruen (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the guideline says multiple significant roles, I see no evidence that his roles are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 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. Indian sources about people with an interest in being promoted are normally given less weight, see Paid news in India, and people here agree that what coverage there is is marginal. Sandstein 14:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vriddhi Vishal

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

Not yet notable as an actress. Does not pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I resisted this based on her only having minor roles in two movies, one of which has not been released yet. But the coverage in the Times of India (four articles of 3-4 paragraphs each) is on the border of GNG. I cannot comment on the non-English sources, but it looks like barely enough.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't consider the Times of India pieces grounds for notability. TOI publishes very, very many brief fluff pieces like the ones in this article: typically, they contain very little actual information, instead falling back on hyperbole like "It might be hard to find a netizen who hasn’t watched the video of a five-year-old cutie Vriddhi"; they often the same text (compare this and this, both of them used as sources in this article); and they are often centered around Instagram posts by the subject themselves. The Malayalam language sources are the exact same type of texts. Reading the sources we find that she was filmed dancing at a wedding about a year ago, that film became popular online, and her parents have since published some other videos with her on social media. She has also had a role in a movie (Sara's) but it doesn't look as if any of the sources in that article mentions her, so it's unlikely to have been a prominent role. All in all, WP:TOOSOON, especially since this is a very young child so WP:BLPPRIVACY is extra important. --bonadea contributions talk 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly WP:TOOSOON. Small roles in just two movies do not verify notability. 182.77.126.52 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for now as I found reliable sources about her in The Hindu and in Times of India. The article should be edited and expanded properly. But not Delete. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The TOI source is already in the article, and is one of the two articles linked above that is partly the exact same text. The Hindu article is about an entertainment centre, and mentions her name once; it is not about her. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Falls short of WP:NACTOR due to lack of significant roles. Does not meet GNG either per bonadea's analysis. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 26 February 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) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zombivali

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. All coverage seems to be about the team making the film.

PROD removed without addressing the issues. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As per nomination, all references are about making the film. The article is one sentence and a list of the cast, barely even a stub. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFILM. Added full reviews from The Times of India, Scroll.in, and Maharashtra Times which are sufficient to establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews mentioned above which have been used to create a reception section in the article and show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources mentioned above and WP:HEY. My search also found reviews in Lokmat [4], Sakal [5], and Mayapuri [6]. I'm not an expert on the reliability of Marathi-language outlets, but the additional reviews reinforce this film's claim to notability, particularly when combined with the ones Ab207 has found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 26 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silver upholders

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

We seem to have had this article for more than ten years. Err... look at it. —S Marshall T/C 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advertisement, sourced entirely to the company's own advertising WWW site, which does not exist any more, promoting company products in Wikipedia's voice. With financial information from 2011. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement created by a single purpose account. [7]. On the talk page he posted "Feedback welcome!". His user page was deleted already for blatant advertising. Odd when that was done no one checked his contributions and found the other advertisement he had done. Dream Focus 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per provided reasons by Dream Focus. Misasory (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, entirely unsourced and SPAM. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG. Unsourced. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Maxor

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

Similar case to Peter Igesumai and Paul Cantero. Has been capped twice in friendly games for a country that isn't recognised by FIFA or Caribbean Football Union or CONCACAF so doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, at least not in the spirit in which the guideline was intended anyway.

Marginal cases need a WP:GNG pass. This article has a large number of references but some of them don't mention Maxor at all and the rest are only trivial mentions of him. ProQuest has no hits and redirects to 'Anthony Major'. A French search only comes up with profile pages on Companies House-style websites about a business that he started in 2019. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.facebook.com/172355306762101/photos/a.368101210520842/381557435841886	Facebook		✘ No
https://www.journaldesaintbarth.com/actualites/sport/les-diables-rouges-font-vivre-un-enfer-a-fwi-202011231926.html		2 trivial mentions in match report	✘ No
https://www.journaldesaintbarth.com/actualites/sport/las-gustavia-et-la-team-fwi-gardent-le-controle-202103311451.html		Match report brief mentions, no actual analysis of him as an individual	✘ No
https://www.journaldesaintbarth.com/actualites/sport/fwi-le-champion-de-saint-barth-2021-202106171603.html		Only mentioned in passing. Also worth noting that he only seems to get coverage from this one news source.	✘ No
http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/stmartinchamp.html		Not mentioned at all	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=294425727888391&id=172355306762101	Facebook		✘ No
https://www.journaldesaintbarth.com/actualites/sport/une-journee-de-foot-amical-et-engage-au-stade-de-saint-jean-201903211219.html		Mentioned once. Also this is the 4th time that Le Journal De Saint Barth is being used.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 26 February 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. Of note is that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles. Some sources were presented, but nobody else then provided input regarding their veracity relative to notability guidelines. Furthermore, nobody addressed the notion in the nomination that the article is possibly promotional. After two relistings, no consensus has ensued. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Sánchez Peñate

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

Possible promotion of the company. No reliable source that mention the company, except Bloomberg. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Much of it is local and relates to it going into administration, but still passes WP:NCORP. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - currently wholly unsourced, so not ready for mainspace is the best definition for this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as above, there appears to be potential in this topic but the article as currently written is unsourced. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 26 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayan (2022 Film)

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

Prodded, but was removed without any reason given. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NFILM. Nothing significant shows up in a BEFORE search (for Ramayan Mitzoid, to avoid confusion with another film). Mako001 (C) (T) 11:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nothing in the article or a BEFORE search shows this meets NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since it was my PROD deleted. This is just someone trying to get a non-notable newly-created production company mentioned on Wikipedia and started creating articles for the company's recent movies. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Singularity42 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say draftify per WP:ATD-I as it could meet WP:NFO with at least two reviews after the release, but the article just doesn't have any content about the production required for WP:NFF. The plot is WP:CRYSTAL speculation and is not verifiable. Since it fails BEFORE, delete it — DaxServer (t · c) 08:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santrans

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I've performed WP:BEFORE and found only trivial mentions like the following:

briefly mentioned on a warning about franchises
job listings (found lots of these job listings so be aware of false positives)
briefly mentioned in an article about bootleg videos
having a reckless driver hurt several people in a crash
Bus driver and conductor assassinated potentially for personal grudge rather than against the corporation itself

--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found only trivial mentions as well. Since the company does not seem to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KCC Malls. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KCC Mall of Cotabato

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

Non notable geographic feature. Lacks coverage. Tame (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Companies, and Philippines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KCC Mall of Catabato - This shopping mall under construction does not satisfy building notability or general notability.
- This article was created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:DFXYME as not ready for article space, then created in article space again. Review of references shows nothing secondary, only primary sources, the developer and the government, that state that the mall is under construction (and that doesn't make it notable):

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	amcon.com.ph	Web site of mall and its developer	No	Yes		No
2	Philippine Ministry of Labor and Employment	Information on construction of mall	Yes	No	Yes	No
3	Philippine News Agency	Plans for construction of mall	Yes	No	Yes	No

- The article should be deleted and the draft can be kept (which is what the New Page reviewer tried to do). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCC Malls as WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCC Malls for now. Refs. 2 and 3 can be used on that article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCC Malls: Insufficient information or notability to justify a page by itself. Gusfriend (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KCC Malls for now per above as current status is under construction and not yet open to the public, definitely WP:TOOSOON. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no existing article to redirect to. Sandstein 14:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie McNutt

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

This is pretty clearly a person only notable for one event and since that event was their death, they are not likely to be noted for anything else. This was a sad event that sick trolls kept flogging, so I'd add that the victim's family should be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete or Redirect This is a tragic event and I send prayers for strength to the family. The feelings and the views of the family members should be respected and sought. However there appear no other verifiable source to satisfy GNG. If the article is retained I recommend that it redirect to a page with a new title like Death of Ronnie McNutt Incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiNeuro (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 February 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. The one "keep" does not address the reason for deletion. As soon as the organization is mentioned at Union of European Democrats, a redirect and if desired a history restoration to allow a selective merger is possible. Sandstein 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Union (Poland)

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

As far as I'm concerned this association does not meet with notability criteria of notability. Additionally, Young Union has ended its partnership with the mother party Union of European Democrats, which is not mentioned in this article. Moreover, history section includes more information about the history of predecessor of Young Union, not YU itself. The more important reason for deleting this article that it does not prove any actions or occurrences or awards, social activities that would make Young Union enclyclopedic or notable youth political association. The Wolak (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Wolak (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Union of European Democrats. It can be mentioned there, but stand-alone notability doesn't to exist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I would say merge, but the history seems complicated--apparently it was not always a part of Union of European Democrats DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But many of previous described youth wings weren't connected to the YU directyly. Those youth wiing were only ideological "ancestors" of young union but hadn't been bounded to them directly. The Wolak (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: clear as mud. More input would be wonderful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with all organizations, the real question is not about predecessors or affiliations or whatever. The question here is: Is there significant coverage of this organization in reliable independent sources? The answer here is "no". What limited coverage exists about this organization is either not significant or not independent or both. Where the organizational complexity becomes important is in considering possible merge or redirect targets and none seems to be legitimately possible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Zipser

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

1, maybe 2 non-primary non-parachuting related reliable sources (the Emirates News ones). A Google search reveals no more sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in Google Books. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When putting the article together I emailed the Television Academy for confirmation of the Sports Emmy Award, which I received. Quadtripplea (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article (two pages) in the Arizona Daily Star, which together with the Emirates News sources likely puts Zipser over the GNG threshold (although just barely). I'm not sure if the Sports Emmy Award is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO #1 on its own, but it at least helps to reinforce the conclusion that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bailando por un Sueño (Argentine TV series). Relevant content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailando 2020

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

A version in 2020 did not happen and Bailando 2021 is season 15. Anything related to this should be placed in that article. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead and Hosts and judges, but not Cast, to Bailando 2021. Geschichte (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. There is nothing special about it being canceled due to COVID and anything of importance can be included on the Bailando por un Sueno or Bailando 2021. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bailando por un Sueño (Argentine TV series) as there is no need for a separate page. Keeping the page as a redirect will help with the template for the other series. Gusfriend (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed (2008 film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the passing coverage of this film seems to conflate it with Ana Kokkinos' Blessed (2009 film). AllyD (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a Radio Times review here. It seems unlikely that a film with such a strong cast wouldn't have received more coverage. --Michig (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to dig up more reliable sources. This was the only thing I came up with. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No eligible for soft delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's notability enough to keep: Reviews in Radio Times, Sight and Sound, vol. 19, no. 1, 01, 2009, pp. 56, coverage in Berkshire Live and entry in the British Film Institute database Piecesofuk (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sight and Sound magazine review is significant coverage imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaan Buuz

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

Here v. PROD because the language issue merits conversation. I put their about page through google translate, and they don't make the "largest" claim there, which is the only assertion of notability. I can find the cuisine discussed on travel sites and a guide book listing but no coverage of the company. I don't see that this would be DUE within buuz which covers the food item. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of Mongolia is pretty sparse. We should be cautious about deleting this. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally agree, but I can't find anything on which to build an article. Do we have any bilingual editors who can help? Definitely cautious of systemic bias, but sometimes we hit a dead end. Star Mississippi 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no where even close to enough sourcing to justify an article. Coverage of a topic being sparse means we probably lack expets who can spot hoaxes and inacurate information, so in those cases we need to demand good quality sourcing absolutely. We do a greater disservice with false information than none, and we have our gudlines on corporation coverage to justify an article for a reason, and this article comes no where near close to meeting those guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP by any measure. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 28 February 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, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Ji Won

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and subject also fails GNG for the fight info is merely routine report HeinzMaster (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another MMA fighter who lacks significant independent coverage and therefore fails to meet WP:GNG. With no top tier fights and a fightmatrix ranking of #81 he also fails to meet any criteria of WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Papaursa. Fails GNG and NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I did a Newspapers.com search and couldn't find anything beyond routine coverage. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 15:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 03:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Grishenko

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and subject also fails GNG for the fight info is merely routine report HeinzMaster (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight results, databases, and fight promotions do not constitute significant independent coverage so WP:GNG is not met. He has zero top tier fights and a fightmatrix ranking of #117, so WP:NMMA is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:MMATIER, has not fought in the requisite number of top tier fights to meet NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning a silver medal in wrestling at the World Junior Championships and a gold medal (though it was later stripped) in wrestling at the European Championships should make this person notable, I would think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that a degree of notability has been established by winning a silver medal at the World Junior Wrestling Championship and having won a gold medal at the European Games that was later stripped.

Comment Junior championships are not considered notable in martial arts discussions. WP:NSPORT talks about competing at the highest level, which junior never is, and WP:MANOTE specifically talks about adult level only. The fact that he was disqualified because of drug use nullifies his whole achievement, which occurred at the European Games and not the European Wrestling championships which were held two months earlier and won by Rıza Kayaalp, who didn't even compete at the European Games. Grishenko didn't qualify for the European wrestling championships (Belarus was represented by Ioseb Chugoshvili). Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 03:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand why the page has to be removed. The reference source is there. But why should I delete it? I really don't understand LSS 2552 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiamrian Abbasov

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and subject also fails GNG for the fight info is merely routine report HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is the current ONE FC welterweight champion. ONE FC is a major MMA organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.33.246.251 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. All I find is fight results, database entries, and publicity put out by OneFC (not independent). He also fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has zero top tier fights and a fight matrix ranking of #61. Being a OneFC champion does not meet any notability criteria (and is another example of why OneFC is not considered top tier). Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for failing both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chandigarh. There is no consensus on merging to a specific section within the article, so please use common sense in accomplishing the merger appropriately. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Chandigarh

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

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. A notable topic, about a popular tourist city. Enough coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chandigarh#Culture. I think these are appropriate things to list, but perhaps better in context. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chandigarh#PlacesofInterest major places and attractions list should be merged. — B203GTB (talk) • 14:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chandigarh#Culture: Much better as part of the city page. Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chandigarh without redirecting to a specific section; some of it can be included in culture, others in landscape, etc. The article shouldn't be kept however as Wikipedia is not travel guide. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bhubaneswar. Any content that is not present in the redirect target and may be worth including can be merged from the history of the deleted list, though there is no consensus to merge any specific pieces of content from the list into the Bhubaneswar article at this time. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Bhubaneswar

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

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhubaneswar#Culture where most of these are named. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhubaneswar: Much better presented in the context of the city. Gusfriend (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bhubaneswar. Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisling Stephenson

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

This biographical article was created on 20th September 2011. 18 minutes after its creation, it was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:A7. This was declined on the basis of a marginal claim of significance in the article, but the declining editor tagged it with BLPPROD because it was unsourced. 9 days later, someone added a citation to a youtube video and declined the BLPPROD.

Nearly 11 years have gone past since then, and nobody has added a fresh source. I couldn't find a satisfactory one. Would anyone else like to try? —S Marshall T/C 01:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 01:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective source. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. In terms of GNG, there is no evidence that the subject is covered in any news or other mainstream sources (Subject is Irish and from Cork, but seemingly not covered at all in any Irish newspapers: Irish Times zero results, Irish Examiner zero results.) In terms of NMUSIC, there is similarly no coverage in Irish music sources (which typically otherwise cover everyone and every even minor event). For example Hot Press zero results and IMRO zero results. In sources like discogs.com and allmusic.com subject has barely a handful of credits. There is no indication that the subject has charted anything anywhere. There are no sources to support the text. Not to mind support a notability claim. (Note/update; The discogs.com entry suggests that the subject may also perform or be known as "Aisling Iris". And so I redid the above general/muso news searches for that name. Same result. Irish Times = nothing, Irish Examiner = nothing, IMRO = nothing, Hot Press = nothing.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator has an incisive description of this article's history. The article has been sitting here for a decade because its creator thought that an unverified statement about one songwriting credit was enough to establish notability. Well, better late than never. Back in 2011 this article should have flunked the WP:TOOSOON standard for someone who was then just getting started. Now, her music is only visible at basic social media and self-upload sites and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 28 February 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.