Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 20	November 22 >

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 redirect to Ali Shariati#Major works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections of Humanity

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

I don't see how this lecture is notable in any way. There is nothing stating why it's notable or important to anything. Why does this have an article? I have never done this before, so please go easy on me if I am missing something. Woworiginal (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shariatism as an alternative to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ali Shariati where this is mentioned in a list as one of his works. I would oppose a "merge" because this article as it stands, is a completely unsourced WP:OR based entirely on the primary source. Joyous! | Talk 22:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you prefer this redirect over the other suggested? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think either would be fine. If I was looking up that work, and there was no article for it, I would rather read about the author, then hit the link to the philosophy, in that order. I don't have a strong feeling, other than it should be a redirect to either one of those, instead of a merge. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ali_Shariati#Major_works. There is a mention there. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 01:15, 22 November 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!} 20:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation

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

Declined prod. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although small, this organisation appears to have played an influential role in campaigning in the 1980s.
- Forging Environmentalism: Justice, Livelihood, and Contested Environments (book) has coverage of KSMTS from page 224 to 234. Although not entirely about KSMTS, an awful lot of it is.
- Studies on the Role of Fishermen's Organizations in Fisheries Management (UN paper) is similarly partially about KSMTS from page 37 to page 40.
- This Ecologist article also appears to bave significant coverage over three pages, but is only available in snippet view on gbooks.
- Interrogating Communalism: Violence, Citizenship and Minorities in South India (ebook) has something non-trivial.
- Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development (book) talks about the KSMTF specifically from page 238 to page 241 and continues to talk about throughout the rest of that chapter.

If you are searching for sources yourself, I recommend using "KSMTF" as the search term because there is a multitude of ways the full name is rendered. It's also worthwile searching for the English translation of the name – "Kerala Independent Fishworkers Federation". SpinningSpark 12:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources above show enough notability that the article's subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I couldn't find much more, but what's listed above seems sufficient for establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 22 November 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 Move. Delete and moving it to project space have the same outcome as keeping this out of mainspace, for which we have consensus. I'm moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of National Football League players with unidentified given names, but if project participants or other editors find a different home is better, that can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with unidentified given names

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Nobody outside Wikipedia compiles a list of players so obscure their first names aren't known. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely insignificant and trivial list. I’d support speedy delete if there are any criteria along the lines of A7 that cover lists, but I don’t think there are. Frank Anchor 00:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's the same exact list for MLB players, which was formerly an FA, which was the reason I created this. If this should go so should the MLB list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per “oh come on”. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And yes the MLB list should go even if featured quality. Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh come on" is a rather childish tone for an encyclopedia discussion, don't you think? Not everyone cares about the same things that you care about. That said, your appeal to WP:INDISCRIMINATE is much worse. Nothing at that page pertains to this situation. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Making matters worse, you have also used it as part of the basis for your nomination of the baseball list. Please stop misusing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not mean what you think it means. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spirit applies here. It’s trivial data/raw facts without meaningful explanation of why it’s relevant. Dronebogus (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that more explanation would be ideal, but even so the connection is tenuous. The relevant prong of INDISCRIMINATE is Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. That paragraph further explains that the key concerns are readability and reader confusion. This list is perfectly readable, and I doubt if any reader would find it confusing. I see your point, but I still think INDISCRIMINATE isn't a good reason to delete this list. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The plurality of these played for the Hammond Pros, who "were little more than a semi-professional outfit; most of the players were locals who had full-time jobs and couldn't practice much, and thus were simply no match for most other NFL squads." Why does anyone care enough to compile this? The folks who kept the stats apparently didn't care enough to record full names. No sources treat this as a notable group. Reywas92^Talk 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. With the increasing propensity for old sources to be digitized and made accessible, in time it may become possible to fully identify some of those listed here. However, without the list to work from in some space, those connections will not be made. BD2412 T 16:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space per BD2412. That said, record-keeping in the early years of the NFL was not as good as it was for baseball, so I'm not too optimistic here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to project space. Aside from all the arguments above, the given sources only show that this particular source doesn't have a name on record, not that the name is unknown period. Rusalkii (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. I don't think this is indiscriminate information but remove the page from main space and put it where interested editors might have access to the content. If, then, editors interested in the NFL there truly believe it is worthless, they can go through MFD. That's not kicking the can down the road, it's just changing the participants reviewing the content from our loyal AFD crowd to those editors who care about the NFL and its history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 28 November 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. Keep, given work done on the article since its AFD nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Weekender

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

Fails WP:GNG, it is a newspaper but I cant find any notablility of it. It is just a small newspaper comapny that does not need a wikipedia page and the article itself is messy and when you read it sounds like someone copy and pasted it. Promotional article from the word choice to the overall feel.

'Currently we have over 21,000 Facebook followers and growing. It is a paid for tabloid newspaper costing €2.30 You will find it in homes and business premises throughout County Sligo as well as North Roscommon, North Leitrim and South Donegal and along the Mayo/Sligo border. The Sligo Weekender is honored to be a Six-time winner of a European Design Award, a title for which hundreds of newspapers across the EU compete for every year'.

This is literally copy and pasted and is promotional. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Companies, and Ireland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well there's this, not the most flattering coverage of the paper [1], [2] second is minor coverage. This appears to be about the newspaper [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this [4]. Seems like controversy seems to follow the paper around, but it's probably at GNG with these. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Still the article is written promotionally and the sources that you provided barely mention the newspaper.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d agree with User:Oaktree b; it’s Notable, given some of the controversies highlighted, also that it’s unusual in being an independent (and not an Independent) newspaper. I’d agree that the article needs a good clean-up, removal of promotional material and general fixing up. The.Q^(t)(c) 10:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In terms of the nomination, while the content was overtly promotional (in both tone and intent), deletion is not cleanup. In terms of the sources provided by Oaktree b I would note that only the RTÉ archive example contributes to notability. Otherwise, in my own WP:BEFORE, I have found more than a few pieces of coverage where the newspaper was sued (by people) or sanctioned (by the courts) for significant errors in reporting. However, the coverage of these issues, alone, does not "add up" to notability. All that being said I (also) found (and added) several sources which are largely independent of the subject and deal with the subject as a primary topic. In particular the RTÉ coverage of opening (1983/84), Irish Times coverage of sale to TCH (1996), Irish Examiner coverage of sale by TCH (2010). Mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following work by Guliolopez, I believe notability is achieved, albeit by a slim margin. SeoR (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Wearing

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), under any of the criteria listed there. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks well WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2017 PhD and newly minted lecturer. For WP:NAUTHOR, the one book looks like a good start, and it looks like redirection to a stub on the book could be an alternative to deletion, but I think it's a WP:BLP1E for the author. Little sign of GNG or of other notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete His one book was published in 2018 but has only 30 citations in G-scholar. That's about all there is for scholarship and it doesn't meet NPROF. I don't find any 3rd party sources about him; most of what is here are bios that accompany non-academic journal articles, and those are usually submitted by the author himself. Lamona (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON Alex-h (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misere, Wisconsin

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

A possibly nonexistent community in Wisconsin without so little as a GNIS entry. From what I know, the vast majority of unincorporated communities like these are listed on GNIS, and the fact this isn't is what makes this suspicious. The only sources I could find regarding a geographical feature with the name 'Misere' in Wisconsin is Misere Road, which is mentioned in this article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll re-review. I have since added a few references. You are correct this entry is mostly for historical and geographical reference as the community today is not as prosperous as it once was.

Steve54301 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources that have been added since the AfD was started do not support this being an article. The two online sources describe a road not an unincorporated community. There were no page numbers listed for the two offline books so I had to do some digging, but Hjalmar Rued Holand's 1933 Wisconsin's Belgian Community mentions Miere twice on page 72, referencing "the Misere neighborhood". In Math S. Tlachac's 1974 The History of the Belgian Settlements in Door, Kewaunee and Brown Counties (I was able to view the fifth printing from 2007) Misere is mentioned on page 17 in an image caption describing "the first Misere grade school" and on page 25 describing "St Michael's in Misere". That page 25 mention in the Tlachac source is the only one that could possibly be taken to describing anything other than a neighborhood informally named after a street, and given that the author was an amateur geneologist I don't think any claim made there should be at face value without additional supporting evidence, and that's only if you choose to read it as "St Michael's in [the town of] Misere" and not "St Michael's in [the neighborhood of] Misere". A neighborhood is not an unincorporated area, and as far as I can tell by looking online, "Misere, Wisconsin" has never existed. Even these references however, are trivial mentions; there's not even enough context to know what they're talking about beyond the most basic information found in passing mentions, so even as the name of a neighborhood it's not a notable subject. It's not a legally recognized place so there's no automatic notability there, and per WP:GEOLAND as a neighborhood it must meet WP:GNG, which this one does not. - Aoidh (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wisconsin : its counties, townships & villages (https://worldcat.org/title/932347689) Doesn't have it listed, so you may be correct in that this should be classified as a neighborhood instead of a unincorporated community. Can such a neighborhood be documented on wikipedia? --Thanks

Steve54301 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND such a neighborhood would need to meet WP:GNG, which is to say that it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This neighborhood does not meet that criteria, at least not with the sources in the article or what I was able to find online. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.algomapubliclibrary.org/ and https://www.doorcountynewspapers.org/ both had weekly Misere community columns. Note its also spelled "Misiere". Steve54301 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A weekly community column is not an independent source for that community; most communities have a "what's going on in your community" thing in some capacity and a community paper is affiliated with said community. Also said sources tend to discuss things going on within the community, they do not go into detail about the neighborhood as a whole. - Aoidh (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a road and not a community. There is not enough RS for this the pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe2

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

PROD contested by author. Local company with no footprint beyond its local area. All sources in the article bar one are press releases and other non-independent sources. The one exception is a mention in a BBC News article about the opening of the building the company is based in. Several other brief news reports cover the same event but none cover the company in depth. The notability criteria for companies are not met. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. I had declined the draft, and then renamed it. It is possible the author didn't like the new name and tried to rename it back but it ended up in mainspace. I was in the process of draftifying due to their COI when the AfD tag was added. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, obvious WP:NCORP fail. Thparkth (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Also WP:PROMO applies here. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I don't think that's entirely fair. Although I'm guessing the author has a connection to the company, the content of the article appears to be mostly neutral and factual. The reason we're having this discussion is that the subject doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete it. Luke 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1924. Without prejudice against recreation should SIGCOV be found. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Clow

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 11 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. A redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1924 is a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think its likely that Clow has a bio in the offline Leatherheads of the North: The True Story of Ernie Nevers & the Duluth Eskimos. Also, what's interesting about Clow is that he was only five foot four, which makes him tied for fourth-shortest NFL player ever ([5]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- His height is interesting trivia, but it's not SIGCOV. What makes you believe that there would likely be a bio of a one-game player in the Leatherheads book? Cbl62 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's been several books about defunct NFL teams advertised in the Pro Football Researchers Magazine (I own some of their editions), and in each of those books I've had access to, all of the players had biographies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has persisted as a SIGCOV-less sub-stub for 11 years. If and when somebody cares enough to do the work, and if it turns out that your speculation is correct, the article could be revived at that time. However, at this time, there is a complete, total, and absolute failure of WP:SPORTBASIC and the article should be either redirected or deleted. Personally, I favor redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. I agree with their assessment, but if SIGCOV does come to light, please ping me. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 14:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the nominator suggests. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 27 November 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. And apparently history merge suggested in nomination statement has been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Romeo

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

Created by copy and paste move. Disputed draftification (draftified by DoubleGrazing earlier today). History Merge requested. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Urgh. I knew I should have just brought this here.) Fails GNG as per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I find no sources, will depend on others who can speak Thai to confirm there are none in that language as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to this source [6], it is the highest rating for TV drama this year for Channel 3 (the most popular TV channel in Bangkok) and should remain true till today as the series after it was failure rating-wise [7] and the currently on air gets about 60% of the rating [8]. The series name is a rather common term (meaning being you) so the search with leading actors would be better search. Google news search [9] gives 3400 news coverage for the term. These are results from sites recognized by google as news sources. At least the first 10 pages are news for the series. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lerdsuwa. The Standard's article (Lerdsuwa's first link) provides analysis of the positive and negative reception, and clearly goes beyond the rehash of press releases common to Thai entertainment news. Also has coverage in The Straits Times.[10] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Lerdsuwa's analysis. I can't read Thai so I'll trust their interpretation. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: You can't !vote twice, so you'd need to strike one of them. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's twice today I've done that. One has been crossed out. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 21 November 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. Suitable redirect pages have already been created to replace this title. If an editor wishes to create an appropriate DAB page or a different redirect at this page title, pleae feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Angels

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

Deleted through PROD some years ago due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG and it still fails general notability. From searches, all I can see if that this song WP:EXISTS yet can find nothing close to WP:SIGCOV once you skim past the database-like entries and streaming sites. As a title, it seems a bit too ambiguous to be an appropriate redirect so would suggest deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave up trying to find sources, this name is about as common as they come. I tried finding info showing if it had charted, I don't think it did, at home or anywhere else in the world. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If deleted, this term will just go to Christmas angels, and I made Christmas Angels (EP) and Christmas Angels (Clannad EP) just now so there should be no worries about needing to make this a redirect. QuietHere (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB (or redirect to Christmas Angel). Why not make it a DAB page? To include Christmas angels, Clannad and perhaps the The Carpenters: A Christmas Portrait articles. Likely with a DAB-crosslink ("see also") to Christmas Angel (also a DAB page). If deleted, in all honesty, it is likely to be recreated again (either as a redirect to one of the above, or a DAB page or similar). Clearly there have been several editors who considered that some form of DAB is needed.... Guliolopez (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: If another editors feels they could create a DAB subsequent to the afd, then that is their choice, providing it is suitable. That isn't a discussion for AfD necessarily as there are potentially other uses too (like RD to the non-plural DAB as you note). To avoid complication, unless the !vote is a specific redirect suggestion, it's best to stick to discussing the current article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas angels per WP:CHEAP. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1920. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Meadow

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 13 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. We don't even have his years of birth or death. All we supposedly know is that a database indicates that he played one game of football for the Canton Bulldogs in 1920. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1920, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a mention of the game he played in ([11]), but unfortunately no SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. I did a before search and couldn't find any coverage of this subject. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the nominator suggests. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Portugues Vieira

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

Created by the subject himself, either needs serious updating and rewriting, or to be deleted because it doesn't meet notability

Nswix (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soccer player with the same name, nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources to show that WP:GNG is met. His claims of being a two time Pan-American champion are not supported by the sources given and he does not appear in results at the IBJJF website for either the 2002 or 2003 championships. I could find no record of him at any world championship event. The fact that this article appears to be autobiographical is another mark against it. He appears to have some accomplishments to be proud of, but nothing shows he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadeck Waff

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

Doesn't appear to meet biographical notability. A before shows more of the same present, name checks but noting in depth or to indicate a level of creative notability. Star Mississippi 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, and France. Star Mississippi 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete and utter fabrications wrt notability, sourced to nonsense, blackhat SEO (if even that) and otehrwise non-rs. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough sourches. U can delete some of them, which u think can not be notable. And please check the all sourches. LoveInDance (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sadeck Waff is Shakira's choreographer. He became famous after working with Shakira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khura14 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of dancer articles that looks like CV. this person did a lot for Dance-Art. Even his dance orchestra what he was created were announced by so many and different news, magazines. Check it by yourself. If u dont beleive what u read here, u will beleive your eyes if you will see what this genius person done. Please, search it by yourself and watch. LoveInDance (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. It is not other editors' jobs to fix poorly created articles on non-notable subjects. Star Mississippi 16:33, 27 November 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 Liverpool Hero (ship). Viable ATD which has rough consensus Star Mississippi 03:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Hero (1798 ship)

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

No evidence of notability, only databases or very short mentions like here. Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, Spain, and England. Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable ship, entry based solely on database entries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“A few databases”. Clearly, you have not looked at the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database. It is the preeminent online resource for the study of the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved African people. The consortium supporting the database, which is housed at Rice University, includes, in addition to Rice, Emory, Harvard, University of California, the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, and the University of the West Indies. The Voyages Database functions like an academic journal: contributions must proceed through a peer-reviewed editorial process, and must therefore be documented thoroughly to enable the editors to verify the information. The database lists some 36000 voyages (incl. about 95% of all voyages originating in Great Britain/the UK). It tries to find information on over 200 variables. I am just starting to find some of the information available. Incidentally, the database lists 277 voyages for which there is evidence that the vessel was lost at sea with the loss of all its captives, as in the present case. These losses constitute less than 1% of known voyages. It is curious that something so rare and so tragic is not “notable”. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database is a database. For the last time, the Wikipedia definition of notability is not the same as the dictionary definition. Stop conflating the two. I find your emotion-based arguments entirely unpersuasive. Nothing you've written here even attempts to make a valid argument for the retention of this article. I don't give a shit about Elon Musk and Twitter as far as it relates to keeping or deleting this article. You will not persuade anyone by simply appealing to emotion. Come back with a policy-based argument, or don't bother at all. The idea that deleting a database stub about a slave ship will somehow erase all our coverage of slavery is so ridiculous that I can't even take your arguments seriously at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: General: Wikipedia is a 21st century network. The articles, disambig pages, lists, ship indexes, etc. are the nodes. Links and categories connect the nodes. You cannot make a network better by removing a node and its links. What distinguishes Wikipedia from most other encyclopedias is not the quality of its articles, it is this network character. Elon Musk tried to renege on his bid for Twitter when he came to believe that there were far fewer actual nodes than Twitter had claimed, and that therefore it was less valuable than he had thought. Specific: Hannah Arendt introduced the phrase "Banality of evil". The slave trade was so normal in the eighteenth century, as was its death toll, that the disappearance of several hundred innocent enslaved people made little more than a contemporary ripple. But we are not in the eighteenth century. We should acknowledge the deaths in a way that people looking into the trade can readily find, providing instances such as this that articles on the overall toll necessarily aggregate. And having an article on the ship further contextualizes the loss and the human cost of the trade. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete grudgingly. I think we should have an SNG that allows us to keep verifiable slave ships, but we don't. Thparkth (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a terrible idea, in my somewhat uninformed opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have little doubt over the truth of the article, but we cannot have an article on every merchant ship in every trade in every era. Ultimately they are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~List of slave ships~~ Liverpool Hero (ship) as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been thousands of slave ships, many of them of little note; it makes no sense to merge all of them to that list, which should be restricted to notable ones probably. Fram (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see why the list can't be as full as we can make it. The ship only needs a one-line entry there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Liverpool Hero (ship), which seems to be a sort of pseudo-DAB page? A more appropriate merge target than List of slave ships, and useful too: it enables distinguishing between the three ships that bore the same name. Suriname0 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I was unable to obtain a digital copy of "The Battle Against Slavery: The Untold Story of How a Group of Yorkshire Radicals Began the War to End the Slave Trade". If that source does contain significant coverage of the ship, I would prefer a Keep. (As Thparkth, this is a grudging vote for removal.) Suriname0 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify, Redirect, and Salt. Seddon ^talk 09:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrie Variable

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

Not ready for mainspace, absolutely no indication found that it meets N:ORG, but creator will not accept draftspace so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Organizations, and France. Star Mississippi 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @Praxidicae and Dan arndt: who draftified, rejected, respectively. Star Mississippi 16:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling the following for the same reason Star Mississippi 17:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning (dance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete or redirect Geometrie Variable, and re-draftfiy twinning (dance). Both were moved from draft space to article space by an inexperienced editor without proper review. Geometrie Variable was declined by Star Mississippi and later rejected by Dan arndt and should never have been moved to article space. Twinning (dance) received comments by AngusWOOF, which were apparently ignored (and the citations seem to be "buy it here" links). It seems we have someone hell-bent on publishing things in article space without regard to content policies and guidelines, and without regard to community views. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I also think we're dealing with some UPE/COI editing. It's not a socking situation as Rma17 stopped editing in May, but Khura hasn't disclosed any connection. Star Mississippi 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Khura's user page history, certainly an enthusiast for the subject, and possibly COI. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It was created on article Wizard! LoveInDance (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Geometrie Variable to World of Dance (season 4) where group was a finalist. 2) Delete twinning as neologism. There's mention of it at Les Twins, which is why i pushed it to draft, but there isn't any clear explanation of what particular move the Les Twins group does that is their trademark. I thought it could have been synchronicity Dancers doing the same movements, but it isn't. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even this is new style. not sinchrone....u know Duet of two singers? ..... This is about it. in Dance. LoveInDance (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! LoveInDance (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done thank u! LoveInDance (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited enough..... and cannot continue..... if u are here to built Wikipedia so let other users to edit it, improve it and get ready. LoveInDance (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "done"? Why did you rename Twinning to Twins-Style (dance)? It is still not independently notable from the group. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Geometrie Variable to World of Dance. Article needs copyediting otherwise. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done thank u! LoveInDance (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same story here. What is "done"? You need to present your reasons for why this should be a separate article? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting and editing was Done! U can see that Geometrie Variable, also Sadeck Waff's created dance-orchestra is the created New Patent. Its Ensclopedic Information. Its not about group and creator only. Its about latest created News on Dance history LoveInDance (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was not done, and was disruptive. Again. Star Mississippi 15:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay, move my all 3 articles to draftspace. i will ask help from other Wikipedists. LoveInDance (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: Twinning (dance) has been moved again to Twins-Style (dance) out of process by the article creator Star Mississippi 16:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and move-protected. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Creator does not get to dictate that this doesn't happen. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: At this point, this can be a non-admin close, because the article creator requested draftification of the articles under discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if this is done, I'm suggesting SALT since they went to Refund (within their right) after the other AfD closed and I don't think we've seen the end of these in mainspace. Star Mississippi 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These need to go through proper review, not simply be published in main space at the whim of an inexperienced article creator. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:49, 29 November 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 Features of the Marvel Universe#Prisons. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vault (Marvel Comics)

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

Tagged with notability for several years, this is still just a plot summary + list of appearances and an ORish publication history, with no reception section and references limited to comic books (plus one Usenet and one merchandise page...). Nothing in the article, nor in my BEFORE, suggests this meets or can meet WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe#Prisons, where it is already listed with a properly succinct description. As already mentioned by the nom, there are currently no valid non-primary sources included in the article. Searching for additional sources turns up very little that is not either from primary sources (i.e. official Marvel websites/books) or user-generated fan sites. There are the usual brief mentions in comic plot summaries for issues where it appeared, and the usual mentions in listicle garbage, neither of which would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. About the best article I could find that is ostensibly about the Vault itself is this one, and even that is just large collection of images of the comics themselves with a few statement for each one basically just describing what is happening in them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a sidenote, I'll mention that the history sections contain some interesting remarks about the history of prison concept in Marvel universe, but it's 99% unreferenced WP:OR :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. No valid non-primary sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe#Prisons Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 27 November 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 Vrischikasana. Star Mississippi 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Moradiya

AfDs for this article:

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

Written by an Elbatli sock; originally nominated for deletion by another Elbatli sock; AfD discussion had two 'keep' !votes by further Elbatli socks. Probable UPE. Non-sock participation was two keeps and one delete; renominating in hopes of a more rigorous process. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Again? We just had this on Nov 12th. No new sources have turned up in the week or so since last AfD. Suggest SALT at this point as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion was closed as 'Keep' - sorry, I should have made that explicit. I'm renominating it because the discussion was mostly socks talking to each other. It's a UPE tactic - sock 1 writes article, sock 2 noms it for deletion, socks 3 and 4 turn up to !vote keep. The article is then less likely to be deleted, because it has already survived an AfD discussion once. This particular sockfarm has been doing a lot of this sort of thing lately, with a number of successes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that explains it. Socks are getting to be a nuisance here. It's also getting to be a red flag, if a whole bunch of socks turn up in AfD, it means the article doesn't have enough notability cred to stand so they try to prop it up. For what it's worth, that's another thing I consider when looking at articles in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He also has an instagram channel that hangs lots of importance on the world record, so I suspect this is somewhat promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Vrischikasana. WP:BIO1E and WP:ATD apply. He seems to only be known for the world record, so a single sentence in the article on the Yoga pose will suffice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an acceptable compromise, I wasn't aware that the pose had an article. !vote changed above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of User:LordVoldemort728, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, and User:Sirdog who all made legitimate arguments in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 23:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a case of WP:BLP1E, as that only comes into play if a person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. There is enough WP:SIGCOV already in the article that the subject would not be considered WP:LOWPROFILE. Frank Anchor 23:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All eight sources in the article are simply reporting the world record – this is the very definition of ~~BLP1E~~ BIO1E (and WP:REFBOMBing). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2 and 3 of BLP1E are not met, and the policy requires ALL three listed criteria to be met for it to bar persons from having a standalone article. Frank Anchor 13:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should have caught this first time, but the relevant notability guideline is WP:BIO1E. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vrischikasana, as per Wjemather. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Vrischikasana. An analysis of the sources (most of them of dubious quality) shows a one-time event that doesn't make a person notable for a separate Wikipedia page.Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AppalCart

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

Notability tag has been on page for 6 months and no improvements. Page shows schedule of transit routes. Independently operated, not by the city or county so merge not available.Naheehsp93 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the presence of a notability tag isn't in itself a reason for deletion. Have you done a search for sources? Garuda3 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the schedule information, per WP:NOTTIMETABLE. I haven't done an in-depth look, but from a quick search I see some sources that may be enough to meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG:

SIMMONS, PATRICK; EVERS, KATHLEEN (1985). "Developing Sources of Local Funding: The Experiences of Two North Carolina Communities" (PDF). Transportation Research Record. 1009: 55.
Stommes, Eileen S. (1989). Reconnecting Rural America: Report on Rural Intercity Passenger Transportation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Transportation.
Transit Works: Case Studies of Rural Transportation Systems. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation. 1983.

Jumpytoo Talk 05:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jumpytoo's sources show notability enough to meet WP:GNG. The article needs work certainly, but with the above sources in mind the problems with the article can be solved via editing rather than deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources located by Jumpytoo meet WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood Mews Apartments

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

Deprodded without explanation, same rationale applies: unremarkable apartment building sourced to real estate sites, no news coverage found through WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zillow isn't a source we can use. Routine apt building, nothing on the NRHP or anything like that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a historic building, nothing famous that can be found happened here, just an apartment in California. Naheehsp93 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability whatsoever. Thparkth (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly generic apartment building. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 22 November 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. @Explicit, as I said on the other one. If you find sourcing, feel free to restore to draft without going through me. Star Mississippi 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kwak-kyung-hee

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

Failed GNG with majority of source passing mention. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for "김곽경희" yields a number of sources. I'll try to determine if there's enough to establish notability. ✗plicit 14:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read though some of the articles and they seem to be all WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 15:16, 21 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable consensus, the elections in germany page does most likely suffice for the information provided RedMacryon (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming elections in Germany

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

No List of upcoming elections in France or similar, seems to be listcruft. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article even says it will be an actual list. Too early. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Elections in Germany. I see no actual crystal ball issues merely to state that elections are planned for the future, but this serves no purpose beyond the main article that already has these links. Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's not actually a policy based reason for deletion in the nomination WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. While cleanup is in order as this ~~appears to be an uncredited and~~ is an incomplete translation of de:Liste voraussichtlicher Wahltermine in Deutschland, that per se is not grounds for deletion. Also, a better title would be expected or future, rather than upcoming. Nevertheless, the website of the Bundeswahlleiter (Federal Returning Officer) has a specific page that covers future German elections to 2026, so we can satisfy WP:NLIST and WP:CRYSTALBALL, the latter which is not an absolute proviso against future events, but rather against those lacking sources and unlikely to happen. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my mistake, translation is attributed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates List_of_elections_in_2022#Europe, List_of_elections_in_2023#Europe etc which is an established series of articles that includes future elections, probably best to merge there? FlagSteward (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While some of this information appears in other articles, this list is relably sourced as a class in and of itself, hence satisfying NLIST. Perhaps if the other articles could be ordered to sort by country or future date, this article would not be necessary, but as they do not, the article is perfectly reasonable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. Lorstaking (talk) 19:01, 23 November 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 Nadya Tolokonnikova. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn DAO

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the references are sufficient to meet WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability. Also the last AfD was invaded by socks who have since been blocked. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging previous participants MrsSnoozyTurtle, Beccaynr, Oaktree b, Sungodtemple, Maddy from Celeste, Merko.
Weak keep, to clarify from last time: several trivial mentions, but there are enough of them to show sustained coverage and a weak GNG. That being said, I'm not opposed to a merge to the Natalia lady's article, she's mostly responsible for this token thing (that I still don't fully understand). Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has 5 paragraphs about it in the Time article and 3 in the CNN piece, rest are gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company/organization so WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brief CNN article is mostly based on "Organizers said", "UkraineDAO said", "According to UkraineDAO's website", "Pussy Riot's Nadya Tolokonnikova, who collaborated with NFT platform CXIP, digital art studio Trippy Labs and online collective PleasrDAO -- said", "said Tolokonnikova", and "On its website, UkraineDAO said". Per WP:N, even if a topic meets WP:GNG, it can be excluded per WP:NOT. The WP:ORGCRIT section of the WP:ORG guideline says it is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, so the guideline can help identify what to exclude per the WP:PROMO section of WP:NOT policy. Beccaynr (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the CNN article is about UkraineDAO, not UnicornDAO. Both are discussed in a Politico blurb about Pussy Riot and "UnicornDAO, co-founded by Pussy Riot’s Nadya Tolokonnikova", which notes "(Tolokonnikova has experience in crypto altruism, also having helped found UkraineDAO, which raised millions of dollars to support the country in its war against Russia.)" Beccaynr (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant sources and content to Nadya Tolokonnikova, who appears to be the locus of coverage for more than UnicornDAO. My search today has not found better sources about UnicornDAO to support WP:ORG notability, and my source analysis and reasoning from the previous AfD continues to apply, with the exception of the CNN source, now clarified above as mostly WP:PROMO for UkraineDAO, not UnicornDAO. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note as the nom I agree with Beccaynr above that a Merge to Nadya Tolokonnikova is more appropriate HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 22 November 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Acorn (newspaper)

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

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

Article about a newspaper publishing group (despite its title, it covers several co-owned and co-branded newspapers rather than just one), not properly referenced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist -- the notability test is the reception of third-party coverage about the company in media sources other than itself to verify that it passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But the referencing here consists of the newspapers' own websites, Google Maps and simple address directories, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-building coverage about the company shown at all.
ETA: Also adding a second, completely unreferenced and semi-advertorialized article about a defunct related newspaper which is apparently a direct predecessor of The Acorn in ways that the Acorn article didn't actually address, which suffers from the same problem of not being shown to pass GNG or CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and California. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 21 November 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 List of Desperate Housewives characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hunter and Lee McDermott

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

Despite covering two characters, there is no reception section. Development section is built from passing mentions, and most of the article is a plot summary referenced to the episodes of the TV show. My BEFORE didn't show any source that meets WP:SIGCOV, just a few plot summaries. At best, I recommend redirecting this to List of Desperate Housewives characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Desperate Housewives characters, keeping all sourced statements from the "Development and casting" sections, and trimming plot summaries. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as article is well sourced as it has 30 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30 almost entirely bad sources, most to the show itself, are not an arguyment for keeping, but for removal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Desperate Housewives characters per rationales provided by discussion participants above. The information, condensed to what is relevant to an encyclopedia, will fit snugly there. BD2412 T 01:02, 28 November 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 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Schwartz (violist)

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

An obituary in The Strad plus a New York Times article appears to be the extent of the media notice for this viola player. The Los Angeles Times obituary is a paid notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. Shahinoor Rahman

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

WP:PROF does not apply. The person was appointed Pro-VC, therefore criteria #6 doesn't apply either. Most references are either WP:SPS or from low-coverage news sources. There is no significant coverage. WP:BARE is present. — T. 10:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — T. 10:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The article should be deleted. Same article has also been deleted from Bangla Wikipedia.--Factcheckerhuman (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Yes, the article contains some opinionated sources. But the article also contains some significant sources, find one here. Also his book (Bengali poet Fakir Lalon Shah: oral poetry and tradition in the social context of contemporary Bangladesh, OCLC identifier is 46450219) is important book on Lalon philosophy. See another significant coverage. Also as far as I know his English Literature: Perspective and Criticism book (I don't have a reference to it at the moment though) is included in university syllabus. So I think it should not be deleted. So Keep it or Redirect Islamic University, Bangladesh#Notable persons. ~~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 14:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Islamic University, Bangladesh#Notable persons — Shah Emtiaj ☎📝 14:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice for a redirect. That section should only be for people notable enough to have standalone articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find the published book reviews that might allow him to pass WP:AUTHOR and nothing else stands out as enough for WP:PROF or WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a large number of sources are cited, they are of poor quality. They tend to be passing mentions, such as "... addressed the programme" or "attended a discussion".[12][13] Or they lack independence, such as being written by one of his students or a close colleague who works with him in the English Department.[14][15] I can't evaluate the two links major contributor DeloarAkram provided above, because they're both 404s. But my own searches in English and Bengali have not found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. As a professor and deputy to the vice chancellor, he may be a relatively big fish within Islamic University, Bangladesh, but to Wikipedia he's an ordinary professor and administrator who doesn't stand out from the crowd, who doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 25 November 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. CSD G4, G11 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham A. Great

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

Promo stuff. Sources are mostly from unreliable sources or press releases. Others from supposed reliable sources are interviews or promotional puffs about what he said. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puffy and somewhat promotional. Non-notable as explained, sources are him talking about stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see very little here to suggest he is noteworthy. There are a couple of interviews on sites of unclear reliability. Many of the references are simply links to external websites that do not even mention him. He has not independently released a notable single or published work. He has worked with notable people, but that does not convey notability on an individual.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT this has been deleted multiple times at Abraham Great and is salted there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 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. Michig (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel King

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reviews or other significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search but I found nothing.Timur9008 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this game covered in "The Mega Drive/Genesis Encyclopedia Book" with a short writeup. I don't think that is enough by itself but I usually believe these older titles published on major consoles are notable. I would like to see older games preserved on Wikipedia somehow even if that's merging to some other list. Archrogue (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the game in question is an unlicensed "bootleg" title, which often means far less mainstream attention (at least in US) compared to contemporary games published following the normal procedures. NasssaNser - T 02:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I would like to see older games preserved on Wikipedia somehow" - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is mainly for preserving notable content, and explicitly against preserving all content that ever existed. All books ever published, all movies ever filmed, etc. do not have to be on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realizing that it's a bootleg title does change my opinion somewhat. It seems less likely to have any real reviews and less likely to pass WP:GNG. I would support some WP:ATD but I cannot say this should be kept. Archrogue (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a title is bootleg reduces notability instead of contributes to it, in my opinion. NasssaNser_talk 06:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing the sourcing that helps it meet the WP:GNG. Largely unsourced, and some if the wording suggests the writer was guessing/speculating as it is. ("Appears to be" type wording.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Sergecross73 Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 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 11:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olajide Tope

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

There are multiple sources that does not pass the general notability guidelines. All the sources are either interviews or puff pieces about what he said, nothing in-depth or independent. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and United Arab Emirates. Reading Beans (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I've checked all 9 sources (as of November 24 at 6:46 pm, PDT) - all of them are either press-releases, sponsored content or written in interview format with no editorial opinion of the journalists. Most of them don't have journalists names, which is another alarming sign of lacking notability. Unless more notable sources are found, this article has no place on Wikipedia.Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese orthographic issues

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

Redundant fork of Japanese script reform providing little additional info to the latter article. NasssaNser - T 07:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Japan. NasssaNser - T 07:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps this fork was intended to cover different material or perspectives, but I don’t see that it does. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect for a faint chance of this title being searched up and found by a non-fluent English speaker. NasssaNser - T 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been tagged for a "merge" for a bit, but I just can't see much that should be moved over, and it seems unlikely as a search time for a redirect. Joyous! | Talk 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic topics

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

This is a very messy, mostly unreferenced list suffering from major OR. The term "anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic topic" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. The definition that follows is pure WP:OR: "anti-cultural means sentiments of hostility towards a particular culture. Anti-national refers to sentiments of hostility towards a particular state or other national administrative entity. Anti-ethnic refers to ethnic hatred or sentiments of hostility towards an ethnic group."; two if the linked terms redirect back to the list, one to a disambig. I am not sure if renaming this to a list of prejudices would solve the problem, which is that this is a very big topic; this is a de facto poor's attempt at an outline of discrimination as a topic. I don't think this is salvagable, as it is a pretty much a "semi-random list of topics related to discrimination and prejudice, organized according to a Wikipedia-invented typology". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Anti-capitalism, Lusophobia, and anti-intellectualism have nothing in common. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: created by permanently banned account User:Stevertigo.) Taken individually this could be three semi-useful lists. However, the article titles themselves are probably sufficient to lead users to what they seek, so these lists are unlikely to provide significantly more findability. Lamona (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like a very overly specific way to say “outline of prejudice and discrimination”. And also Anti-capitalism (or anything else in the anti-ideology section) isn’t even a prejudice. Dronebogus (talk) 09:36, 27 November 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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Kyeremateng

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

No appearance in a fully professional league. WP:FPL Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Assyrtiko (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you really do a WP:BEFORE? Because regarding GNG, you have interviews, [16], ([17], [18] FC Thun Berner Oberland youtube) you also have [19], [20] [21]. There are more sources, there is enough for me to say this guy passes WP:GNG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy yes Govy i did, Ok, let's keep the article with the videos that are viewed by less than 500... Assyrtiko (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Govvy. Besides the sources Govvy found, I found 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 among many many more German and English sources. Young player with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 21 November 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 07:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sawsan Gabra Ayoub Khalil

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. References are primary sources Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Egypt. Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Checked a number of the sources cited, most are either a mere mention of her or do not feature her name altogether. Quantum XYZ (chat) 14:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like a few editors with more experience to look this nomination over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the same “group of editors” (cough) have also recently created Religious News Service from the Arab World (nominated for deletion above) and Arab-West Report also at AfD. This looks like an attempt to create a walled garden. Mccapra (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puthenveetil Radhakrishnan

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

Only referenced with his books. BEFORE search reveals either articles and books written by him or articles not about him. Likely not notable at this point. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7 as there is no indication of importance.LordVoldemort728 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728 DGG had declined a previous speedy deletion nomination, when the article was in a worst state. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this article meets WP:A7 Criteria because the article doesn't indicate the importance. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728 Since you're repeating yourself, I'll do the same: DGG had declined a previous speedy deletion nomination, when the article was in a worst state. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any reliable source about him which can pass WP:General notability guideline. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to improve. User4edits (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits In a perfect world, I'd wholeheartedly support this. In reality, I'd support draftication because then the abandoned draft can get deleted eventually...unless you were thinking of improving it? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: You perhaps mean In reality, I'd not support draftication. Anyway, Draftify is the only way I see. I can try to improve, but can not commit. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits No, I really do mean In reality, I'd support draftication because then the abandoned draft can get deleted eventually. The article has been abandoned for years. It'll get deleted via {{db-G13}} eventually. I mean, I guess you could edit enough to avoid a G13 deletion and then eventually get around to improving it; however, this is an article that has been forgotten by multiple people in the past (the past is the best predictor of the future, hence the cliche "History repeats itself") and it's easy to forget a draft you only have to edit once every six months. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book Peasant Struggles, Land Reforms, and Social Change has been cited 115 times, but I can't find anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger I think you mean but I can't find anything else as something that's not good for any article; mind confirming or denying that? I ask this to make it clearer to those not fluent in English; Radhakrishnan is, after all, from India. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything else that could contribute to notability. That number of citations to one book would not be enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 21 November 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 Invader Zim#Merchandise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Zim merchandise

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

Probems with WP:CATALOG and WP:PROMO. Poorly referenced. While the series itself its notable, the individual characters are more dubious. Non-trivial reliable referencing to show notability about the products themselves, independent of the sohw, isn't forthcoming. (Tagged for references and update for more than 3 years. Lots of primary sources used in the article.) If DVD releases or books need to be cataloged at Wikipedia, then they can be collected and placed in the season articles or the main article. Mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:PROMO, as the sources are essentially product PR, and the topic is already covered extensively in the Merchandise section of the main Invader Zim page. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invader Zim#Merchandise, that section is already bloated with irrelevant and poorly-sourced detail, so there's no need to merge in any more. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Invader Zim#Merchandise is an excellent solution, for all the reasons discussed previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:00, 21 November 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 Comparison of Direct Connect software. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ADC software

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

In addition to the usual problems with "comparison of foo" articles seen in several previous AfDs, Advanced Direct Connect isn't even notable. (This is the last "Comparison of foo" AfD I intend to file) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comparison of Direct Connect software, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Direct Connect. There's already quite some overlap, and that page could easily mention if listed software supports DC, ADC, or both. Modernponderer (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:18, 21 November 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. Sources may exist, but they cannot be confirmed. @Explicit:, if you think you can find sourcing, feel free to restore to draft on your own. I don't see relisting this further helping Star Mississippi 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Han Soo-ah

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

Failed GNG with majority of source passing mention. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are three actresses with the name "한수아" (one two, three), making searching for references all that more difficult. I'll see what I can do. ✗plicit 14:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw dozens of routine announcements about the projects she took part in, but found no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. ✗plicit 07:04, 28 November 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 Open-source software. History is under the redirect if there's desire to merge. Star Mississippi 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of trademarked open-source software

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

Cannot find evidence that the subject of "trademarked open-source software" is discussed as a group by sources as required by WP:LISTN * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic of trademarked free/open-source software does get discussed occasionally; e.g. Linux Weekly News articles from 2010, 2013 (both about Firefox) and 2022 (about Rust, which isn't in this list). But it might be better served by a few sentences in Open-source software, which doesn't mention trademarks at all at the moment? Adam Sampson (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 21 November 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. The new sources, reliable though they might be, concern construction and funding, not the Temple itself as a building. Yet, I don't see a consensus to Delete this religious building so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Shiva Temple

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

Article about a Hindu temple lacking third party sources except for two passing mentions. The subject is potentially notable and someone with better access to Australian sources than me may be able to find some in depth coverage, but if not, delete. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Australia. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been subject to promotional editing that fluffs it up and misuses at least one source. It should not have been moved back from draft to mainspace without being examined through AfC. But while rewriting it, I found it is claimed by non-members to be the oldest Hindu temple in the state. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism listing verifies its age, although the writers appear to be trying to avoid saying which Hindu temple in Perth came first. I would love it if someone with good access to Australian newspaper archives found early news coverage of it, but I believe it squeaks by on GNG with that claim of age and the recent references. (Frankly, if I hadn't determined ot clears the notability bar, I would have nominated it for deletion myself after Hemaakshi.Ujjain re-mainspaced it and an IP immediately changed it back to fluff and then reinstated unsourced padding after Onel5969 trimmed it, presumably as a NPPer.) There are questions of systemic bias in our coverage of minority religious institutions, and since the vast majority of Hindus in Australia are relatively recent immigrants and their children, we should not expect broad coverage in the newspapers from the temple's inception. But I would hope there is some. (I'll add another note on the history: Hemaakshi.Ujjain appears to have used an article on a Hindu temple in Sydney as a guide when creating this article, and I believe that's the source of the dates in the early versions that conflict with those on the temple's own website.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify if there is the injunction on moving it into mainspace without AfC review. Right now it doesn't meet GNG, and a WP:BEFORE did not show enough coverage to pass.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article talks about the oldest Hindu temple in Perth, Western Australia. The article also talks about information in depth about the temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.25.28 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added some material about construction and funding, with RSs. I couldn't find anything in Australian newspaper databases about it being the oldest temple, but I think with the new material it might scrape past GNG. Cabrils (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Brumm

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for eight years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New York. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Cbl62. I did a before search and couldn't come up with SIGCOV toward a possible GNG or SPORTSBASIC pass. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a brief article on him here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems he later owned an insurance business (there's an image of him here). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of significant coverage at the moment. Alvaldi (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Meng

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apart from her National title, she is yet to win any other tournament at the senior level which I think is a borderline case in the perspective of WP:NBAD . zoglophie 05:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and China. zoglophie 05:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draftify, this individual seems to have some promise, but I accept that without senior experience or recognition, it's hard to see how the criteria of WP:NBADMINTON can be met. It seems a bit borderline, though several junior titles are generally not considered sufficient, yet I wouldn't be against moving to draftspace for a period of time too. Could just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Hower

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. The article lacks SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until SIGCOV can be found.Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. I couldn't find any SIGCOV in my search. If SIGCOV can be found, ping me, but for now, redirect. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 21:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find SIGCOV, unfortunately. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus (chipset)

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

May fail WP:GNG by now. No actual sources newer than 10 year-old initial announcements. Copied to many Wikis. Did this ever become a product, or was it vaporware? Elizium23 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This, from [22], sticks out to me: It has also been featured in 51 top-tier international journal and conference papers, on top of its other international accolades such as two best paper awards and two best chip design awards. There's a good chance that's exaggerated in some way, science journalism being what it is, but I would be surprised if none of those 51 papers are usable as sources.

But I'm having trouble finding any of them. Google Scholar returns several results, but they're all on the IEEE site, which is having issues today. I can't tell from the search results alone if they're about this, or Google is being "helpful" and returning related-but-different things.

Yeo Kiat Seng is still around and working on stuff, some of which is 60GHz stuff, so it seems likely that it quietly evolved into something with a different name, and that's why there's no recent independent coverage. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case it's helpful: VIRTUS (the entity) has been renamed CICS, Centre for Integrated Circuits and Systems. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coming back to this now that the IEEE has stopped spontaneously combusting, all the research hits seem to either referring to The Entity Formerly Known as Virtus, or ambiguous between the two but passing mentions anyway. Some of them are clearly referring to closely related things by the same people, e.g. [23], but I can't say for sure that that paper is directly related to this article's subject (vs tangential research that preceded or succeeded it). ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks for confirming, to me this is OK to delete and shows why we shouldn't create micro-stubs based solely on press releases announcing a new technology. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV out chipsets

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

This is an anemic stub which won't be growing anytime soon. It describes outdated technology almost on a DICTDEF level. It could be easily merged into any one of the articles linked herein. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of a technology does not expire when the technology becomes outdated as per WP:DEGRADE, but it's doubtful if this technology was ever truly notable on its own. Perhaps some of the content could be merged to Graphics card. Chagropango (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major contributions in 5 years, Not a notable subject to begin with, Consider taking information from this page for use on the Graphics Card article, but even then its a stretch. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a very niche use product to begin with (as you're basically downscaling everything into a blurry mess using S-Vid or coaxial), and another ATD, TV tuner card, just doesn't connect with this concept either. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage. I agree with Chagropango that it might be worth mentioning at the main graphics card article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 25 November 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 consenus among participating editors is that this article fails WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Greensboro, North Carolina

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Greensboro, North Carolina as a whole has no significant coverage, and this list has minimal navigational purpose given that the majority of these do not have articles, and are unlikely to have articles in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and North Carolina. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tallest buildings lists need coverage of the group as a whole, and there doesn't seem to be significant resources available to back up information on this list. Given that only two structures are above 100 meters, that is unlikely to change for quite some time. Sounder Bruce 05:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty straightforward, the article fails WP:NLIST. I was unable to find any sources describing "tallest buildings in Greensboro, North Carolina" as any kind of group. - Aoidh (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per

Briggs, Benjamin (July 30, 2018). "Greensboro's Race to the Sky". Preservation Greensboro.;Brasier, John (Jan 11, 2018). "Boom town: How Greensboro's building frenzy is reshaping its downtown skyline". Triade Business Journal.;"Plan underway to build biggest skyscraper in Greensboro". Fox 8. March 4, 2016. Djflem (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is local coverage, but does discuss height, so not bad. Second one is also local coverage, and while it talks about new buildings in Greensboro, it doesn't actually talk about their heights, so it doesn't support a claim to notability under NLIST for the topic of "tallest buildings in Greensboro". Third one is local coverage of one building, so it doesn't support notability for the topic either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local niche trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1922. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Saunders

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 11 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1922, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We've gone over this extensively for over a year now; SIGCOV is required for sports articles, and simple participation has been deprecated. If User:BeanieFan11 is unprepared to do the work to properly source the articles, he does not now get to unilaterally decide to defy consensus-based notability standards. Either put up or shut up. Ravenswing 03:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ohio. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually does pass GNG and SPORTBASIC with multiple pieces of SIGCOV, see here and here, both found in a brief search. And it sounds like more probably does exist in the 1910s CA newspapers, as The Californian (second link) said that he had at UC an "outstanding football career." But even if it doesn't exist, we still have two pieces of SIGCOV, enough for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ravenswing 05:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ravenswing as a courtesy, so they can respond. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 19:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." If the best you can manage are obituaries, odds are absent any SIGCOV that the subject is non-notable. What doesn't make sense -- with your insistence upon that phrase -- is your assertion that the mere existence of obituaries constitutes significant coverage. And that's garbage; I've never not lived in an area covered by multiple daily newspapers, and could produce obituaries in multiple papers for most deceased members of my non-remarkable family. Ravenswing 22:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you have found is two local obit pieces (from newspapers in Salinas and Santa Cruz) on a county agricultural agent. County agricultural agents are not generally notable, even if they do get an obituary write-up in the local newspaper. One of the obits mentions in passing that he was a good football player when he was in college. Tellingly, neither of the sources even mentions that he played in the NFL. That's the key point: He gets ZERO coverage for his supposed NFL career, because playing one game in the NFL in the 1920s was simply not a big deal -- not even worthy of a mention in his obits. Cbl62 (talk)

Since when are sources required to discuss certain points of topics to count as SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His one-game NFL "career" is being held up as the reason why he is notable and worthy of a stand-alone article. The fact that neither of the obituaries even mentions that he played professional football actually undercuts, rather than bolstering, the argument. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying he's notable because of multiple pieces of SIGCOV, not playing in the NFL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you would be asserting he's notable if he hadn't played that one game in the NFL? That's the entire basis for the claim of notability, and digging through unrelated Census records and obituaries about his work as a county-level agricultural agent is simply reaching for threads to support your belief that every NFL player should have an article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining about me using census records as sources, yet you have done it in your articles many times before and in fact, it was by reading one of your creations that I originally had the idea to start using records like that! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of these records-based sources/claims is almost certainly incorrect as the US was not drafting 50 year-olds in WWII. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that source was about his son Ward Saunders Jr. I've removed it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The obituaries are not significant coverage and don't even mention Saunders' football career. Per SPORTBASIC, the mere existence of sources is insufficient; they must actually be cited to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62 and Ravenswing. If SIGCOV can be found, ping me. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 13:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62 and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: @Spf121188: @Ravenswing: @Dlthewave: @Cbl62: I've done a pretty decent expansion of the article. Thoughts on keeping it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still say notability isn't established. Any references to his career as an athlete are just brief mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so you're saying that the in-depth articles here and here should not count towards GNG because they don't discus his athletic career in-depth? How does that make any sense? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access either one. It looks these are two local news writeups of his death at a committee hearing (same event so not sustained). The coverage is not particularly in-depth there either. This wouldn't qualify for a GNG pass, regardless of profession. At this point, we've got sourcing for a county-level government official who happened to die with unusual circumstances and was mentioned in passing in game reports in local newspapers when he was in college. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clippings: [24] [25]. I disagree that they're not in-depth. Just looking at the second one (which is shorter), you can learn that he had been the county agricultural commissioner since 1923 (1), died at a committee hearing (2), had a chronic heart condition which caused his death (3), was a native of Ohio (4), had moved to CA at age five (5), was county sealer of weights and measures (6), was active in county and state employees associations (7), belonged to several Masonic orders (8), including the American Legion (9), Woodmen of the World (10), the Grange (11), and the Farm Bureau (12), and you know that he had a daughter and one son (13). That's SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you've given it the best effort imaginable, we're still left with just the same two local obits (Santa Cruz and Salinas) reporting on his death at an agricultural hearing on squirrel poisons. The other sources you've added are passing references.Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is that not enough? Locality of coverage is completely irrelevant, and we've still got two in-depth articles on this guy, who played in the National Football League. Getting rid of this nine paragraph article, on someone who played in the NFL and has at least two pieces of SIGCOV, for "Buck Saunders Back Toledo Maroons 1922 No California" makes absolutely no sense. Tell me, in what way do you think that would improve Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The new sources are all passing references or primary source materials. The two obit pieces have some depth of coverage, but as discussed above, they don't even mention that he played in the NFL and tend IMO to undercut rather than support the notability of his football "career". You believe that every player who participated in an NFL game should have a stand-alone article. I used to think so too, but the consensus has moved firmly in a different direction, and we need to accept that -- at least with respect to a player with such an insignificant one-game "career." Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't answer my question: in what way do you think that getting rid of this article for an entry in a list would improve Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        For starters, by conforming to the premise that the GNG and WP:V applies to sports biographical articles the same way they do to every other, and that the consensus concerning the same holds despite your opposition to it. Ravenswing 22:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an international encyclopedia of notable topics. It's what keeps Wikipedia a trusted source as compared to sites like Everypedia. We have standards (whether we like them or not) set by the community to keep it that way, and this topic does not meet this standard. GPL93 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this topic does not meet this standard – disagree. Two pieces of SIGCOV = GNG pass (the "standard"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, by conforming to the premise that the GNG and WP:V applies to sports biographical articles the same way they do to every other – This meets both. I see no way this is not verifiable and we've got two in-depth articles (SIGCOV), which is all that is needed for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not though. We regularly delete articles with this level of coverage for failing GNG. In fact, this is significantly lower than the amount of coverage needed for politicians and government officials (which is the most applicable in this situation). GPL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we keep articles with this level of coverage, too. And in fact, this person was not just a politician, but an athlete who played in the National Football League; I've seen several discussions on NFL players with similar levels of coverage get kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just going to have to live with our disagreement that obituaries of ordinary people constitute GNG passes. Ravenswing 23:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ordinary people – Since when it is "ordinary" to play in the National Football League? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could counter with "Since when is it ordinary to be an Apollo astronaut," a countercharge with exactly as much validity ... leaving it aside that in the early days, playing in the NFL was significantly less prestigious than college football, a sport in which it was always explicitly held that presumptive notability did not exist. I am stating that obituaries (especially since they are often not independent) cannot be used as the sole buttress of notability. Ravenswing 15:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in the early days, playing in the NFL was significantly less prestigious than college football – ^{[citation needed]} what? I mean, maybe playing as a starter for the national champion, but playing for any random CFB team was certainly not "significantly [more] prestigious" than being on a team in the National Football League! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, neither I nor any other editor is liable for your apparent ignorance of football history in the pre-WWII era ... of which I'm not really surprised, given your startling assertion in the Ed Rate AfD that sigcov for that subject existed based on a book that you admitted to never having read. Ravenswing 23:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: WP:NBIO states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – well, in addition to the two SIGCOV obits, I've found a decent amount of brief articles (such as [26] and [27]) and mentions in papers from the early 1910s until his death – so, based on NBIO, they should be able to form an additional piece of SIGCOV if the others aren't enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." There is a difference between a subject that receives a couple of paragraphs of coverage in a couple papers, a staff-written obituary in a local paper, or might even be notable for one event and a subject that receives limited coverage and participates in an activity that many people in this project think is "worthy of notice." Individuals who participate in the top level of a professional sports league are more acceptable for an individual article, that is they are not ordinary. This should not exempt these players from meeting GNG, but the evaluation of independent, reliable-source coverage should err towards inclusion. I think the sources found by BeanieFan are sufficient to pass GNG for a subject who played in the NFL. --Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the fatal flaw: participation criteria for sports people has been fully deprecated. There is no presumptive notability for those who participate in the top level of a professional sports league. If the sources wouldn't result in a GNG pass for anyone else, there is nothing about being a football player that grants them more leeway. Ravenswing 15:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no presumptive notability, but that is not what I am saying. The changes to WP:NSPORT only removed the presumption of notability. It did not change, nor was there any suggestion made in that discussion, that being on the roster of a top-level professional sport has no significance at all. WP:SPORTBASIC assumes there is existing coverage of professional athletes (just that some sources are not sufficient to establish notability). All of this suggests to me that verification the subject played in a top-level professional league (real-world notability) and has other significant coverage of their life equates to a GNG pass. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: I think the sources found by BernieFan are sufficient to pass GNG for a subject who played in the NFL. I might agree with you if the sources actually discussed (or even mentioned) his playing career in the NFL. But they don't. Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you [that Saunders meets GNG] if the sources actually discussed (or even mentioned) his playing career in the NFL. But they don't. – Saying that in-depth sources should not count as SIGCOV because they don't discuss a certain point of someone's life is completely non-policy based. BTW, Enos733, my name's not Bernie! :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Saunders' sole and exclusive claim to "notability" is that he played one game of pro football -- a one- or two-hour event from his life in 1922. Let's be honest. If it weren't for that, nobody would have created this article, and you wouldn't be advocating to keep it. Nobody's out there advocating the notability of county agricultural agents based on a couple of local obituaries. The fact that those obituaries don't even mention that he played a pro football game demonstrates that nobody considered it to be an important part of his life. Playing a game in the NFL of the 1920s (when the NFL had teams in small cities throughout the Midwest) was not a big deal at the time. Nor was it a big deal when Saunders died in 1959. You are trying to convert something into a big, notable deal when it simply wasn't. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's nonsense is that you think we should get rid of a high-quality article (nine well-sourced paragraphs and an image) on a National Football League player, who has at least two pieces of SIGCOV, in favor of "Buck Saunders Back Toledo Maroons 1922 No California" – which has almost no value to the reader – and is certainly not an improvement to the website. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a high quality article. That's writing all one can about a non-notable person. I surely don't meet the GNG, but I could write exactly the same article about myself: where I was born, where I lived the first few years of my life, where I went to high school and college, my extracurricular activities, where I went to work, the government posts I held, being an elected official in my community, the books I wrote, the organizations to which I've belonged ... and hey look, I could upload images as well. There are even sources for all of these (if, in like fashion to Mr. Saunders, casual mentions in local newspapers). I've done a lot of weird things in my life: been a featured speaker at the World Science Fiction Convention, been a color commentator for regionally televised sports broadcasts, been a promoter and booker for a long-running concert series.

None of that makes me notable. What does is fulfilling extant notability criteria. I don't do that. What would is meeting the GNG. I don't feel I do that either, even though I've had what you might call sigcov in more than one newspaper, including an interview with me in a daily paper and another spot on the nightly news broadcast of the region's main TV station. 0+0+0+0+0=0, and that's the situation we're looking at here. Ravenswing 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Simply not notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply not notable – Clearly that's wrong, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I’m sorry, BeanieFan, but I have to side with Cbl62 on this one. If we’re trying to enforce WP’s rules and consensus driven policies, this article should be redirected (for the time being.) this persons only claim to fame seems to be his one NFL game, and you can’t claim notability based on that since NGRIDIRON is gone, and the remainder of our sources barely mention it. I don’t like having to vote for a redirect in this case, but if we enforce policies in an honest fashion, that’s where we land. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 23:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the "consensus driven policies" support redirecting this – his claim to notability is having multiple pieces of SIGCOV and thus passing GNG (see my replies to my "Thoughts on keeping it?" comment to see why I think they should be considered SIGCOV) – Cbl's claim that the sources should not count as SIGCOV because they don't mention a certain point of his life has no basis in policy. Additionally, as I said earlier, per NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – there's in addition to the SIGCOV obits many brief articles and mentions of him in newspapers, so by NBIO those should be able to be combined to form an additional piece of SIGCOV if the others aren't enough. Either way, he's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, participation does not equal notability. Equally, participation does not equal non-notability. In this case, we have multiple reliable, independently-sourced coverage of the subject (as shown by BeanieFan) from multiple contemporary news outlets, and the Mercury News naming the subject as one of the most famous alumni from his high school. With some great work by the editors of this project, we do have a complete view of the subject's life and accomplishments, far from a perma-stub. - Enos733 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per BeanieFan11. Just because some sources don't mention his football career doesn't mean they don't count towards GNG. And while I might expect more for a recent subject, we know that most sources that were available 100 years ago are no longer available, and notability isn't temporary, so I am willing to accept BeanieFan's sources as adequate. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 28 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Babikian

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Insufficient sourcing to establish notability Cesarminus (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC) — Cesarminus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a strong argument for deletion under WP:GNG based on the verifiable material already in the article. Sources appear to meet WP:BASIC with WP:SUSTAINED in-depth significant coverage over a period of several years in RS; thus the nominator's rationale for deletion per WP:SIGCOV is just plain wrong. He appears to be known for illegally manipulating stocks, and participating in fraud. There is quite a lot of coverage of that criminal activity. On a side note, the divorce in 2013 doesn't appear in the sources currently in the article, so I think that sentence should be removed. That said, I could see an argument made in favor of deletion because the subject may fail WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME. I have no strong opinion over whether this should be kept or deleted, given that there could be a case made under policy for both.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a strong argument for deletion under WP:CRIME as based on the US government issued reference, the accused was not found guilty. There is also a valid argument made that subject fails WP:BLP1E 88.209.124.93 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)— 88.209.124.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-52#.UyMXffldWSq	The subject doesn't work for the SEC	It's the SEC	~ Covers subject's nefarious deeds but doesn't give any broader overview of the subject.	~ Partial
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-09/john-thomas-s-ceo-belesis-barred-by-regulators-for-frontrunning	Doesn't mention subject	WP:RSP	Doesn't mention subject	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-babikian-canada-idUSKBN0F923A20140704	Mainstream news outlet	WP:RSP	Covers the subject's settlement with the SEC but gives no broader overview of the subject	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/awesomepennystocks-promoter-has-tentative-settlement-with-sec?leadSource=uverify%20wall	Repub of Reuters	WP:RSP	Covers the subject's settlement with the SEC but gives no broader overview of the subject	✘ No
www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/03/14/le-loup-de-montreal-a-fait-19-million--en-90-minutes	~ Local news outlet	Establish reputation for editorial standards	Offers little broader subject overview outside of trivial infomation about the subject's automotive choices etc	✘ No
https://blockshopper.com/ca/los-angeles-county/los-angeles/property/5527015023/642-north-laurel-avenue	Property listings website which aggregates listings.	Not a news outlet	Just lists subject as a seller	✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whistleblowers-find-sec-rewards-slow-and-scarce-1432594234	It's The Wallstreet Journal. Therefore, known for it's editorial independence.	See RSP	Piece is oestensibly about SEC rewards for whistle-blowers.	✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2014/03/sec_seeks_to_freeze_and_attach.html	~ Local news outlet	No consensus at RSP	It's about the SEC freezing Babikian's assets but offers no broader overview of the subject	✘ No
www.investmentexecutive.com/-/sec-charges-canadian-man-with-fraud	Appears to be an industry news site	? No consensus on this outlet's reliability	Focusses on the subject's crimes with no broader overview of the subject	✘ 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}}.

There's coverage of the pumpa and dump in business and local news but other than a Vice article it doens't look like the mainstream news outlets were particularly interested in this event. Plus, none of the sources listed above discuss the subject outside of the events. I suppose one could add them to the examples section of Pump and dump but they're not as novel as Stratton Oakmont or Cryptocurrency in my opinion. Just one of many low-level pump and dump schemes that go down on the daily.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — GDX420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment In my search, I found this sources The ‘Wolf of Montreal’ Fugitive Was Building a $9-Million Mansion Based on Iron Man’s House that talks about him in detail and referred to him as ‘Wolf of Montreal’. According to the above analysis, even if the source meets all the criteria, it is still not enough to establish notability. Because multiple sources with above conditions are needed. If no new coverage in RS is found Delete, if founded please ping me. Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Alimovvarsu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Note: User blocked for socking. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article's been under constant, well-funded attack from accounts with very thin histories for years. I encourage the closer to examine the contributors here in that light, and make their own assessment of whether the claims that sources like this and this aren't significant coverage pass the sniff test. —Cryptic 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Vice News has a thing about him [28] and the Journal de Montreal [29]. Some coverage, but I'm not showing enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canadian Globe and Mail and WSJ speak about him (but then again there are many questionable penny stocks on Canadian exchanges Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kinds of people are a dime a dozen. Definitely associated with only a single event, and there is no other evidence of notability other than the one-off media frenzy, per WP:BLP1E. If it weren't for the really brief media frenzy, he would have been quickly deleted via CSD for not being notable at all. Ferrousmeteor8 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC) — Ferrousmeteor8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion early because it is dominated by editors with low edit counts. I have a feeling that there are some folks who want this article deleted because it is negative. I'd like some AFD regulars dive in and see if there are really insufficient sources to create a BLP article on this individual. If so, I'm fine with deleting it, I just want it to get a decent review from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though, I make my vote cautiously. I strongly suspect the motive behind the nomination is the removal of negative content rather than a genuine desire to apply Wikipedia notability guidelines. Same with the comments from very new accounts including a sock. Now, let us say the subject of this article had not been caught up in legal troubles and he was merely a trader. The coverage on its face would probably not lend toward sufficient notability for an article. In this instance, given the issues faced, perhaps the name of the article is incorrect. Perhaps this should be coverage of the case and renamed "SEC v. Babikian" and the content orientated toward the case. There is a tenable argument the subject may not meet GNG. I am not seeing how the notability standard for crimes is met as there was no particularly unique motivation or execution per WP:CRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR, though I do note the multi-million dollar amount involved. The event or topic likely meets GNG - even if a biography of the individual would not. My submission is made with careful consideration to a number of factors: the motivation behind the nomination, the need to apply notability guidelines, and the need to protect the project from attempts to remove fair and truthful information about an individual that has been written in good faith, properly sourced, and is in the public interest. On balance, I consider the reasons to keep the article slightly outweigh any grounds for deletion, though happy to discuss my view with others. There is additional coverage in this book also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As MaxnaCarta pointed out, it is likely that there is an ulterior motive behind the moves for deletion. Looking at the coverage, it is clear that the subject himself did become notable, namely for his use of the profits, and it was not just the crime or singular event which received enough coverage to become notable. For example, see this article in the National Post, this piece in Vice, or this article in the Toronto Sun. None of these sources are referenced in the article and there are many more of this kind. Chagropango (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923. Just a note that converting an article to a redirect does not "get rid" of an article. On the contrary, the article is preserved in the page history. If reliable sources are ever confirmed to exist, this article subject can be revisited. This is a much different situation than if editors here had advocated for deletion of this article where the content would be much more challenging to recover later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Rate

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 11 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We've gone over this extensively for over a year now; SIGCOV is required for sports articles, and simple participation has been deprecated. If User:BeanieFan11 is unprepared to do the work to properly source the articles, he does not now get to unilaterally decide to defy consensus-based notability standards. Either put up or shut up. Ravenswing 03:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it highly likely that this topic meets GNG with hard-to-access sources. Rate played in the NFL, was team captain at Purdue (one of the top cfb teams in the country), and I'm almost certain he has a SIGCOV biography in the book The Badgers: Milwaukee's NFL Entry of 1922-1926. What makes it extremely difficult to find sources is the fact that newspapers of that period often discussed players just by their last name, and his last name is an extremely common word. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wishful thinking is not good enough, nor are excuses to mask why reliable sources have not been proffered. You should be well aware of the provisions of WP:V by now: speculation doesn't count. Ravenswing 05:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This link says he was captain of the Third Team, not captain of Purdue. 1920 Purdue Boilermakers football team says F. J. Birk was the team captain. With a losing record Purdue was not one of the top teams in the country then! Reywas92^Talk 16:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until sources are found and added per SPORTBASIC. The assertion that significant coverage is likely to exist is insufficient to establish notability anywhere on enwiki, and that goes double for sports biographies which must actually include SIGCOV sourcing in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see, so when we know SIGCOV exists we just don't have hours of time to search and $40 to spend we just say "oh well" and get rid of the article. Makes sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's what the community has decided the guideline should be. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Pardon me, do I have this correctly? You're actually raising as a source bolstering the subject's notability a book you have not seen? This absolutely is wishful thinking on your part; you don't "know" that there's SIGCOV at all. At this stage, how do you expect us -- or the closing admin -- to place any credit in any assertion you make? Ravenswing 23:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The guy played in just one game for the Badgers, why should we assume this book has significant coverage of him? "when we know SIGCOV exists" is conjecture, not fact. Even then, it's clear that you need multiple significant sources, not one. List_of_players_who_appeared_in_only_one_game_in_the_NFL_(1920–1929)#1923 adequately states known and relevant information. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy played in just one game for the Badgers, why should we assume this book has significant coverage of him? Those types of books have biographies of all players, even ones who played a single game. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Those types of books?" So you haven't seen it at all? Profiling all the players isn't the same as certainly having significant biographical coverage of the guy who took the field once. I'm confused why you think this project is based on guesswork rather than actual verifiability. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until SIGCOV can be found, Alvaldi (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:08, 25 November 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. This is a decision not based on IAR (which to me is a slippery slope) but on improvements to the article during this deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Kliebhan

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 13 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We've gone over this extensively for over a year now; SIGCOV is required for sports articles, and simple participation has been deprecated. If User:BeanieFan11 is unprepared to do the work to properly source the articles, he does not now get to unilaterally decide to defy consensus-based notability standards. Either put up or shut up. Ravenswing 03:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:IAR. This person was the first starting quarterback in the history of the Green Bay Packers ([30]). The very first one in the history of the most successful professional football team ever. For a topic this significant, we should be able to keep regardless of coverage. Also, he did receive a bit of coverage, too. His UPI/AP obits were included in the Simpson's Leader-Times, The Akron Beacon Journal, The South Bend Tribune, The Carlesbad Current-Argus, the Orlando Evening Star, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, The Times-Tribune, the Sidney Daily News, The Pittsburgh Press, the Sapulpa Daily Herald, the Transcript-Telegram, the Eureka Humboldt Standard, the Portage Daily Register, The Evening Herald, The Doylestown Intelligencer, and others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a closer call and an understandable appeal to IAR. That said, and to be accurate, Kliebhan actually wasn't the Packers' first starting QB. Our List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks asserts: "The team's first starting quarterback was Norm Barry." The Packers franchise actually dates back to 1919. Moreover, Kliebhan was not even the Packers' first QB during the 1921 season. He did, however, start (but not finish) the team's first game against an APFA opponent. He didn't attempt any passes in the game, was replaced midgame by Curly Lambeau, and was not heard from again. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BeanieFan11.-- Yankees10 23:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added and improvement to the article by myself, Cbl62 and others. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - None of the sources presented in the article or here at AfD constitute significant coverage. It's all statistics databases, very brief obituaries and game narratives. No opposition to re-creating a standalone article if actual SIGCOV is found and added per SPORTBASIC. I would also strongly advise BeanieFan11 to provide an actual rationale beyond "please discuss" when reverting redirects; if SIGCOV really does exist, simply pointing it out would have prevented a needless trip to AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 04:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been significantly improved since nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BeanieFan and the sources in the article, which are light but I am ok with them given the vintage of the subject. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. The article is in much better shape, but the sources within are very light as Rlendog mentions above. I'm thinking WP:IAR applies in this particular case, albeit barely. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 19:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Essam Mohamed Zahran

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: No evidence this player participated in any professional matches. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Reasoning still stands. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Possible hoax? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any sources that suggest this articles passes WP:SPORTBASIC. HennSw123 talk 17:59, 25 November 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 The Stoning of Soraya M.. Star Mississippi 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya Manutchehri

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

Does the subject merit its own standalone article? I'm having trouble finding any sources, and it seems as if there is not much room for expansion. The scarce content that can be verified could be added to The Stoning of Soraya M., where it would be emphasized that the film is based on a true story reported on by Freidoune Sahebjam in his novel (which does not have a Wikipedia article). ~ Mooonswimmer 01:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:VICTIM. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as a second option, Redirect to The Stoning of Soraya M.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At this point it would seem Redirect has strongest support, extrapolating from the nominator and the "keep" !vote. However, only one editor has called for this action, while everything else has a single argument. I don't see any support for the keep position, but it's up in the air as to whether this should be outright deleted, merged, or redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she is notable for her death, there is a book (and later a movie) on the topic. In addition multiple subsequent books cite her death (three such books are cited), which is an indication of sustained coverage of her death. If keep is not deemed appropriate, at the very least a redirect to the movie since there is no page for the book (in French or English). DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I just realized that it could be perceived as a conflict-of-interest for me to relist this discussion after expressing an opinion (above) though I didn't remember making a comment here when I did the relisting. I apologize for my oversight. If there weren't additional comments made below the relisting, I would undo my action but I think it's too late for that now so I will just refrain from any more activity in this discussion Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to the movie. We could add a section for biographical information at the target article. Joyous! | Talk 02:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems fine to me. Could be an interesting subsection in the article there. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as biographical information in the main article. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923. Please though, use civil language in AFD discussion despite any frustration you may be feeling. Saying "put up or shut up" has a chilling effect on a discussion. Editors should feel free express a different point of view on an AFD outcome than the majority of participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Vassau

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

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 11 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We've gone over this extensively for over a year now; SIGCOV is required for sports articles, and simple participation has been deprecated. If User:BeanieFan11 is unprepared to do the work to properly source the articles, he does not now get to unilaterally decide to defy consensus-based notability standards. Either put up or shut up. Ravenswing 03:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until SIGCOV can be found.Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. If any SIGCOV can be found, please ping me, but for now, I think this redirect should be restored. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 20:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think its likely that he has coverage in The Badgers: Milwaukee's NFL Entry of 1922-1926. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For an article that's been a sub-stub for over a decade, speculation is nowhere near good enough. Either produce solid, multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject -- as the GNG requires -- or not, but if you don't know for a certain fact that this coverage exists, it's long since past the time that we're willing to accept wishful thinking. Ravenswing 05:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom with no prejudice against re-creating if significant coverage is found and added. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:09, 25 November 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 Campeonato Carioca Série B1. Redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

União Central Futebol Clube

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

Amateur club which only competed in a state championship third division. Only a single source that can't be accessed. The article was deleted in the Pt.WP. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ProofRobust 09:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Campeonato Carioca Série B1 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:29, 23 November 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 William Bell, No. 24#Compensation for their loss. Consensus here is to redirect this page to another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henderson v. United States

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

Article is almost entirely written based of court transcriptions and appears to be a run of the mill court case. Articles should be based on secondary sources. I see no indication this case was of precedential value or influential as I am not finding it cited in other cases or reviews. Graywalls (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Transportation, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The Significance of this article is in a secondary source cited in the article itself. Professor Hardin Craig, Jr., praised the decision of the Alabama Claims to compensate the pilots in his article, The William Bell, A New York Pilot Boat, saying that: "Her owners later filed claims for compensation on the strength of the Alabama Claims award; of concern to this study, however, it is not so much the recovery of damages as the information about New York pilotage in general, and of one typical boat in particular, which was brought out in the course of the testimony." He goes on to say that "To make good their claims, the owners had to show in detail what they had paid for their vessel and for the replacement, as well as a statement about their earnings."^[1] Greg Henderson (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Bell, No. 24#Compensation for their loss. It looks like the case hasn't received much coverage outside of a short mention in Craig's article about the William Bell, so it doesn't seem to meet the GNG. That said, since it's already briefly discussed in the William Bell article, redirecting there seems like a fine alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Extraordinary Writ. Despite Craig's article, I'm not getting why this case is significant. As Graywalls pointed out, it set no precedent and influenced nothing. It's a regular wartime compensation claim, of which there must have been thousands. The quote from Craig puts significance on the case, not for the case per se, but because it gives him information on pilot boats of the era. In other words, it is adding to the notability of pilot boat, not to the notability of the court case. SpinningSpark 19:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal The court case is significant in that it (a) explains how certain Sandy Hook Pilots attempted to receive compensation for their Pilot boat that was captured and burned by a famous Confederate raiding steamer the CSS Tallahassee during the American Civil War; and (b) how Henderson and Callahan petitioned the United States, via the Alabama Claims award, for compensation of their loss and won what would be today $543,807, a significant amount of money in those days;^[2] (c) in the case, Callahan was asked to recount the capture of the William Bell and the Confederate officer John Taylor Wood, captain of the CSS Tallahassee; (d) an ecylopedia should provide historical information, with primary and seconday sources, that links this case with the William Bell, Sandy Hook Pilots, and the Civil War. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objection "significant amount of money in those days" is not a ground for notability. There is no monetary amount (either in dollar amount or inflation adjusted money amount) which qualifies a mundane event into a notable event. If $500,000 in compensable loss was notable, Wikipedia would be absolutely littered with articles about personal injury and death claims and property loss claims citing only court documents, local papers and obituaries. The existence of a stand-alone article for a mundane case like this is absurd. Also, a simple listing of town's happenings, death rosters, court filing rosters, marriage rosters do not become "secondary" just by the virtue of being printed in the paper. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Craig, Hardin, Jr. (1967). "The William Bell, a New York Pilot Boat". The Log of Mystic Seaport, Volumes 19-21. pp. 15–17. Retrieved 3 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Alabama Claims Award

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect The above rebuttal is an explanation of the case but it doesn't really show why the case was significant or notable. Plenty of individual court cases involve large sums of money, but I see no reason this can't be covered in the main article(s). Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as discussed. If this was mentioned in law journals, I'd be more inclined to keep it. Appears just another routine court case. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Bell, No. 24#Compensation for their loss, per Graywalls, Extraordinary Writ, Reywas92, and Oaktree b. A standalone page is unwarranted, fails WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 23:54, 22 November 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 List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Augustine Mulliner

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

The topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:BEFORE only found licensed sources affiliated with the subject, or database style coverage without any significant real-world reception. Jontesta (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What are "licensed sources affiliated with the subject"? St Anselm (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes WP:GNG with the two references in the article. But it is borderline speedy keep with what is apparently a bad faith nomination: the "licensed sources affiliated with the subject" appears meaningless (see above question), and quite clearly WP:BEFORE was not carried out. The nomination seems to be a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oofy Prosser, which perhaps accounts for the nominator ignoring the references in the article. St Anselm (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the scant references and we have a good faith disagreement about what significant coverage is. For example, one of your sources is a database that simply names an actor who played the character. The guideline says that a reference should address the topic "directly and in detail", and definitely "more than a trivial mention". Jontesta (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that was added after the deletion nomination. St Anselm (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The timing is perplexing: it had no sources, StAnselm adds two RS'es, and then it gets sent to AfD? Very curious. The sources appear to meet GNG, so... why are we here? Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens No comment about the timing, but the sources have major SIGCOV issues IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters. Yes, we have some refs, but they fail WP:SIGCOV, and my BEFORE didn't find anything else. There is a bit of analysis, but it's minor (very short). I don't see why we need a stand-alone page for this character, but a merge would be a good compromise preserving the little that was found, which is certainly better than nothing and should not be removed from Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters#Mr. Mulliner, there's clearly not enough coverage to establish GNG, with the only coverage that does exist being database listings, primary sources and passing mentions, but there is enough here for more information to be added to the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters. Insufficient coverage in sources to support a standalone article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters. The coverage is borderline and this would WP:PRESERVE the character summary at a valid target. Archrogue (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. The references are WP:RS but appear to be a couple of short mentions on a single page failing WP:SIGCOV, I did not find additional sources that are SIGCOV. However, per WP:ATD the brief reception-like paragraphs is worth merging IMO to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters as per Piotrus and Devonian Wombat. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The sources are short mentions and not WP:SIGCOV, but there is something that can help improve the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 25 November 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 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (upcoming video game)

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

WP:PROD removed for good faith procedural reasons, because it was previously PRODed, and it was not recorded on talk page. The coverage in unreliable sources does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV, and WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant reviews in reliable independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the sources are user-generated and is a blog, and the rest of the secondary sources are shaky in their significance. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 15:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Jontesta Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora (video game)

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

WP:PROD removed for good faith procedural reasons, because it was previously PRODed, and it was not recorded on talk page. This game never received any WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant reviews in reliable independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find WP:RS about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to find a preview from Eurogamer on the Beta version (if this is a different game do let me know, pinging Zxcvbnm and Jontesta) that seems to be WP:SIGCOV, but WP:GNG requires at least two sources and I could not find any more WP:RS. Current single reference is a minor award from a non-reliable directory, which is non-RS and non-SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the time the article was published, it does in fact appear to be the same game. That is a good example of a reliable source. But, as you said, nothing else is evident and the name doesn't exactly make it easy to search for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Trader

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

Taking this to AFD after my WP:PROD tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. My reasoning was: Self-published game that never received any WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any reviews. Jontesta (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sources in the article are not independent. Found no other sources that provide significant coverage. ProofRobust 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProofRobust. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 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!} 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Brave Witch

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

Can't find sources, especially reviews, for the book. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a nice book, but nothing but a passing mention in sources and being reviewed doesn't make it notable. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Rul Joules (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ This has been reviewed in newspapers, but I added refs from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, and SLJ. Rul Joules (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs to the article! Rul Joules (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the fact that it was a NY Times Best Selling Book Rul Joules (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Rul Joules (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now I've added ref to the page which mentions the book as a bestseller Rul Joules (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about I suggest that we ~~keep~~ the article? Rul Joules (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article because it's notable, like the fact that is was a NY Times Bestselling Book. I've also added the image. Rul Joules (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rul Joules: You can only have one vote here and have said your piece. Let the conversation go forward; any additional votes will be considered disruption. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources aren't super strong, but it's got mentions in the School Library journal and I find it also being discussed in a theses in GScholar. Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly are probably ok for GNG. The NYT best seller helps notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this in Common Sense Media here reviews it. That also helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — c’mon people, a WP:BEFORE would have helped us here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, being a NYT best seller is a plus but there is also enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four reviews, from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Common Sense Media, and School Library Journal. The reviews appear to count as (somewhat borderline) significant coverage, full reviews are not minor news stories or routine announcements, though the Publishers Weekly is the shortest at merely 134 words and only borderline pass WP:SIGCOV. Those references are WP:RS, Kirkus and Common Sense Media are listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Additionally, Publishers Weekly is a longstanding, reputable magazine that has detailed about us and submission guidelines, 1, 2, see Publishers Weekly. School Library Journal also appears to be a credible magazine, with guidelines at 1, 2 that seems to show a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Those reviews are also secondary and independent, note that this Kirkus review is published properly, not via the pay-to-review Kirkus Indie service. WP:NBOOK appears to be met, criteria 1 states that The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. All of those four references are proper reviews that count towards this, though I acknowledge the Kirkus and Publishers Weekly lean on the shorter side, with the latter debatably not non-trivial. However, the bestseller listing from The New York Times counts towards a book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list given the list has been widely reported, see The New York Times Best Seller list. As it also counts towards NBOOK criteria 1, IMO the four reviews and a bestseller list appearance meet NBOOK in addition to GNG being satisfied, therefore I am voting keep. VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An NYT bestseller with enough coverage in reputable sources to pass WP:NBOOK. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one more review (from the NYT News Service) and also expanded it so that there's more information, including a synopsis, thanks to some people on YT videos of people reading the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Craig, Hardin, Jr. (1967). "The William Bell, a New York Pilot Boat". The Log of Mystic Seaport, Volumes 19-21. pp. 15–17. Retrieved 3 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[2] Alabama Claims Award

[1]

[2]