Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 12	October 14 >

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 merge to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office

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

Little indication of notability. Little referencing. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and China. PepperBeast (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 17 October 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 Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. closing this discussion per WP:NOPAGE (non-admin closure) HurricaneEdgar 11:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Kremlin speech of Vladimir Putin

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

What information there is here can be included in Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine#Four regions speech of Vladimir Putin or elsewhere. If that article subsection gets filled out a bit more, I would wholeheartedly support a move to a different article - but there isn't much here at the moment. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine#Four regions speech of Vladimir Putin; better covered in context, and the target article isn't terribly long. That said, this almost certainly passes the 10-year test, so I agree that if the main article becomes too plump it can be split back out by consensus. Ovinus (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Liz: Since this discussion began, the target article was indeed redirected to Annexation of southeastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation, so I'd merge it into the same section there. Ovinus (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Reywas92^Talk 14:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as the original creator of the article. I think this article has gathered enough independent media coverage for being a standalone article, as many news article covered the speech in itself. However, I also understand the sentiment behind others as the annexation article isn't very long. The Account 2 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I agree that there has been enough coverage of the speech to warrant a standalone article at some point, but I think that for the time being it should be merged and expanded in the main article before becoming a WP:SPINOFF. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Radzy0 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to confirm. Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine is a redirect. Did you mean, Annexation of southeastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation? Is this still a preferred Merge target, QueenofBithynia, Radzy0, Reywas92, Ovinus and The Account 2?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Merge per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Banks Irk (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we keep this article, we need to rename it to something more specific than "2022 Kremlin speech of Vladimir Putin". Putin has given numerous speeches at the Kremlin in 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the page has been moved again, this time to Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. I just want confirmation that this is the preferred Merge target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 20 October 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!} 04:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoona

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

No significant coverage, no references, seems to be a solely promotional article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable. The article has no sources. I was also unable to find any significant coverage. Fifthapril (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteClearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Yüsiacı (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I looked in the Swedish newspaper archives, and Lagoona were repeatedly hailed as pioneers, a phenomenon and the first Swedish band to truly make it online. They dominated the downloads in the late 90s. There's a row of longer articles about them, both in the dominating newspapers in northern Sweden (where they lived) but also in other parts of the country, with sustained interest over time; this was more than a local band. I've added a number of sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Fifthapril and Yüsiacı – I've added sources now. They are not openly available online, but anyone with access to sv:Mediearkivet (e.g. basically anyone connected to a Swedish university, or Swedish-speaking Wikimedians who have an account through Wikimedia Sweden) can access them. /Julle (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band does seem to have had an influence on both modern Swedish music and its delivery. The reference problem is not completely solved, but that alone is not reason, at this point, to delete. They appear to have notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's still plenty work left to do in the article, which wasn't solved just because I added references to key statements, but I think we have sources that prove notability, i.e. – as you say – the topic of the AfD conversation. (: /Julle (talk) 20:29, 12 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!} 22:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After improvements made after nom. Have had influence on the Swedih music scene. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:30, 15 October 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 and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 13:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Junior

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

Article about former footballer and current manager which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. He mostly played at semi-pro level, and is managing at semi-pro level. There is plenty of routine coverage in English and Portuguese language sources, but I can't find anything that would be SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with sourcing on page already IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources on the page are WP:SIRS - I know because I added them. Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 4 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!} 20:19, 6 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!} 22:39, 13 October 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 Émile Reynaud#Filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Un rêve au coin du feu

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

I cannot find any reviews or mentions that would make this film pass WP:NFILM. Just because a film is old, doesn't make it inherently notable. If there are citations that would help this pass notability, please help identify them. Otherwise, this article should be deleted.

PROD removed with "contest deletion - such an early film is likely to be notable, so deletion shouldn't happen without discussion" DonaldD23 talk to me 22:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete old film with no sources. The FR wiki article is basically a plot summary with one link to an imdb type site. Nothing notable found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Émile Reynaud#Filmography. There are lots of sources that list all five of Reynaud's films, including this one, so the film title gets lots of Google hits, but I don't see any significant coverage. The only exception I found is this journal article (pp. 196–197), which gives a few facts (exhibited 1984–87, 400 drawings, 12 mins) and then gives a detailed plot summary, but this isn't enough to establish notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Émile Reynaud#Filmography. Fifthapril (talk) 08:00, 14 October 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 Main Street Historic District (Danbury, Connecticut)#Significant contributing properties. This is just a procedural close as the Merge has already been done. In the future, please wait for closure before taking action on an article that is being discussed for deletion. It's fine to improve an article but taking on a Merge or Redirect ties the participants' hands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster Square, Danbury

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

This is an intersection in a historic district. Not independently notable. I redirected this once to the district article, but was reverted. Nothing here warrants a stand-alone article. MB 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MB 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @MB: Thank you for your feedback. Although a characteristic of this section of the city, Wooster Square is not merely "an intersection in a historic district." It holds much more historic significance to the City of Danbury than just that. I understand the article is not complete however, I do not believe it should be deleted prematurely. It will be beneficial to move the article to draftspace while in the development process. CityLimitsJunction (talk). 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CityLimitsJunction 20:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I don't see any evidence of this particular intersection being notable, nor of it having notability independent from the historic district. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge >>>Main Street Historic District (Danbury, Connecticut), of which it part; article can easily handle it incorporation of info/images. Djflem (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft is one of the wp:AFDSTATS-listed outcomes, and is appropriate as an alternative to outright deletion here. Let the article's developer, User:CityLimitsJunction, a new editor, keep trying, with suggestion/requirement they should not themself move it back to mainspace. They may choose themself to merge the material. Or if/when they think it is ready, find someone else to decide and move it if they agree. Or, better, submit it for review by AFC editors in the wp:AFC process (which is good about providing feedback). --Doncram (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have opinions to Delete, Keep, Redirect, Merge and Draftify here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already merged this into the district article. The photos are all there. There is only one new sentence that was added to this article that is not currently in the district article. So I don't think Merge is appropriate. If the author want to work on this further as a draft, they should just copy this and start a draft. I'm not sure that it will ever be enough to warrant a separate article. Redirecting keeps the redirect to the existing content in the district article should the draft never be expanded and accepted. MB 21:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the material is there, then the merger would not have much work to do, and basically would function as a redirect, which would also be fine if the above is true. Djflem (talk) 17:22, 10 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!} 22:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Main Street Historic District (Danbury, Connecticut)#Significant_contributing_properties. The additional information such as the square being named after General David Wooster will be better appreciated by readers in the context of the article on the historic district as a whole. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:59, 15 October 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 International System Safety Society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of System Safety

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, tagged for notability since 2014. Not indexed in any selective databases, no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals". Article dePRODded with the addition of some sources, but none reliable or in-depth. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop flagging this article for notability and deletion. Per academic journal notability criteria (only ONE of which must be true):

Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.

> Several references added explicitly stating JSS is an important journal in the subject area

> Inclusion in SafetyLit index, which is selective for the safety subject area

> SCOPUS indexing is not a requirement for notability, and there are many other Wiki articles for non-SCOPUS journals.

Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

> Citation info is difficult to track without full indexing, but per Google Scholar search, at least 55 SCOPUS-indexed journals have cited JSS in the last 20 years, even when JSS was not indexed in SCOPUS.

> Numerous books and standards cite JSS and JSS articles (a few references were added)

Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

> Included reference to Nancy Leveson safety case paper which has had broad and lasting historical impact.

SCOPUS Journals which have cited JSS in previous 20 years:

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

Safety science

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Ada User Journal

Applied Sciences

Argument & Computation

Asian Social Science

BMJ quality & safety

Chemical Engineering Transactions

Computer Communications

Disaster Prevention and Management

Electronics

Energies

Engineering Failure Analysis

Entropy

Fire Safety Journal

IEEE Access

IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Int. Journal of Env Research and Pub Health

Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Int. Journal of Maritime Engineering

Int. Journal of Occ Safety and Ergonomics

Int. Journal of Production Research

Int. Journal of Rel, Quality & Safety Eng

IPSJ Online Transactions

J of Agricultural Safety and Health

J of Technical Education and Training

J of Engineering Design

J of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

J of Fire Sciences

J of Interpersonal Violence

J of Loss Prevention in the Process Ind

J of Manufacturing Technology Management

J of Medical Systems

J of Modelling in Management

J of Property Investment & Finance

J of Risk and Reliability

Procedia Computer Science

Proc of the Inst of Civil Eng - Forensic Eng

Process Safety Progress

Psychosomatics

Quality and Reliability Engineering Intl

Risk Analysis

Risk, Decision and Policy

SAE Technical Papers

Safety

Software and Systems Modeling

Sustainability

The Journal of Defense Modeling and Sim

The Journal of Social Science

Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech

Wind Energy Science

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

WSEAS Trans on Business and Economics Slthom3 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources to support these claims? We need more than just a typed list of journal names. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some papers with Google Scholar links to back up claims:

Haddon, William. "The basic strategies for reducing damage from hazards of all kinds." Hazard prevention 16.1 (1980): 8-12. (cited 255 times)

Leveson, Nancy G. "The use of safety cases in certification and regulation." (2011). (cited 131 times)

Cunitz, Robert J. "Psychologically effective warnings." Hazard Prevention 17.3 (1981): 5-7. (cited 47 times)

Redmill, Felix, and Redmill Consultancy. "An introduction to the safety standard IEC 61508." Hazard Prevention 35.1 (1999): 20-25. (cited 29 times)

Braband, Jens. "Improving the risk priority number concept." Journal of System Safety 39.3 (2003): 21-23. (cited 48 times)

Rae, Andrew, et al. "The science and superstition of quantitative risk assessment." Journal of Systems Safety 48.4 (2012): 28. (cited 29 times)

Hawkins, R. D., and T. P. Kelly. "A systematic approach for developing software safety arguments." Hazard prevention 46.4 (2010): 25. (cited 32 times)

Note that safety is a relatively low citation field. For comparison, here are other safety and risk journals in Wikipedia not being arbitrarily proposed for deletion:

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability - Impact factor 0.775

International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering - Impact factor 0.523

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion - Impact Factor 0.875

The Journal of Operational Risk - Impact Factor 0.576

The Journal of Risk Model Validation - Impact Factor 0.250

Journal of Risk Research - Impact Factor 1.34 Slthom3 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International System Safety Society. I don't see the journal as being independent of it, especially because of its lack of indexing. Being cited in other journals is nice, but it is also routine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independence is not one of the three notability criteria. Frequent citation is a criterion. See below (emphasis added)

2.b) The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as general services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, or field-specific services like Astrophysics Data System, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and PubMed. The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language, and thus the threshold for constitute "frequently cited" varies by field. A journal's h-index is a useful metric, although can be hard to reliably obtain for the above reason, and again needs to be compared against what constitute high h-index in the journal's field. Slthom3 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems odd to merge a journal page that has been up for 8 years with a society page that I literally created yesterday...

The journal page sat for eight years, then I significantly improve it this week and add references. Suddenly it needs deleting?? Come on. Slthom3 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is not deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is support for a Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met as described in detail above. Slthom3 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nothing what you have posted above indicates any notability, you're misinterpreting NJournals. As Headbomb wrote above, the citations listed are all routine and the IF of the citing journals is absolutely irrelevant. In principle, I can live with a merge, although I'm not convinced that the society itself is notable. My preference remains delete. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one putting your own spin on NJournals

Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. -> I provided references to books from major publishers that literally say this is an "important journal".

Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. -> Not SCOPUS indexing. "Routine citations" are literally the definition of criterion 2. So I provided evidence of citations. Slthom3 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine citations" is not the objection. A handful of citation is the objection. That's a routine fact, not an exceptional one. Google Scholar doesn't even have it is in top 20 journals on Safety. It has an h5-index of under 20. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for all of these journals, but their Wikipedia articles still exist...

International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion

The Journal of Operational Risk

The Journal of Risk Model Validation

Slthom3 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument in an AfD discussion... --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) PS: each one of those journals is included in at least one highly selective database (Scopus or Science Citation Index). The articles are not very good, but that's irrelevant for inclusion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is "you don't meet my highly subjective definition of notability that I apply arbitrarily and capriciously." And yet here we are. Slthom3 (talk) 01:41, 13 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!} 22:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International System Safety Society per Headbomb. I'm not sure if the latter article is notable either, but this journal doesn't seem to meet notability and the other article exists and isn't up for deletion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:51, 15 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Spears

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only coverage is routine announcements of hiring, primarily in connected sources Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, only routine stuff about him getting the job. This is nothing more than a beefed up linkedin. He doesn't even appear to have a spectacular win record for instance, that would help notability. This is just "guy having/doing job". Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article by replacing connected sources with independent sources. Added non-routine sources as well as a notable accomplishment during tenure. Eknight2012 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All that's been added is more re-published press releases. Nothing that indicates notability. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough significant coverage from sources unaffiliated with the universities he worked at to make this a close GNG pass Frank Anchor 02:09, 7 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!} 22:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Popescu (entrepreneur)

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

There’s a chance the guy is notable, but it seems at least as likely he isn’t, which is why I brought this here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like ref stacking. From what I understand, he's head of the Romanian version of NASA? Could be notable, but there's too much to digest here, with every second word in the first section having a source. Not sure how notable the Aeronautics society thing is. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The head of the Romanian Space Agency is someone else. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 6 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!} 22:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, likely undisclosed COI issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REFBOMBed to the max, but the referencing is actually rather weak and lacking enough WP:SIGCOV by reliable sources to establish a WP:GNG pass. Even if GNG were met there's a pretty strong case for deletion under WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 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 Human history. If you would prefer a different redirect target, please discuss it at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History by period

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

This article is redundant when we have Human history which is also periodized. Interstellarity (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human history per nom and per WP:REDUNDANT. Possibly a WP:CONTENTFORK as well. I prefer redirect to deletion solely to preserve this article’s edit history which is quite large. Frank Anchor 21:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides Human history, another possible redirect target might be List of time periods. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth including in a "See also" setion for the article it isn't redirected too. GR86 (📱) 20:45, 13 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!} 22:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of time periods I google the phrase "History by period," and most of the results were lists of different eras rather than prosaic histories. Thus, this seems like a more appropriate target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human history is the best solution for this. TH1980 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 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 Switzerland at the 1924 Summer Olympics#Cycling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Bossi

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

Doesn't meet GNG for WP:NOLY. I have searched a bit for an additional source to expand the article, but was not successful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cycling. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 6 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!} 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Switzerland at the 1924 Summer Olympics#Cycling - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting_number_paradox

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted Jmackaerospace (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to type up reasons, just lost three paragraphs due to edit conflict, thanks for that pburka

SO apologies that this is the first time I have had to go through this rigamarole. the process makes you create the page before populating itJmackaerospace (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

going to post a line at a time nowJmackaerospace (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACTUAL REASON FOR DELETION

So this article is an unsourced Woozle.

The article cites only sources that postdate it's creation, and themselves refer back to wikipedia.
It appears to be an offshoot of a serious article that has just grown due to cummulative casual edits.
I dicovered when trying to list it that it had in fact already been listed for deletion back in 2006 before it had grown into the current mess, but because the editor had failed to follow procedure, the agreed decision to delete was not carried out.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, this process is not intuative Jmackaerospace (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, now that I have actually typed things up pburka, feel free to actually contribute.Jmackaerospace (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Buried in the badly written nomination there is a claim that this article only exists due to WP:CITOGENESIS and that no sources predate its creation. This is false and would have been easily seen to be false if the nominator had attempted a competent literature search. The article was created in March 2004; Wikipedia itself was founded on January 15, 2001. The interesting number paradox can be found in plenty of sources from before that time (it is not necessary that they be cited, unless they can be used to trace the history of the topic). Here are just a few of the earlier ones:
- Gardner, Martin (January 1958), "A collection of tantalizing fallacies of mathematics", Mathematical games, Scientific American, 198 (1): 92–97, JSTOR 24942039
- Chaitin, G. J. (July 1977), "Algorithmic information theory", IBM Journal of Research and Development, 21 (4): 350–359, doi:10.1147/rd.214.0350
- Gould, Henry W. (September 1980), "Which numbers are interesting?", The Mathematics Teacher, 73 (6): 408, JSTOR 27962064

Chaitin also calls attention to its relation to an earlier paradox of Russell on the existence of a smallest undefinable ordinal (despite the fact that all sets of ordinals have a smallest element and that "the smallest undefinable ordinal" would appear to be a definition):

Russell, Bertrand (July 1908), "Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types", American Journal of Mathematics, 30 (3): 222–262, doi:10.2307/2369948, JSTOR 2369948

Although Gardner himself phrased this as a fallacious proof rather than a paradox, Chaitin explicitly calls it a paradox (or synonymously an antimony). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those certainly look like valid sources. Jmackaerospace (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the nominator removed my first !vote, I'll post again. The paradox goes back to at least 1986 when David Wells discussed it in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, but he claims simply to be repeating something already well known in the mathematical community. The nominator also misinterpreted the result of the first discussion, which was "speedy close", as the original nominator was proposing some sort of merge rather than deletion. pburka (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, humorous or not, this topic is discussed in legitimate scholarly sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the wealth of citation examples provided by the prior commentators can be included to improve the article, I see no reason for it to be deleted, there are certainly less notable things on wikipedia. It was the lack of obvious backing that made it seem like WP:CITOGENESIS (and thank you for teaching me that amazing term)Jmackaerospace (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, of course, welcome to make improvements to the article yourself (poor referencing is generally WP:SURMOUNTABLE). In the future, you may find it helpful to start a discussion on the article's talk page before going through the cumbersome and bureaucratic deletion process. pburka (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok, I was trying to be polite. The subject is non-notable and unsourced and as such should be deleted. You claim to disagree and think it should be kept, but seem to be more interested in making snide comments here than improving the article. Much of the talk page consists of criticism of the concept itself rather than the quality of the article. All of this I took into account before listing here. I'm not a rampant Deletionist, hence my unfamiliarity with the process, but the obvious bad faith you have displayed in your communications from the very beginning inclines me to discount anything you have to say in defence of this article. I have little interest in trying to improve an article that I do not think is notable enough to merit inclusion here in the first place, and certainly none at all if it's primary advocates are themselves uninterested in improving it. Jmackaerospace (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's amusing to be accused of bad faith by the editor who removed my comments from this very discussion, blames me for edit conflicts, and demands work from other editors to fix easily surmountable problems. pburka (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article now has references from 1958, 1977, 1979, and 1980. So, we really don't have a reason to leave this discussion open for a full week and clutter up the listings: the citogenesis claim is unfounded, an article being an "offshoot" of another isn't a reason for deletion, and the first AfD was not actually closed as "delete". XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference from 1945. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as an erroneous nomination. PianoDan (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 NBL season

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP with no significant coverage in independent sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Australia, and New Zealand. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you arguing that nothing in that Google News link above would count? This is the premier basketball league in Australia. (And because of Kai Sotto, it will be extensively covered in the Philippines, too.) Zagalejo (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the premier basketball league in Australia and New Zealand. I just need more help/coverage from experienced Wikipedia users to contribute to this page. Anymore help is appreciated since I work full time. Alextigers (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2022 (AEDT)
Keep I agree that this is a premier basketball league. They are getting coverage from channels like ESPN and Fox Sports. Fifthapril (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a nonsensical AfD. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator probably did not read or understand what WP:NSPORTSEVENT is. Wikipedia has articles about previous NBL seasons. Eye snore 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NBL had articles on the past seasons, and the current season's Article, though a bit incomplete, will surely be filled up with more third-party sources as the season progresses. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The next season for a league where we routinely have articles on the individual seasons. /Julle (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSEASONS. Major Australian league, and as said above we have articles for other seasons. Massive amount of sources, obvious keep. echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSEASONS. Definitely withon criterias for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 19 October 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!} 23:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crescenciano

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

An entry-less name page. There are a few mentions of people with the name within articles on Wikipedia, but not those mentions are significant enough to require a name list. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, and Spain. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure I have come across this kind of case before, but I'm pretty sure we cannot level a requirement on other editors to do a WP:BEFORE on a blank family name - i.e., prove that there is no possibly notable person with this name. That's squarely on the creator of the article. Since there is currently no article that this could sensibly be redirected too (or so my insource: checks suggest), delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 October 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. Appears to be a case where sufficient offline, non English sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 13:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ömer Tanyeri

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

Little to no significant coverage in both normal Google searches and Google news. No demonstrated notability, and seems to be only mentioned in passing most of the time. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if no results on Google news is an accurate test for a person whos football career ended in 1925.

Gazozlu (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was part of a historical football match almost 100 years ago that was made into a movie decades later. HaberTurk Milliyet--Gazozlu (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source about him, and here is another. I highly suspect that a look through historical Turkish sports magazines will show him to have more than enough coverage, and the Google test is obviously inappropriate for this sort of article. The nominator would also have the onus of explaining why they think that the sources cited on Turkish Wikipedia are inadequate. The subject of the article did not even have a surname at the time he was actively playing (Turkish surnames were introduced later), so in most cases he would simply be discussed as "Ömer", making it doubly difficult to locate sources. --GGT (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some of the sourcing already on his Turkish Wiki page helps withs some coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. Clearly was significant figure in Turkish football who played for Fenerbahçe, one of Turkey's most well supported and successful clubs. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some good sources have been presented already. There will be tons more offline. Gazozlu and GGT are correct when they say searching on Google isn't appropriate for this subject. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in article are useless. www.mujdatyetkiner.com is a Fenerbahce fanboy website. Turksports is stats and source 3 is an unreliable blog. The Takvim article has two paragraphs on him. Fenerbahcetarihi.org is a copy and paste of an article from Kırmızı-Beyaz Dergisi by his teammate Bedri Gürsoy so probably isn't neutral. The Turkish wiki article doesn't have any better sources either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the sources above, he definitely has many many more offline sources, havong been clearly significant figure in Turkish football who played for Fenerbahçe, one of Turkey's most well supported and successful clubs in the pre internet age. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:51, 15 October 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 Procedural Close. Defer to the RfD. I'll let someone else handle that re-opening. Star Mississippi 13:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bela River (disambiguation)

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

This was created during Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Bela River (disambiguation) ad hoc, but I don't think we actually want it unless we want to move it to Bela River. The articles in question have had hatnotes instead of using this and it seems to have been just fine like that, probably because of the distinct change in word order. And we don't need a disambiguation page because of a see also section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the Rfd should have been closed, but since we're here, the hatnotes suffice. I would also be okay preserving this as a redirect to Bela Reka which was the original status quo. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with procedurally closing this and reopening the Rfd. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this and re-open the RfD as I said at the closer's talk page. It'll also help keep the arguments at one place. Jay 💬 15:47, 15 October 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!} 18:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dexter

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

Footballer with no attempt made at notability. Bordering on WP:A7 but I thought I'd bring it here anyway BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is admittedly hard to find coverage on a player this far back. I was able to find this and this, as well as short newspaper articles such as 1, 2 and 3. Regardless, it is certainly not a matter of speedy deletion when he made over 250 appearances as a pro footballer in the FL. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. Clearly was significant figure in English league football with definite offline coverage, having made 250+ appearances. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the above coverage I found this Nottingham Journal article about him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 250 appearances in England's professional league and you think it's A7?! Get a grip. Clearly notable, and the sources located above show that. Awful nomination. Giant Snowman 09:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appears to satisfy WP:GNG based on the above book and article references. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 18 October 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. WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kherson Oblast (subject of the Russian Federation)

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

I am having difficulty determining whether this is WP:NPOV or is a WP:SOAPBOX. My nomination is purposely neutral in order that the community may determine this by consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like it's already been deleted. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m Ukrainian. It was neutral. At least I tried to make it as neutral as possible. It was deleted anyways. Wikipedia has become a feelings over facts website. Ukrajinec01 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 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. WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaporozhye Oblast (subject of the Russian Federation)

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

I am having difficulty determining whether this is WP:NPOV or is a WP:SOAPBOX. My nomination is purposely neutral in order that the community may determine this by consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like it's already been deleted. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:35, 13 October 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!} 18:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matías Deorta

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

Article about a former footballer with a very brief professional career which fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that [1] satisfied WP:SPORTBASIC. I think it's too routine (just a match report which includes a paragraph on Deorta's career) to satisfy the GNG without some other in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. Skynxnex (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. the Medios source is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:toosoon to have a stand-alone article, it can come back when they satisfy wp:gng —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 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!} 16:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amelon (ancient king)

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

This is an article about a king who is named in one ancient text and who is not considered historical. I don't Wikipedia should have articles about possibly fictional persons about whom otherwise virtually nothing is recorded or written about by modern scholars. Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the king does not even appear on the SKL, but on a Babylonian text of dubious notability and truthfulness from 2000 years later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale of nominator. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 20 October 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 Muskegon Lassies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hack

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

According to the AAGPBL website, Hack played for the Muskegon Lassies in 1946. However, all that is known about her is her team and last name. That's it, as her AAGPBL profile states "We are sorry that we do not have her first name or home town. This player has not been located. We have no additional information." I've searched several places, including Newspapers.com, Google, and The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary but was not able to find any significant coverage. As a result, she fails WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Searched Newspapers.com for 1946 and found articles on Doris Sams and Charlene Pryer of the Muskegon Lassies; Miss Hack may have been on their team but it appears she wasn't in their league. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muskegon Lassies, where she is mentioned. She is even in the team picture on that page. Like Cielquiparle, I searched Newspapers.com in 1946 and could find nothing about a Miss Hack. I think that might not even be her real first name, but an honorific. Regardless, unless being a member of the AAGPBL is an auto-qualifier for notability, not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 20 October 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. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arkhan Fikri

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

All current sources are databases/passing mentions. Could not find additional coverage. Ovinus (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant Indonesian coverage, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and many others.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage exists in sources like Archysport and TribunBatam. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also found many many Indonesian sources. Clearly significant figure in Indonesian top flight football. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in fully pro Indonesian top flight. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tribun News and Jurnal Medan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:31, 15 October 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!} 16:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Hussein al-Salihi

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

Salihi is simply not notable. The article sourcing is problematic (no significant coverage referencing the subject or his work) and his life, while that of an academic in a difficult time and place, was not in itself outstanding or notable in any way. The article is deeply flawed in its referencing, presentation and sourcing of facts. But the cloud overhanging it all is notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Iran, and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it's difficult dealing with Arabic sources, can't seem to find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 20 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wiley

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

Inadequate third-party reliable sources to support the WP:MUSIC notability claim. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music is cited twice, but appears to only briefly mention Wiley and Bible Break noting that it "might be the first in it's genre." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify topic is notable but needs incubation. Sourcing could be scrounged up, but I don't like a BLP being up without appropriate sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing some looking, I think there is sufficient RS out there about him and his place in Christian rap, such as this, and this. This article just needs better sourcing. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The 1988 Spin article that is referred to but not cited directly in the article is here[2]. Several academic sources quickly pop up on Google Books:[3][4][5].--Jahaza (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the absolute claim to first full length Christian rap album has to be caveated or toned down, it's clear he was an important early proponent. Jahaza (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the Spin source meets WP:DEPTH and WP:RS. Not sure about the depth-of-coverage in the books. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but clean up). The article can be improved with sources found by the folks above, but tone down the prose on how everything he did was the first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: I think the Josef Sorett article (his quals: [6]) and the encyclopedia entry are probably just enough for me to think this article meets WP:MUSIC. However, the article still definitely needs a lot of work to be a quality article.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:44, 14 October 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!} 16:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Zaildar

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

~~Non-notable Indian singer, article sourced to YouTube/his employer. Fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Nasir Chaudhry (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 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 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's done a few Canadian cultural festivals; beyond lists of artists appearing there, I don't find anything. Various streaming sites and youtube. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Punjab, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet general notability. A review of the references shows that none of them are independent secondary sources.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	geetazaildar.com	Own web site	No	Not really	No	No
2	Archive of a YouTube		No	N/a	No	No
3	Punjabiportal.com	About the film Pinky Moge Wali	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite a sock nom, I agree with Robert McClenon's source assessment above. Searches did not turn up enough to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 20 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Ionov

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

No RS, no claim of notability HouseOfChange (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in Russian searches such as these.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: The article does not claim that his sports achievements rise to notability. GNG requires significant coverage, not mentions of his name. The 3 brief articles in Russian you provide: two briefly mention his name, while the third describes a street brawl where "It is reported that in the course of communication, the football player hit the senior sergeant in the face and the lieutenant in the head. Recall that Konstantin Ionov also played for Rostov SKA, Saturn near Moscow and Ufa." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It appears this article fails WP:GNG, as I can only find in-depth coverage of his January 2021 police incident. It's a bit surprising as he played in the Russian Premier League, but my Russian language searches are not bringing up non-routine coverage of his playing career. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. If sourcing is added to article, please feel free to ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dovid S. Gottlieb

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

No clear case for notability, with two corporate bios and lone reliable, secondary source mention in the form of a listing in a newspaper weddings column. Part promotional, including the external link. Was justifiably PRODed in 2013, and hasn't obviously improved significantly since. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication as written that this individual meets wp:GNG or WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcom95 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a rabbi practicing his craft, nothing very notable about him, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 13 October 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 Toby Love. ✗plicit 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mis Favoritas (Toby Love album)

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

Redirected by OneI, redirect reverted. This album by a notable artist is not itself notable, no chart placing, no independent coverage, no awards, no gold discs. Fails WP:GNG - delete or redirect per consensus. Over to you. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Love. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Love. Not seeing enough in depth coverage or WP:NALBUMS being met. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toby Love per same as above. QuietHere (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toby Love. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it does have a review from AllMusic. That in it self should me good enough. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really – to pass WP:NALBUM you need multiple reviews, not just one. Richard3120 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 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. The clear consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna K. Moran

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

I went looking for sources to flesh this out a bit, and I found almost nothing. No news hits, and nothing substantial or reliable on a normal search (just Reddit/Twitter posts, promotional material, and the like). Nobilis seems to have some reasonable coverage, but I don't see much in the way to indicate that Moran as an author meets our notability criteria. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Games. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She apparently also wrote under the name R. Sean Borgstrom. Not sure that's going to help, but I'm struggling to believe that the author of Nobilis isn't notable. I'll search more later but I'm not finding much under her name. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a trans person 20 years ago was hard. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm as surprised as you are, but there doesn't seem to be anything under those names or Rebecca Sean Borgstrom. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR 3. and 4. Moran is the sole author of Nobilis which won the Diana Jones Award - a kind of "lifetime achievement award" in the field - and many of her publications meet WP:NBOOK notability requirements. No, this article is not great, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I could have cleaned it up, I would have, but that's what led me to this nomination. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the AUTHOR as discussed above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added additional references and details. Moran gets several mentions in the newer edition of Designers and Dragons, which is really the largest and only history of the industry in existence. She's unquestionably notable unless the entire tabletop roleplaying game hobby outside of Dungeons and Dragons isn't. --Rand Brittain (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprised more information isn't readily popping up on google - she has an extensive listing on RPGnet's contributor index under R. Sean Borgstrom, and her DriveThruRPG page shows her more recent work. The latter is a commercial site, yes, but in the world of indie RPG publishing, it's very difficult to track a person's reputation and career through channels more definitive than the place where they sell their wares.

I have to concur with the others here: Jenna Moran's work is foundational and highly regarded in RPG design circles, especially but not limited to Nobilis. I'm new to wikipedia editing so I'm not sure how best to help show relevance (seeing this article marked for deletion was so shocking that I had to register to investigate what was happening), but I can see how the peculiarly insular world of game design, which operates mostly on ephemeral media like forum posts, Google Groups, and Discord, would be difficult to document to Wikipedia's standards. I would be happy to reach out through the RPG design grapevine to dig up documentation that fits the criteria if need be? LambentBeam (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation would be helpful. Reviews in reliable sources would be great. The award is a big deal. As others have noted, that may be enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3 or 4. But anything published in a reliable source (Dragon etc.) would be nice. Right now we just really have a short-ish mention in one book and the award. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rand Brittain beat me to it comprehensively, but just to second them, they've cited the most definitive sources available.

Extensive references to Jenna Moran's work and its influence on the history of game design can be found in Shannon Applecline's Designers & Dragons Vol 3 - The 90s, and briefly in and Vol 4 - The '00s. Designers & Dragons is the definitive scholarly work on the history of roleplaying games as an industry and a body of creators, it's hard to imagine a higher source for fulfilling WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3. Volume 4 also goes into a some detail on the EOS Press scandal that resulted in Moran's work essentially disappearing off the face of the Earth for years (although there's significantly more to the story than what it describes, alas), which I see Rand has cited in the main article now.
Here's the link to the 2003 Diana Jones Award given to Nobilis and Jenna Moran writing under Borgstrom. As newimpartial points out, this is the industry equivalent of a lifetime achievement award, the sort of thing most designers will never even approach. That seems to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR criteria 1 and 4 ("regarded as important by peers or successors;" "won significant critical attention"), and the coverage in the DJA 2003 page and the writeup for Nobilis in Designers & Dragons Vol 3 goes some ways toward establishing criteria 2 and 3. LambentBeam (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we have Designers & Dragons (which is a great resource btw, we'd have lost dozens, maybe 100s of articles without it) and the DJA award. I'm not seeing much press on Moran getting the award nor much that really discusses her work other than Designers & Dragons. This likely passes WP:NAUTHOR as noted, but WP:N is a lot more debatable and finding sources which would seal the case for WP:N (which would really be one more significant piece that describes her work or her as a person and meets the requirements of WP:RS) would make this open-and-shut. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I've edited the article to add interviews with Moran, her RPGgeek reference page, and the fifth thousand-post thread on RPG.net discussing the release of the third edition of Nobilis (the previous four threads were locked after they grew too long for the board's software at the time). It looks like other people have added other interviews, a reference in Pyramid, and other articles. I think this really ought to be enough. I could try and find some references to Moran's work on Exalted for White Wolf (which is notable in and of itself since her contribution established several major parts of the game's factions and backstory), but at this point her article has more outside sources than the article for Exalted does, which has dozens of cites, nearly all of which are to Exalted itself. Rand Brittain (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think she meets WP:NAUTHOR with the award (though it is for the system, not the person, and the award is sometimes given to a person...). I think we have enough to write on with the non-independent sources and the Designers & Dragons stuff. But it's closer than ideal. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and recent work done on the article. BOZ (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig McCartney

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

No evidence of any notability. The sources currently in the article are some sportsfan database[7], a match report that mentions a McCartney (this one)[8], some name mentions on a personal website of a Livingston fan[9], and finally a reliable source, the Glasgow Evening Times, which, er, doesn't even mention McCartney[10].

Looking for better sources than this sorry bunch didn't yield anything useful. Fram (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one of several footballer articles created by this user of dubious notability. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As you might expect, Newspapers.com turns up several people with the same name in Scotland, but so far I've only been able to find one passing mention of this Craig McCartney in the Daily Record on 16 October 1993 when he joined Meadowbank. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the consensus above that it appear that the subject lacks the level notability that would be needed for an article. It seems he only ever played a few matches in the lower levels of the Scottish League and that his career has not attracted any significant coverage. Dunarc (talk) 20:12, 15 October 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 G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Ki Awaaz

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

Fails WP:NCORP moved from AFC by creator so bringing here to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Business. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The words might be improved by editing, but there is little point. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every flavour of notability by flying colours. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not say anything about what third parties have written in reliable sources and so fails general notability. Moved to article space three times. First paragraph is copied from somewhere else, but the real problem is the lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Ferrer (racing driver)

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. The only noticable thing this driver did was dying. Nothing of encyclopedic merit. T v x1 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. T v x1 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Low-profile individual who, as nom pointed out, only made news for dying. ~~The sources could all be added into a section titled "Death of David Ferrer" in 2017 FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship, but~~ there shouldn't be any trace of an article on him. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Competed in only 21 races in four years in a nondescript career and is only known for his death. ~~Certainly deserves a mention in the article of the race in which he perished but that's it.~~ sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t even an article on the race in question. That’s how non-notable this series is. T v x1 08:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship - Subject notable only for WP:ONEEVENT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I struck part of my !vote; I'm having trouble finding sources for this series that the subject participated in that meet WP:GNG. No point in adding these WP:ROUTINE news sources to an article which itself lacks SIGCOV and which I'll be bringing up to AfD myself. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for a stand alone article. Doesn't seem worth redirecting to 2017 FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship, as I agree that that article doesn't look notable, and will probably end up being deleted (it's also at AFD now). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The India Forum

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

Non-notable media outlet/think tank, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Article sourced to the organisation itself, in the main. No evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season

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

Season article without sources for the actual season (matches etc.). Possibly copyvio. The Banner talk 09:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However the article contains only the matches for the club in question. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season.RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing your hasty addition of multiple sources, you were aware that what you did was in breach of their copyright notice. The Banner talk 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  False. There are several sources over the article: [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a significant lack of prose coverage that addresses this particular football season of this particular club in detail. I understand that this is a club playing in the top tier but that does not make the article notable by default. GNG should be the priority. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Tecos F.C. season

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

Season article without sources for the actual season (matches etc.). Possibly copyvio. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. There are four sources: 1994/95, [16], [17], [18] in the Summary Section plus three more. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HugoAcosta9, this article meets NSEASONS requirements. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In-season source examples. Preview of the wild-card match on 10 May 1995 and previous form found below.

Macias, J. L. (1995, May 10). Veracruz y puebla abren el fuego: Tambien hoy, monterrey-tecos en el repechaje. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/veracruz-y-puebla-abren-el-fuego-tambien-hoy/docview/368160315/se-2

Contract talk between the wildcard match and the quarter finals.

Lopez, I. (1995, May 31). Inquietan los tecos a verdirame. El Norte Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/inquietan-los-tecos-verdirame/docview/316387849/se-2

Preview of the semifinal with a prediction that Tecos would lose and not make it back to the final.

Cervantez, R. (1995, May 20). OPINIONES. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/opiniones/docview/368159284/se-2

Keep: This AfD of a top-flight domestic league season in Mexico isn't quite so egregiously bad as The Banner going after Real Madrid seasons (for pity's sake), but it is far from good. Nom plainly hadn't the faintest notion of meeting his obligations under WP:BEFORE, nor any legitimate basis to accuse the article creator of copyvio. A casual search turns up many sources. Why wasn't this even attempted before the nomination? Ravenswing 02:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an unambiguous copyright violation Whpq (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PechaMaker

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

Huge troubles with General notability and reliable sources. Gertruda Low (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Software, and Asia. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find some very trivial mentions like this and some forum posts (mostly about getting the software to run in Wine), but I found zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Obviously non-notable unsourced semi-promotional article, WP:BEFORE found no sources that meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. VickKiang (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was deleted under G12 by Whpq. See log. VickKiang (talk) 01:34, 14 October 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. After reviewing this discussion, I see a strong consensus to delete both numerically and policy-wise. Deletes put forward WP:NOTDIRECTORY particularly "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Keeps mostly follow some variant of WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:SUNKCOST. Additionally, I did not find the lack of an RfC on the particulars of video game engines to be persuasive. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of CryEngine games

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

NOTE that there’s also a discussion on deleting the categories of games by engine:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Category:Video games by game engine

It’s logical to discuss list articles too. Moreover, the engine of the game is often poorly sources as discussed in video games project, and lists tend to stay incomplete.

I am nominating these list articles:

--Respiciens (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List articles do not fall under the same WP:NONDEF policy as categories. It is entirely possible for lists of games by engine to be a notable topic. I won't say any opinion either way yet but I am just putting it out there that there is not really a stated rationale for deletion, see WP:NEXIST for why "poorly sourced" isn't an argument in AfD. I am leaning delete due to their nature as forever incomplete lists for some of the ongoing engines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, and can never conceivably be complete, given the sheer number of games made with popular engines. (Disclaimer: I was notified on my talk page about this discussion, probably because I once nominated a related category for deletion.) Sandstein 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I notified those who participated in this discussion, as well as creators and largest contributors of these list articles, if they are still active on Wikipedia. --Respiciens (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Software, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially due to the growing proliferation of third-party engine licensing. If a game has an engine with a notable name and article, it can be listed in its infobox and/or the article text. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I am in favor of keeping at least the list of Ren'Py games, although for more popular game engines like Unity and Unreal Engine it seems rather difficult to keep the lists of notable games that use them up-to-date. A game engine that has fewer notable games such as Ren'Py is easier to maintain a quality list of that includes all the games on it that are notable according to Wikipedia. I think the list of Ren'Py games is fairly complete as far as all the notable ones go (there are many times that number of games made in Ren'Py but none of the others are notable on Wikipedia as far as I know). For similar reasons (regarding the list being fairly complete and the article quality being good) I am in favor of keeping the list of Sierra's Creative Interpreter games, which is also a historical list for a game engine no longer in active use for new games that is part of an earlier era of video game history. Additionally, Sierra Entertainment is/was a video game developer/publisher and this is closely associated with them as a developer/publisher, and there are many lists of video games by various developers or publishers, so I think the Sierra's Creative Interpreter games list ought to stay in some form even if we get rid of lists of games by game engine, perhaps merging it into List of Sierra Entertainment video games. It seems that CryEngine and GameMaker are somewhere in between as far as how many games use them, not as popular as Unity or Unreal Engine but still might possibly be used by more notable games than are listed, and CryEngine games include a lot by Crytek so if we get rid of that article, we should at least preserve a list of Crytek games (which does not exist as a separate article right now since they are all on the list of CryEngine games currently), but such lists exist for other game developers and publishers. Additionally, RenderWare seems like it used to be somewhat popular but mostly stopped being used in the late 2000s and hardly anyone has used it in years, which means maintaining the article listing games made with it ought to be fairly easy since new ones are not being made.

Of course this only answers the questions of article quality and completeness for the articles, not whether the articles themselves are notable or not. I think regarding notability, if the game engine is notable and the games themselves are also notable, it logically follows that a list of games using that game engine would also be notable too, most likely, unless I am missing something. There is of course the issue of sourcing/citation, i.e. coming up with a source to cite that says that this game is based on this engine. Personally I think that for a notable game, the game itself is a source and if you run the game and it says what engine it uses, or take a brief look at the game files and it is obvious what game engine it uses, this ought to implicitly count as a verifiable source that anyone can independently verify as factually correct, and would not be original research because anyone can do it to verify it. In the case of Ren'Py games for instance, they all have very similar user interfaces and huge numbers of other similarities such as all having similar main menus and different options in those menus and looking the same when you play the actual game. In fact, although Ren'Py games are almost all visual novels, it is usually fairly easy to spot a Ren'Py game and distinguish it from another visual novel, because other visual novels tend to have much more variety in their user interfaces while Ren'Py games tend to all have a very similar look that is immediately identifiable. The same is true of the NScripter engine listed at List of visual novel engines#NScripter, regarding it being quite easy to spot and identify based on having a unique appearance different from other game engines (e.g. if you know what Tsukihime looks like, the other NScripter games all have the same look too as far as the main menu interface and how they look during gameplay itself). However a list of NScripter games does not exist (most likely because NScripter does not have its own Wikipedia page and is only listed on another page, making the case for such a list being notable less strong, because we are not sure if NScripter itself is notable or not). Also regarding the Sierra's Creative Interpreter games, there is a popular emulator that can play all of them known as ScummVM and they are similar to a game platform such as games for a specific historic game console of the 1980s or 1990s like the NES, Sega Genesis, SNES, PlayStation, etc., in that they can all be emulated quite well by a game emulator that supports the Sierra Creative Interpreter platform, but other games using platforms not supported by the ScummVM platform are not playable in ScummVM. The list of SCI games is thus useful for people who use ScummVM as well as interesting for historical reasons of the early history of video games, and obviously new games using that engine are not being made except perhaps minor noncommercial projects by hobbyists which would make the new ones not notable (similar to how occasionally hobbyists make new Atari 2600 or NES games even now but these minor games are not even remotely notable and hardly anyone is aware they exist).

The list of articles nominated for deletion above, regarding lists of games made by specific game engines, is incomplete, so in the event that we are going to be deleting some or all of these lists rather than keeping them, here are some others that you could potentially create a separate AfD for if this AfD is successful at deletion (some of these I think ought to be deleted even if this AfD fails):

List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (again this is a redirect and there isn’t even a list where this links to, and actually I think this redirect should be deleted because there is no possible way to list games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling since that is a common thing and such a list does not even exist and this redirect is not an accurate redirect and does not redirect to what it says it does and the thing it is supposed to redirect to does not even exist on Wikipedia, so it should be deleted)

List of games with DLSS support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is just a redirect, but the page it links to does not have a list, also DLSS is a relatively new technology but more and more games will support it in the future until the list of games supporting it will be very very long, technically DLSS is not a game engine but this is similar enough you might want to consider it, anyway this list does not exist so it should be deleted for being a misleading redirect)

Frostbite (game engine)#Games using Frostbite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this list of games using the Frostbite game engine is on the page for the Frostbite game engine as a section rather than being a separate article, you could consider it as a list that has been merged into the article on its game engine, actually I think this sort of thing should be kept and if we delete these articles we should try and merge these lists in the same way as this one, I am not in favor of deleting this, this is an example of what to keep... while this doesn’t exist as a separate article, it is linked to from the List of Lists of video games in the By engine section so this is relevant)

List of Frostbite games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is a redirect to Frostbite (game engine)#Games using Frostbite above, anyway this redirect ought to suffer the same fate that these other lists of games by game engine all get, personally I think it should stay and that we should keep it, I am just listing all of these for completeness}}

List of GoldSrc mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is a list of mods to games that use the GoldSrc game engine and is one of the lists listed on the List of lists of games in the By engine section, personally I think this article is good and should be kept, but if you delete all these other articles the consistent thing would be deleting this one too)

List of Source mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this lists mods to games that use the Source game engine and is one of the lists listed on the List of lists of games in the By engine section, although I like this list and think it should stay, some of the mods listed in it are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, anyway if we are being consistent, this article should be considered along with the others)

List of yaoi games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is a redirect to the page on the Yaoi genre, and that page does not even have a list of yaoi games, and while this isn’t related to a game engine, I think this redirect ought to be deleted since what it claims to be, a List of yaoi games, does not exist on Wikipedia, and yaoi is such a common genre of game now, it would be impossible to list them all, plus most yaoi games are not notable, so I think this should be deleted regardless, even though technically unrelated to the game engine topic here)

There are many other lists of games but I think that about covers it.

Anyway I would like to keep or merge lists of video games by game engine, in general, although there are some cases of lists I think should be deleted and some of the lists are better quality than others or make more sense to keep than others. Supposing for the sake of argument that those of you who do not want to keep these lists do not find my arguments to keep them convincing, and assuming that I end up on the losing side of the argument and the lists end up being deleted, I suggest a compromise. The content of those articles could at least be merged into the articles about their game engines, so the articles about their game engines would have lists of games made in those engines, as a section. This is how things already work on the article about the Frostbite game engine, for instance. So my compromise proposal, if my favored proposal of keeping the articles in question is declined, is that we merge the content into the articles about the game engines. This makes sense for various reasons: first of all, the game engines are notable, secondly, the games listed in the lists are also notable, third, this is useful information about the game engines and which games use them that is relevant to the subject of an article, if the subject is a game engine. So in the event that these list articles are deleted, I am of a very STRONG opinion that they should be merged into the articles on the game engines as sections, and that the lists should be turned into redirects to those sections. And perhaps if you add in a comment in the articles in that section, as well as a comment in the redirect, saying that turning those lists into separate pages would require consensus on the talk page for the game engine in question, and putting a little note on the talk page of each game engine explaining this situation, about how you all decided to delete articles listing games by game engine, and so they shouldn’t be restored, but are being kept as redirects to sections of the articles on each game engine.

Anyway I am willing to compromise on letting these articles get deleted and turned into redirects to sections of the articles on the game engines, but, regarding article quality, I think this would make the articles on the game engines get a bit longer than I would prefer, and I think ideally, these lists do better as separate pages, in terms of having the content of an article not be excessively long and how, for example, on an article about a TV show with, oh, say, 13 episodes, typically those episodes are listed on a separate page in order to improve readability and not make the TV show article too long. So my preference is still to keep all these articles. If they are just deleted without even merging the content into the articles on the game engines, I have no doubt people will try to list games made using those engines on the articles about those game engines, but this will be made much more difficult if you just delete without merging, and result in worse article quality for all the articles on game engines, and make the lists that are on the game engine pages themselves be much more incomplete, losing all the time and work that people put into compiling these lists. Anyway, I don’t see how it is useful to delete these lists, because people who are interested in games and game engines and want to look up that information ought to be able to find it on Wikipedia, at least if the games and game engines are notable. Wikipedia is full of all sorts of lists like these, they don’t do any harm, everything on them as well as their topics is notable, given that the game engines and games are both notable, and deleting these lists doesn’t accomplish anything except removing useful information from what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that covers all notable topics. This proposed deletion makes no sense to me, deleting useful information that is clearly notable, and I oppose it, and urge people to either keep or merge this content, preferably keeping it the way it is rather than having to merge it onto the articles for the game engines. Simply deleting it entirely, in all of these cases, would just be a senseless act of destroying information, akin to burning the books of a library although to a much much smaller degree, I don’t mean to be overly dramatic here, I am just trying to make an analogy to illustrate my perspective. Of course I respect the opinions of the other people in this discussion and think you are also trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be, in good faith, just like me, I just differ on whether I think these lists should continue to exist or not. Apologies for writing such a long comment but I thought it was necessary to go into more detail on a number of specific cases and discuss different options we have and what I thought were the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Also make sure to consider what to do about those other cases I mentioned not in the original AfD, and if this one is successful at deletion despite my opposition, please try to be consistent about applying this new precedent in a fair way to the other articles in a way that makes sense, so that whatever decision is made here, it is applied consistently in a way that maximizes article quality, gets rid of deceptive redirects to content that does not even exist on Wikipedia, and so on. I realize those other articles I linked to are ones that would require a separate AfD and cannot be done in this one, but I thought listing them here would be useful as a reference to use in the future if any AfD(s) ever are made for the others. Thank you for considering my thoughts and sorry I did not specifically cite Wikipedia policies, I have a general understanding of many of them but I wanted to have a more practical discussion rather than just trying to make an argument by citing stuff like WP:NOTPAPER that is in keeping with my arguments here (especially since the Wikipedia is not paper thing is often used as a last resort to keep non-encyclopedic content, but I still think it is a good policy that is probably the most relevant one for me to cite here, especially given the part about splitting articles to keep things more accessible, that is a good argument for keeping these lists as separate articles from the main articles on the game engines, because realistically, the articles on the game engines are going to list games that use them if we do delete these articles, which could result in some of them becoming excessively long, which is not good for accessibility for mobile users or users with slow Internet connections or so on). Like realistically, if we delete these list articles, do you really think the editors of the CryEngine or Ren'Py etc. articles will just NOT have any list of games that use those engines, not even on those article pages themselves in a section like how is done on the Frostbite game engine article? Of course that content will get added back there, since it is relevant to the subjects of the game engine articles, and about notable games, and verifiable by anyone who downloads and installs the games to see what engine they use. But it will be added back here in a worse form than the current form of these separate lists, less complete, contributing to excessive page length, etc., which would be especially bad for the pages on the Unity or Unreal Engines. They would get way too long if that happened, there is an article size limit after all. I think keeping all these lists as-is is the most practical solution for avoiding excessively long pages about the game engines. Because if we did delete these pages and then this information got recreated on those game engine pages, people would try separating those lists of games using those game engines into separate Wikipedia pages again, re-creating what we would be deleting here, and then you would have to delete it again, citing this AfD’s decision to delete, and it would just be an endless cycle, people would keep trying to re-create these articles, in other words, and they would not find the arguments against these articles even remotely convincing, leading to future AfDs and an endless cycle of controversy and arguments, which can easily be averted by just letting these articles stay. They aren’t hurting anyone or ruining Wikipedia’s reputation, their content is quality encyclopedic content which ought to stay on Wikipedia in some form, ideally on the current articles, but if not that, at least on the articles about the game engines. If you really do not think this content should be on Wikipedia, do AfDs on the articles for the game engines themselves, rather than just these lists. Those AfDs would probably fail, of course, because those game engines are notable and are cited as such by multiple reliable independent sources. Obviously I am in favor of keeping the articles on the game engines, I am just saying that these lists are of equal notability to the game engines themselves and if you delete one it is logical to delete the other (and both are bad ideas that I oppose). —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding the articles about mods (List of GoldSrc mods, List of Source mods), I deliberately omitted them from this nomination, as that would be better in in a separate discussion.

Regarding your arguments, I think that we should keep Ren’py list in some form (possibly merged) - I had doubts about it, but included it for sake of completeness.

Maybe we should keep Sierra Creative interpreter list too. If it’s correct that all games in this list were made by Sierra and not third parties, then it can be merged into List of Sierra Entertainment video games. But it should be reworked - there’s too many unnecessary (and unsourced) details like exact version of engine for each version of each game. --Respiciens (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (and if not kept, userify so the information remains accessible for export to Wikidata) I added sources to various entries on List of RenderWare games back in 2018, proving it can be done. For a number of titles, the splash screen/credits of the game itself can be a source.
and lists tend to stay incomplete
WP:NODEADLINE. Unlike the lists we are discussing, there is absolutely zero hope List of best-selling PC games will ever be complete, or even remotely accurate as that list doesn't just list a property but ranks its entries, despite many entries missing or having ludicrous numbers. GTA V sold just 2 million copies on PC, barely 1% of the total? Srsly? And GTA IV didn't even make the list? Or bloody Skyrim even, that sold less than 1 million copies apparently since it didn't make the list. My point: tending to stay incomplete isn't a reason for deletion. And these lists have at least some chance of becoming complete some day as new games with old engines are rather uncommon. It might take decades, but WP:NODEADLINE. Unless we delete them now, which will guarantee they will never be complete, but that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
@Masem, you mentioned adding engine information to Wikidata. That could be an alternative, but until that export has been completed we shouldn't destroy the information itself here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree these are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and are much better served (as a ton of these lists are) via categories in virtually every way. There aren't sources talking about specific game engines and specific details of them to a degree they meet LISTN (even stuff like Unity where "Unity jank" gets thrown out as a criticism of games that use it and are poorly optimized) and what you're left with are lists that cannot ever be reasonably complete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that these lists do not seem referenced. I agree with the comment about that categories are better. I note however a related categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 13 that feeds into here. I think we need to come to a conclusion about what needs to be deleted and why. Or should we just keep? Or just purge the categories and lists at the same time, although I think this may upset a few people. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as given above. I would also point out that even for games using one of these engines, using categories is not a suitable replacement as most games are not recognized by their game engine...they are non defining cats, at least as cats are now currently used. Wikidata is a better location to store engine data and make that usable for database purposes. --Masem (t) 23:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, but the information on Wikidata is incomplete. For example d:Q94671 does list Renderware, but not the source that List of RenderWare games provides. What about moving these lists to userspace?
  I personally don't care that strongly about keeping these as articles, but I strongly oppose deletion which makes the information inaccessible altogether. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would also agree with above - I've edited d:Q94671 to give a reference to the information that this is Renderware, but I am not totally versed in WikiData structuring. Masem - from your writing I wonder if you are more versed in storing and extracting information from Renderware? In that case is it worth keeping the lists and categories for a while, whilst the information is moved over to WikiData? And a VG project WikiData guide can be made on how to store data consistently, and how to do a WikiData search for this information. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no WP:DEADLINE. I don't think there is any automated scheme that can be used here, so it will just require time to complete the date in Wikidata. Masem (t) 13:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Masem, but if these lists are deleted (and not moved to userspace) the closure of this discussion would be the deadline as non-admins won't be able to access the lists after that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:REFUND exists for that reason. If a user intends to lede the effort to bring the content to wikidata, then they can request userification to access the list. Masem (t) 15:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's just an additional hurdle and a waste of admin's time. I might consider chipping away at it at some point, perhaps Master of Ninja too, perhaps others. The deletion of these lists isn't being discussed because the content is harmful (like spam or misinformation), this is about scope. Deletion doesn't have any technical benefit either, so why not userify? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  you can ask for userification now, that's an option too. But there's agreement (so far) that we don't feel these need to be in the mainspace of WP. Masem (t) 23:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi all. Apologies for delay as I had other things to do. *If* there is consensus for deletion, I am more than accepting that the articles are moved to my userspace if no-one else wants to take this over, and as long as there are no significant negative consequences of doing so (I am not so versed in this part of WP). I don't have lots of time to do it, but I can slowly move things to Wikidata if neither categories nor list are acceptable on a consensus basis. This will be a slow project, and I would want the support of the relevant Wikiproject. I think once you understand what Wikidata is doing, you can get something like this - the link is run through the Wikidata Query Service and is a list of all articles tagged as video games, with the engine listed as Renderware. You could likely link it to the relevant WP page as a query, so avoids lists and categories. The way I think WikiData works is that the game and the software engine need to be notable enough to have their own WP page, so it gets around a lot of the notability issues. In fact the WikiData branch of the WikiProject video games already has a page that generates statistics - I think it just needs more reports to be constructed and generated, that can then be linked to from wikipedia. Thoughts? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I just said at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_13#Category:Video_games_by_game_engine, millions of people download and try to make games with these engines each year. Some of them actually succeed. This is useful for those searching for information about them. The lists should only have games that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles of course. Useful for navigation and more information can be presented than what categories have. Dream Focus 07:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would only make sense if someone was trying to delete the game engine articles themselves, which they aren't. The rest of your argument is just saying you find the lists useful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use categories instead. These lists have little pratical value. It may be a good idea to put them into categories. MilkyDefer 09:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:MilkyDefer Do look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Category:Video games by game engine for the related discussion about deleting the categories. As pointed above we actually need to decide do we delete nothing, delete categories, delete lists, or delete both? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are even more clearly not defining at all. Reliable sources do not "commonly and consistently" mention a game's engine when they are speaking about a game, like they do for its genre, release date, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At best, the first one or two games using a new engine or new version of an engine may be commented that way, but thats really the extent of how a game gets recognized assocuation with an engine. Masem (t) 15:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — We are in the process of deleting the categories and listifying. They are inappropriate as categories, as such only appear for articles, so are woefully incomplete. Lists better support references.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we're lumping all of these together as one discussion; in general it looks like we're trying to delete an entire class of lists; related to game engines. I can't find any WP:PAG-based reason to do so; the only reason I could think to consider an entire group of lists like this is if they entire class of them violated something like WP:LISTPURP, which they do not; both the "information" and "navigation" purpose seem to be met by the class in general. If individual lists in this class are inappropriate for other reasons, they should be considered individually; but if we're asking (as this discussion is) "Should Wikipedia have lists about video game engines", my answer is "why not?" If we need a general policy or guideline specifically against having lists of games by game engine, then that needs to be instituted by a policy discussion and documented somewhere, and not legislated via XFD. --Jayron 32 16:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navigation aspect of this is highly quedtionable... it is mostly a one way link list with the referenced game articles unlikely to link back to this (but back to the engine article). There is very little these games have in common beyond the engine (there are far better values that link games together, like genre or platform). The information angle is something that can be replicated nowadays using Wikidata functions (those that does need updating). So the basic issue is that this now falls into the NOTDIR aspects.. this is not a type of list regularly discussed on RSes (engines themselves are, just not enumerating games using that engine) Masem (t) 16:08, 20 October 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. Speedy deleted by Ponyo, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaram Meel

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

Moved to draftspace as not ready but returned to main without much, if anything, by way of improvement. The sources do not give the in-depth coverage that Wikipedia requires. The first source merely confirms he is the president of the organisation (and spells the name as 'Mile') and the others seem to be mainly passing mentions relating to NN events. Search reveals little additional coverage and this could be considered an unelected politician. Eagleash (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that this article was moved to Draft space by three different editors but was persistently moved back to main space. I don't think "Draftify" is an option that will last longer than a few hours before the article will be moved back into main space so I'd discourage that as an outcome possibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the sources do not show notability per WP:BASIC, and none of the specific notability guidelines applies. Rajasthan Jat Mahasabha and Bharatiya Kisan Union are not political parties so I don't think NPOL is applicable (but I do see the nom's point re comparing him to an unelected politician). I have searched for sources using variant spellings of his name (Mile and Meal) but found nothing significant. I don't read Hindi or Rajasthani, but searched for his name in Devanagari, राजाराम मील; there are a few mentions of him but nothing that seems to add up to meeting GNG/BASIC. Note that the draft creator has also created Draft:Rajaram meel BKU. --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the article creator may be a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baba1031. --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 17 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Carafa

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

Couldn't find anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV, likely to fail WP:GNG KH-1 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. KH-1 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hit in a local newspaper as she was giving a mime class for kids? as part of a festival. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Theatre. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming that her self-written stuff online is true, she was a longstanding lead performer with American Mime Theatre; but that company seems barely notable, and if her performances were noteworthy, we should be able to find reviews of her work. She seems to have closed down her event-planning company in New York and moved to Hawaii around 2016, where she teaches Yoga and teaches mime to children and possibly others. Not all performers are notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 13 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edge and Rey Mysterio

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

No notable tag team. Sources focuses on ROUTINE results, not his work as a tag team. Im pro restling it's usual to find two wrestler to made a tag team and even win a title, but not every random tag team is notable. The sources focuses on his sporadic work together and, mostly, their individual careers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Wrestling. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - teams together like 3 times.Muur (talk) 22:29, 16 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROW Heavyweight Championship

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

No notable championships. Most of the champions aren't notable and the sources are very few and routine (results and title history, no independent coverage focusing on the title). While the promotion is notable, I don't see the point to create individual articles for the titles HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Wrestling. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, very excess creating multiple pages, possible merge of all the articles into one, depending on notability of the organisation? Melancholyhelper (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Some promotions include the list of champions. However, I'm not a big supporter. At the end, the promotions have a small history section (which is the notable stuff) and huge title lists. In this case, 95% of them are no notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The promotion itself is borderline notable, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 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!} 08:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TradeStrike

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

Promotional article for cryptocurrency company. The current version is what's left after the press releases, slightly-reskinned press release reprints, dead Medium article links, and reference links that didn't exist were removed. A WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage of the firm in RSes, and very little coverage even in crypto non-RSes. There is no evidence of notability for this firm, either general or specific. David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United Kingdom. David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also dug up refs, and almost had a glimmer of hope when I found a Yahoo! Finance article, only to find out it was paid for by the company. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Draftify - Article creator here, aiming to build the article on neutral perspectives and I did have the assumption that I created the article prematurely. I think moving it to draft space per WP:DRAFTIFY as I do believe there is some merit for this article meeting WP guidelines. This way I can contribute within time to find more rs, and have it created through proper channels. GR86 (📱) 10:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also sources like this aren't considered rs - 1? I have also included in 2 it seems like a rs GR86 (📱) 10:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GR86 (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more crypto fluff. Sources are all press-release type things or posted on non RS websites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only really finding paid promotional or similar sources. Skynxnex (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR pieces, I cant find anything noteworthy, thus I don't believe the page meets notability guidelines per WP:ORG.Melancholyhelper (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Fry-Revere

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Virginia. TJMSmith (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR, at least, with reviews/articles written about her most recent book and already referenced in the article. Additionally I found The ambiguous lessons of the Iranian model of paid living kidney donation Fry-Revere, S. (2014). The kidney sellers: a journey of discovery in Iran. (Durham: Carolina Academic Press), Iranian kidney market in limbo: a commentary on "The ambiguous lessons of the Iranian model of paid living kidney donation". There is also a review of an earlier, bylined two page, book of hers (Accountability of Bioethics Committees and Consultants) in Bioethics: Volume 10, Issue 1 January 1996. And many of the Google Book hits are valid and significant coverage: Moral Conflicts of Organ Retrieval: A Case for Constructive Pluralism: Consider Sigrid's Fry-Revere's comments on dialysis..., The Organ Shortage Crisis in America. Skynxnex (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would add that her Kidney book has triple-digit holdings in WorldCat and that she has been quoted in articles from CNN, Reason Magazine, etc. 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skynxnex. Passes WP:AUTHOR, and possibly WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythological and devotional cinema

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

WP:POVFUNNEL: That era also had films from other religions, as well as folklores. WP:CONTENTFORK as it can be incorporated in Cinema of India, also forks the genre Mythological film / Fantasy film. Hardly satisfies WP:GNG. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Religion, and India. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As there seems to be a book about the subject, it seems likely that this can support a stand-alone article. I don't see the WP:POVFUNNEL argument, as the article does not claim that it is about an era of film, but rather a significant topical sub-section of the era before 1923 and beyond. In its current form we only have stub, though, so I have no problem if the majority prefers to merge the current content to a suitable broader topic and only split it out again in case someone adds enough content. Daranios (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daranios, there's no "book about the subject", there's mention in pages 303–305. Currently, parent article Cinema of India does not have a section dedicated to it or mention of it in History section. Standalone sub-topic article is odd.--2409:4073:118:6B79:20EB:9C1C:FC4C:251F (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited review of Deities & Devotees suggests that that book is at least to a large part about the subject. Or did I get that wrong? The same review also calls out Filming the Gods by Rachel Dwyer and the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema as further sources on the topic. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that if this is kept there should be a corresponding sub-section added to Cinema of India, presumably at "Genres and styles". But the fact that there is not such section yet should not be a reason to delete this article. Daranios (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: And perhaps rename to either Hindu mythological cinema or Puranic cinema, as many non-secular religious zealots treat these films as fact-based. Also because devotional films are largely different, e.g.: Palayathu Amman is not a mythological as it is set in present day, but devotion to a god plays a prominent role in the story. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I vote to delete. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: We don't normally create separate articles for subgenres, such as Arabian mythological film, Norse mythological film, Slavic mythological film, African mythological film, Celtic mythological film, Persian mythological film etc. It's all mythology. Even mythological film don't have a separate article. But we have Norse mythology in popular culture, may be Hindu mythology in popular culture is a broader and better option. Fight Island (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: I think there are two differences between our article and your examples. On the one hand I imagine that there are more Hindu mythological films than for the other mythologies. On the other, the one cinema is rooted in a major living religion, which is not the case for the others. Whatever we as authors may think of these mythologies, in the one case scholars of religion can and have analyzed the reactions of the believers to the films, in the other cases not (so much). A closer comparison would be between Hindu devotional cinema and Christian cinema, which does have an article, more or less. More importantly, I think we don't normally make a program beforehand what subarticles we create or don't create. Rather, it depends if there are secondary sources, especially scholarly ones, which can support an encyclopedic article or not. That's what WP:GNG is all about, and that should be the critereon here, too - while still respecting WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV, of course. If we have enough secondary material, let's have a Hindu mythological cinema article. If we have enough for a Norse mythological film, let's have that one, too. One does not depend on the existence of the other, that would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument. Daranios (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is content forking. As already told, even mythological film has no separate article. GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, not to mention it hardly satisfies here, as GNG requires "significant coverage" in "independent sources" specifically discussing "Hindu mythological film" as an independent genre as the book claims (not the broader Indian mythological film). I see only two sources on the article and can't find any on the web. Contrary to what you accused, other stuff does not exists here.--Fight Island (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: "Content forking is content forking." Sure, so why are we leading a deletion discussion here, not a merge discussion? You are arguing mostly based on the current state of the article. That, however, is not the decisive factor according to the notability guideline. The question is are there enough secondary sources so that we could write a reasonable encyclopedia article on our specific topic here, or only enough to support a paragraph in a larger article. This should have been determined by a WP:BEFORE search preceding a nomination for deletion. So did you check out the three books I've mentioned, and how substantial the content of the three pages from Explorations in New Cinema History actually is?

As for "other stuff does not exists here", that essay says we should avoid the argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", which seems to be pretty much what you are saying with reference to mythological films in general. The existence of this article in no way hinders the creation of such a parent article. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to WP:POVFUNNEL. This is a subtopic best covered in a larger article as suggested by the nominator. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is WP:POVFUNNEL, and lacks sources desperately. It can be merged with Cinema of India, but carefully since Indian cinema was nowhere and never divided per ethnicity, there is no theory of cinema that makes such distinction in any significant manner. Redirect could be left, but I would prefer not as it could potentially feed into more ethno-nationalism.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99, thank you for saying that. Although I have already !voted, so I am making this additional note that I do not suggest keeping the redirect due to above reason. I stand with my delete opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have added content about both genres (Hindu mythological and devotional) to List of genres, this article may be deleted. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 This is not the right way to !Vote. see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. You did not strike out your previous Keep !vote comment or any other comment. And why are you indenting as if you are responding to my comment? Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to strike it out, but I thought one cannot edit their own comments. Now I'll do it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 ok. I still did not understand why you decided to indent your comment as a reply to @Santasa99 and my comment. It is unrelated. Please strike it and make a fresh comment below with one bullet point as indentation. The present comment is confusing as it is not related to the 2 comments before yours. Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rayhan Nur Fadillah

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 307, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ploreky (Got any problem?) 11:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC+8)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmat Hidayat

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 307, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of the editors who write about badminton? We could use some to review these AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nethania Irawan

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 280, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 13 October 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!} 23:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Febi Setianingrum

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 280, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this page resembles a reliable source. A reasonable BEFORE finds that she's out there, and she exists, but I'm seeing nothing significant enough to support a biography of a living teenager, other than routine mention in sporting results. BusterD (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridya Aulia Fatasya

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 220, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP Stvbastian (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 13 October 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 Timeline of events associated with Anonymous#Operation Leakspin. ✗plicit 04:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Leakspin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability. Only two generally reliable sources actually discuss it, and only about its launch. Theres nothing about its impact or how it worked that isnt a weak primary source. Softlemonades (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Softlemonades (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline_of_events_associated_with_Anonymous#Operation_Leakspin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPI2026F1 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Timeline of events associated with Anonymous#Operation Leakspin. The timeline article could use whatever sourcing is present, and I'm not seeing the compelling need for this page, apparently created by an Anonymous-interested (and long abandoned) account twelve years ago. It's significant that up to this point in a thrice relisted AfD, nobody is showing this page any love. BusterD (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Foster

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

Rugby union player fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also, the user who added the notability template correctly noted that meeting WP:NRU does not imply notability in any way. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Rugby union, and New Zealand. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he does pass WP:NRU, I'm only seeing passing mentions and database websites in terms of coverage, so fails GNG. I've looked for a suitable redirect here, but can't really find one at this stage. He may well be notable in the future though, so could potentially be moved to draftspace, but Tasman won't play for another year. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of him in the cited source is nowhere near significant. Notice that WP:NRU says "significant coverage is likely to exist" (emphasis mine), not that it necessarily does. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saiful (footballer)

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

Footballer fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Indonesia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find any non-trivial sources with significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @FormalDude:, I found [19], [20], [21], among many many more Indonesian sources. He is a young player wit ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight which receives significant coverage. Clearly significant figure in Indonesian top flight football who has played for Persib Bandung, the most well supported and one of must successful Indonesian teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could be expanded using sources above, which show more than a trivial mention Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Dwiyan

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

Footballer fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Indonesia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [22], [23], [24], and [25] among many many more Indonesian sources. Clearly significant figure in Indonesian top flight football. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in fully pro Indonesian top flight. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:30, 15 October 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!} 05:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taibat Lawanson

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic. Sources are related to the institution where she works, or she's in articles about the university in GNews. Nothing much found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF#7 "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area", because there appear to be more than sources related to the institution where she works, or articles about the university in GNews. For example: Government should focus on providing decent, affordable housing, says Lawanson (The Guardian (Nigeria), 2022, interviewed as an expert), Researchers want autonomy for local councils The Guardian (Nigeria), 2022, "The Convener, Prof. Taibat Lawanson, said that the gathering was to investigate specific PCPs for implementation in Lagos State, with the intent of sharing learning and best practices across other African cities."), In Lagos, Vulnerable Communities Are Buried by Urbanization (Scientific American, 2021, interviewed as an expert), Class divide: mass demolitions drive poor from valuable land in Lagos (The Guardian, 2021, quoted as an expert), What Lagos must do to attain good governance, by stakeholders (The Nation (Nigeria), 2019, "A consultant to the Resilience Office and professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Lagos, Taibat Lawanson, ..."), Au Nigeria, le cimetière marin de la lagune de Lagos au cœur de tous les trafics (AFP/Le Monde, 2019, quoted as an expert), Stakeholders seek increased collaboration to tackle water scarcity (The Punch, 2018, "Also speaking at the symposium, a lecturer at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Lagos, Prof. Taibat Lawanson, explained..."), Experts decry non-domestication of urban planning laws in states (The Guardian (Nigeria), 2018, quoted as an expert), Divergent views trail calls for adoption of vertical city development (The Guardian (Nigeria), 2018, quoted as an expert), How officials aid property owners to evade planning regulations on parking spaces (The Guardian (Nigeria), 2016, quoted as an expert). Beccaynr (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be an academic who is known on two continents as a commentator. scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 11 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!} 04:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccaynr. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zanadin Fariz

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

Footballer fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Indonesia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage in Indonesia such as this, and articles here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Indonesian top flight football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:12, 18 October 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!} 06:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade de Soulou

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Single source lacks significant coverage. Searching finds little. French WP article is just as short with one ref. MB 04:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 13 October 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!} 03:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Papi (brand)

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

Article seems to be purely promotional; little formal significant coverage was found. May not meet the GNG for Wikipedia, and most Google News coverage includes other stuff named "Papi" like a club. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Latin America, and California. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this reads like an interview. I find no underwear brand with this name. Anything with Papi pops up, nothing about this business. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly (film)

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

Non-notable film that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Refs available are trivial announcements, such as 1, databases, 2, and unreliable blogs, 3 (Wordpress blog), 4, 5. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination. Fifthapril (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you think the article should be deleted? all sources I provided were WP:WPKR/Reliable sources approved (for those review blogs, I never posted or even saw any of those so feel free to remove them).

Also, I was planning on adding sources for everything here, I was just preparing a list, this article is clearly not complete yet so I was disappointed to hear it's nominated for deletion.

As for the improvements, I found hundreds of articles about the film, I tried to select the most relevent ones here:

[3] Via Maekyung Media
[2] Via Cine21
[3] Via Nate
[4] Via Cine21
[5] Via The Chosun Ilbo
[6] Via StarNews
RWikiED20 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your sources are routine announcements (mainly with quotes) or interviews, and probably doesn't constitute significant coverage. If you could find two reliable in-depth reviews or articles with significant critical commentary, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination then as it would pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. However, the refs provided doesn't show this yet. VickKiang (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know reviews are necessary here for the article, because as I said there were a lot of articles about the film, some more detailed than others (the Cine21 report had pretty much everything). I don't understand how critical reception could get the article deleted.

Also, if you're familiar with the Korean entertainment industry, you'd know there isn't really much critical reception in the Korean media, there aren't sites like Rotton Tomatoes or IMDB, and the only reviews you could find are passing mentions in some reports (mostly aren't even professional), Cine21 is the closest one to having professional critics and I already pulled links from it. RWikiED20 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of reviews could possibly indicate iffy notability, but I concur it alone is not a reason to delete an article. But I disagree with that many of these articles are SIGCOV, though let's wait for the views of more editors to build a consensus. Your analysis is reasonable, though I was just referring to criteria 1 of WP:NFILM, The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It appears that NFILM is failed, so we're looking at GNG. Despite having lots of quotes and plot overviews, this seems IMO decent, but others IMO fail SIGCOV. If we're looking at GNG, some of the refs you linked fall under: not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources IMHO. You'd know there isn't really much critical reception in the Korean media, there aren't sites like Rotton Tomatoes or IMDB- I didn't expect that this would have many reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, besides, per WP:RSP IMDb is generally unreliable. owever, let's agree to disagree here, and I appreciate your efforts. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that none of these sources constitute significant coverage and are minor news stories. The interview article could possibly indicate some notability, but interviews are still generally considered primary sources. If this interview is the only notable source in the article, then I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just getting nominated for an award doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Many of the sources are just short mentions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:49, 13 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hamilton Zehl

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

The article doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements. Also see WP:SOAPBOX - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 01:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 01:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lawyer does law stuff. Nothing notable about what he does. No sources found. Might be a story about the young woman who's photo was used without permission, but that's a stretch. He's not the subject of the those articles and is mentioned in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing of encyclopedic note here. BD2412 T 04:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Do meet the requirement as it says in the first paragraph of WP:BIO "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Ryan's work is remarkable he won such cases which made the record. ~ BuxyNanny BuxyNanny (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable coverage. Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of cases won is not an encyclopedia article. No evidence of notability and nothing to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:21, 16 October 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. I'm setting aside commentary about the actions of the article subject, and any back-and-forth about editor behavior; this isn't the place for it. We are nonetheless left with a clear consensus that GNG is not met here, and the other IAR arguments for notability did not gain consensus either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Chaikof

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

The subject of this article is not notable. The majority of the sources included in the article are first-person (based on self-reporting and/or brief mentions in interviews, anecdotes, or blog posts), and the notability claims seem to include having a genetic disease, winning a middle-school science fair, and being photographed for a poster as a youngster.

I communicated with the page creator about the nature of the sources and some inaccuracies on the talk page. I'm concerned by the creator's responses -- admitting that they were adding more information as retaliation for what appears to be good-faith blanking -- that this is in fact an attempt at doxxing a non-notable person with whom they have some sort of personal disagreement. (To wit, since my most recent edits to clean up dead citations and correct the name of the science fair, the page author has added the subject's full birthdate to the article.) Kerri9494 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong keep. ~~Stop lying~~ All information in the article is from what has been published earlier (ergo doxxing accusations are absurd). We know very well that the sources in the article are independent, detailed, secondary sources, which consist of in-depth coverage in many prestigious publications like University of Toronto, Jewish Advocate, Moment Magazine, Deaf Life, just to name a few. Those aren't blogs or self-reporting! Also...

0. "Good-faith blanking"?!?!?! No. People aren't permitted to unilaterally blank a well-sourced Wikipedia article without discussion, ESPECIALLY if it is their own article. Period. That's vandalism. And Ms. Chaikof was rightly told she was completely out of line by even trying to edit her own page, much less wholly blank it and replace the text with "removed my personal information" (which, I reiterate, it not personal information as she made herself available to the media to publish!)

1. The article's notability is based on this person being an icon in the oralist world and prominent cochlear implant, and having media coverage in numerous major media outlets as a results. In fact, she is the ONLY pediatric prelingual CI recipient with a Wikipedia article. Deleting her article would mean that nobody can read about an example of a prelingual pediatric recipient here. Sure, there are some sources that contain interviews, but many of the other sources just contain a quote here and there with the rest of the text being by a journalist (and the books like Wired for Sound). So this person absolutely meets WP:GNG due to extensive independent media coverage - after all, she is covered in detail the Times of Israel, Moment Magazine, University of Toronto, Jewish Journal, The Weekly News, and described in many more independent books (cited in the article) such as Wired for Sound plus even a mention in Scientific American. Those aren't self-reporting and blogs! And there's probably a lot more print sources that I haven't even found yet (I will make a point of finding more on my next Library of Congress visit)

2. You have not mentioned a SINGLE thing that you consider to be an innaccuracy/matter of factual dispute in the article. The article cites numerous non-primary sources, from books and newspapers to magazines. This person is clearly the most famous and media-covered pediatric cochlear implant recipient in the device's entire existance.

3. In the very recent past, an IP account that was certainly from the subject of the article repeatedly blanked the page, replacing the contents with "removing my personal information" (a huge violation of Wikipedia policy) and continued to do so despite being told not to by other editors. And now, just a little while after than happened, and editor who has been inactive for months and demonstrates the same lack of understanding about basic Wikipedia functions (ex, forgetting to sign posts, writing on other peoples userpages, etc) is heavily pushing for deletion? That's rather sus.

4. I only wrote information that was available to the general public via newspapers, magazines, and books. NOTHING in the article is private. This is a public figure who made themself available to the media and is being summarized in Wikipedia as a highly notable cochlear implant recipient. That is NOT doxxing. It is completely permissible to include a full birthdate in a BLP if you have a source for the information (the book I cited). And I doubt it's a coincidence that the pages previously cited in the article have recently dissapeared from the WayBackMachine.

5. You have no grounds to even presume I have a personal disagreement with Ms. Chaikof (putting aside the obvious infuriating annoyance at her attempts to vandalize the article I wrote). I humbly suggest that you read WP:Assume good faith to understand that such accusations require better evidence than (gasp) creating a neutral-toned Wikipedia article for someone who has received significant media coverage. When I first publisher her article and emailed her asking to release a photo under a CC-BY-SA license, I was expecting her to be thoroughly delighted to finally have one. I was utterly shocked when she replied insisting that I delete it and followed it up with taking down the Cochlear Implant Online website, which had been a very helpful resource during preliminary research for other Wikipedia articles that I've worked on.

Overall, it is fairly obvious that Ms. Chaikof who clearly doesn't want a Wikipedia article is behind this deletion campaign. It is not an acceptable reason to delete the article just out of her not wanting a Wikipedia article out of dislike that it makes easier to find information that she already allowed to be public via accepting interviews and bragging on her blog about being mentioned in some of those publications. (clearly even she doesn't buy this "not notable" BS). TLDR - most famous pediatric cochlear implant recipient/most famous cochlear implant advocate. Too much independent media coverage to not be considered notable.--RespectCE (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in the Peace Corps isn't notable, she might have a shot for being an early cochlear implant person, but most of the citations are tangential. She could be a brief mention in the cochlear implant article. Nothing terribly notable about her otherwise I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: She's not notable for being in the peace corps. She's notable for being a widely lauded early pediatric cochlear implant recipient and cochlear implant advocate.--RespectCE (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we have nothing showing she's "lauded", widely or not. Most of what's used are primary sources as explained below, or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bamyers99:, @Oopsemoops:, @Reaper Eternal: since they are involved in this matter having dealt with the previous and out-of-line attempts to remove the article.--RespectCE (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the sources used aren't even about this person. Washington Post article is about a different person that mentions Rachel in passing. The Peace Corps article is an article she wrote, and the first two are from books she's written. This is a badly-cobbled together collection of facts, not using RS. She's a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even doing a broad Google search, I get the collection of articles already used as sources and her various social media links. She hasn't gathered much mainstream attention, that's the issue. She might be notable in the public eye, but she isn't for wikipedia's purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The books I cited are not written by her. And I'm pretty sure University of Toronto, Moment Magazine, Times of Israel, Weekly News, and Deaf Life are not deprecated sources. While the Scientific American and WashPo articles were a passing mention, many others were highly detailed - like the one in Deaf Life and the Wired for sound book (and the other books) and magazines like Moment Magazone are NOT by her, but independent writers. And I find it concerning that we are ignoring the fact that this nomination is by what is almost certainly a sock of the IP that recently vandalized the article.--RespectCE (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please go report the socking then. Regardless of why the article was nominated, we're here to review if it should be kept. That is was nominated by a "sock" isn't really the issue we're discussing here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to inject further opinions on deletion here, but as the nominator, I will assert that I'm not the subject of the article, not a sock puppet for the subject of the article, and have never met the subject of the article. Kerri9494 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already filed a sock report.--RespectCE (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the A7 speedy. I am curious what on earth was going on with this diff, however. This is definitely not "speedy keep" material, by the way. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be the Barbra Striesand effect. If she hadn't vandalized the article, I would have lost interest in the article, moved on, and it would have remained in its original state. After the article bombed my watchlist I felt I needed to give it more attention. Furthermore, expanding an article greatly deters further vandalism attempts.--RespectCE (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So you were retaliating against the subject of the BLP? That's...very not cool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Longer articles tend to get paid attention to more, reducing vandalism risk. I would have inevitably expanded it anyway after a few months of procrastinating, but after dropping a doozy on my watchlist this article's editing priority shot up, which wouldn't have happened had the article not been attacked.--RespectCE (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is very little in the references that suggests the subject is notable. With effort it is vaguely possible that the standard could be met, but given the subject doesn't appear to want the attention, I don't think this is a fight worth having. JMWt (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we should reward dirty underhanded tactics to push for article deletion from parties who don't want articles. Ms. Chaikof should have posted on the talkpage, not vandalized Wikipedia. Giving in to vandals will only further incentivize the practice. If there is some specific piece of information that she doesn't want in the article, she should have asked on the talkpage if it could be removed, not repeatedly trying to blank the whole page.--RespectCE (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RespectCE: Can you please stop bludgeoning folks who are trying to discuss the article in natural way, that will eventually lead to conensus. Stating things like "out of dislike" or "out of line" or "Stop lying". is not WP:AGF. If you keep it up, you might end up at WP:ANI. Please concentrate on content not on the people discussing the article. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I will try to remain civil, but the nominator has made this rather personal by throwing various unfounded accusations at me personally for writing the article (ex, claiming that it is doxxing) and falsely insinuating that the article has no good sources. That doesn't help maintain a discussion, and I have a right to defend my dignity in the face of this and rebutt patetnly false claims made in the discussion (ex, claims that the books cited were written by her despite the fact that they were by different authors like Charlotte DeWitt, Beverly Biderman, Cynthia Farley, etc. And the article that was written by her is cited only for the information in the section that provides author information that was written by the staff of the Usher organization, not her.--RespectCE (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPKIND describes exactly this situation. The subject has had it pretty tough, is clearly upset by the page and in my view we need to be kind. There's nothing overwhelming here that suggests we cannot possibly survive without the page, and everything to suggest that she's of marginal notability at best. One of the links is a newspaper article where she speaks up for someone else in trouble. Maybe you are taking this a touch too personally RespectCE. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JMWt: Wikipedia will be deeply lacking if this article is deleted; she is currently the ONLY prelingual pediatric CI recipient with an article right now. The subject is a role model and certainly the most prominent person with Usher Syndrome. Having an example that a person with it can still accomplish a lot (learning French, serving in the Peace Corps, founding a highly popular blog) will serve to be helpful to many other people with Usher, especially Type 1F that she and her family advocate research for so much. I don't envy Ms. Chaikof by any means, but deleting her Wikipedia article is not a good way to help people with disabilities - especially since it reduces representation of diversity in the D/deaf community that Chaikof herself advocates for greater broader representation of. What I take personally is the fact that I am being accused of "doxxing" her by writing an article using information already published from a variety of highly respectable sources. I certainly hope Ms. Chaikof one day realizes how important it is to the little-d community, cochlear implant users, hearing aid users alike, that she has a Wikipedia article that shows what people like her (and with similar conditions) can do. A look at my edit history shows this; I have written expensively about various CI companies, gotten people with various CI sound processors to donate photos to Commons; I have even uploaded pics of my shitty Unitron hearing aids to Commons. And I hope to write additional articles about HA and CI users besides Ms. Chaikof.--RespectCE (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to stop but you haven't stopped. Instead you continue making the same claims about a BLP and other editors here. Do you actually want this to go to WP:ANI? JMWt (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I supposed to say here? You addressed your post to me by name. My recent most didn't even repeat or say ANYTHING negative, only offering a perspective noting general under-representation of cochlear implant and hearing aid recipients in Wikipedia. It's not exactly a secret that Wikipedia needs a bit of updates on all things hearing technology related (which as I noted in the previous post, is demonstrated in articles that aren't about her at all that are dominated by more obsolete tech). Heck, I'm even suggesting some kind of comprimise, ex, making the article a redirect to a different article (be it cochlear implants or Usher syndrome) but would keep the page history in case she gets a lot more media coverage/more media coverage found to use in a new article version--RespectCE (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we've gotten your point, clearly. Badgering gets us nowhere. We're trying to discuss sourcing for the article. I'm still not convinced we're at GNG. She could have a brief mention in the cochlear implant article perhaps, a stand-alone article about her doesn't seem warranted. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for "compromise." The subject neither meets the GNG nor any other notability criteria, period. It is not a credible search term for much of anything. There's certainly no prejudice against recreation should the subject ever achieve notability, but it's not as if there's much prospect of that. Ravenswing 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to look beyond the 1-second google search results and stop pretending that the PRINT sources that are more detailed don't exist.--RespectCE (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced that this article meets the requirements laid out in the general notability guidelines. Particularly, most of the provided sources are tangentially related at best (we require significant coverage to establish notability). Accordingly, given that the subject does not want an article about herself here, we should delete this page (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) since she is of very marginal notability at best. Furthermore, I've lost a lot of good faith in the author—they admit to retaliating against Rachel's attempt to delete the article about herself and call it "vandalism" in blatant disregard for WP:BLP. They only reverted the mass addition of content when Kerri9494 (talk · contribs) correctly pointed out that it was mostly sourced to interviews and other primary sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, and Massachusetts. TJMSmith (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, I get that the article creator is intensely (if not obsessively) focused on the subject and her family -- also creating an article on her father -- but their rush to create one- and two-sentence sub-stubs [26] hasn't apparently included the knowledge to write sound BLP articles. This particular one is signally short of reliable, independent, third party sources that actually provide significant coverage -- as opposed to casual mentions, namedrops and interviews -- to the subject, nor is seeking to cover up the lack by bludgeoning and filibustering, and revenge stunts against the nom, a good look. I concur with other editors that RespectCE needs to slow their roll dramatically if a trip to ANI and a potential block for WP:NOTHERE is to be avoided. Ravenswing 20:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that most members of the National Academy of Medicine already have Wikipedia articles - it's not my fault he's already been namedropped across Wikipedia. As for my stubs, yes, I have written other biographies that I intend to expand in the future for Wiki Women in Red, but seeing as none are subject to attention for other editors of any kind/never been blanked, I've put them on the backburner for now (Striesand effect). If anyone blanked the article about Yevgeniya Dolinyuk or Agrafena Nilova I would drop everything and focus on those ones. And please keep in mind that the %-stubs-of-pages-created does not accuratly reflect overall contributions to Wikipedia like expanding existing stubs.--RespectCE (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That would come off better had your contribution history demonstrated you'd significantly expanded more existing stubs than in creating single-sentence sub-stubs of your own. That being said, do you get that this extreme defensiveness, jumping on almost each comment anyone makes, is unacceptable? You do not own these articles, and claiming that actions taken "against" them "disrespect" you to the degree of compelling you to strike back just reinforces the impression that you are a poor fit for a collaborative, consensus encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. So far, the unanimous consensus (from other than yourself, of course) is that this subject does not meet notability standards, and the blowback from the Streisand effect you keep citing is that we're likely to closely examine your contribution history to see if your judgment is as badly wrong elsewhere. Ravenswing 05:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reserve the right to reply when people deeply insult my edit history. Positiveness of contributions is not just measured by the number of articles expanded, but how much content by bytes is added, and I just recently have significantly expanded the Cochlear Ltd article (returning info that a previous COI editor removed, BTW) and am now working on a mega-rewrite of the MED-EL article (which has also been butchered by COI sockpuppets to be a corporate puff piece). Please stop attacking me and making this personal. Every single article I've created will not remain a stub. I have never claimed ownership of articles. If people didn't try to make this about me so much I wouldn't be taking the time to reply to defend my character.--RespectCE (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but someone who responds to an AfD nomination with "Stop lying" and a revenge sockpuppet filing does not get to be huffy about charges that he is acting in bad faith. You made this very personal with your first response here, you compounded it by your bludgeoning, and your readiness to declare yourself insulted and disrespected compounds it further. Ravenswing 14:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Falsely accusing me of maliciously "doxxing" someone by publishing already public information in the Wikipedia article is a clear cut lie (writing a Wikipedia article using already published information is by definition not doxxing). Any reasonable person can understand that anyone would be enraged to be accused of that. Furthermore, the sockpuppet filing is not "revenge" for filing a deletion nomination, but an step taken to alert the proper authorities here that an account that just because active again but lacks basic understanding of wikipedia works (ex, posting on my userpage, not signing posts) is engaged in a remarkable similar editing pattern and identical pursuit to an IP that recently edit-warred in the same article and also lacked understanding of wikipedia protocals. The NOMINATOR made this very personal by throwing disgusting accusations at me first, and you continue to make this personal by insulting my edit history for writing stubs I haven't yet gotten to expanding (I am somewhat new here). Other commentators have been able to express their delete votes WITHOUT going ad hominem like you.--RespectCE (talk)
Delete Judging how this person isn't really notable, how the creator of the article referred to her as a "controversial figure in deaf+Deaf community" in the page creation summary, as well as how they insulting her to her face, this seems to be a person that the creator dislikes and created this as an attack page disguised as a general article. Regardless of whether it possibly is or is not an attack page, I don't see how this person would be notable. The creator has claimed in this discussion that other articles of similar subjects exist, but maybe the case is that this article as well as said others shouldn't. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did NOT create this page as an attack page. There is nothing in the text that can be construed as that. I had no idea that she didn't want a wiki article at the time I published it - in fact I was certain that she would be delighted and asked her to donate a photo to Commons for it. I don't see how mentioning that someone faced a fair deal of difficulties in life but still excelled in school and landed a volunteer position in the Peace Corps is an attack. I was deeply angered by the repeat unilateral IP blanking of the page as it was completely disrespectful to my efforts as a wikipedia editor. And as a matter of general good practice, people who are concerned about their privacy are best off setting their social media account settings to "private" and not publishing their IP address via IP edits. And anyone who is active in editing articles about deaf/Deaf matters KNOWS that the manualism vs oralism debate is still alive and well, so anyone who makes statements strongly siding with "team manualism" or "team oralism" is going to be a subject of controversy.--RespectCE (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing, "This particular one is signally short of reliable, independent, third party sources that actually provide significant coverage -- as opposed to casual mentions, namedrops and interviews". No comment on the surrounding drama/ or motives of the nom.-KH-1 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity - are you making that desicion soley based on the first few clickable link type supplemental sources in the article, or did you actually manage to track down all of the print sources and throuoghly read them in the short span of time this ADF has been up?--RespectCE (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep but stubbify (see comment below) ~~Delete~~ - I agree with others that, irrespective of the motivations or surrounding context, the subject seems not to meet [[[WP:GNG]]. If the article is to be kept, I would suggest the most productive next step in this discussion would be the identification of three independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. That would better focus the notability discussion on specific sources, rather than the passing mentions currently cited in the article. Suriname0 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the three provided sources. I was not able to access Audecibel online or identify any offline repository accessible to me; thus, I can't verify its contents either way. But, on the basis of the two other sources, this seems like a case where the subject is notable (WP:GNG is met, although with fairly weak sources; two were published while she was a child, and the other is a promotional profile with unclear editorial oversight) but the subject is not a public figure. Thus, extraneous information in the article should be removed, following the guidance to "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Based on the available sources, it seems a paragraph at most is supportable. And, from an editorial perspective, I agree with others suggestions that this non-public figure ought to be discussed in other articles rather than given a stand-alone article for which quality sources are minimally available. Finally, I'm including here an excerpt from Wired for Sound, which may be helpful to others because I found it difficult to track down. 7 paragraphs are included about the family and the author's first person experience meeting them. Here's a representative excerpt:
  The oldest child, Rachel, was born in 1987 with a severe-to-profound hearing loss, which became total by the time she was eighteen months old. .... Rachel’s speech was fairly clear, and she seemed to be well integrated socially with the hearing children I saw her playing with. Her mother told me she can chat on the phone with her friends with little difficulty. Rachel attends a regular school, in a class of hearing children, where the results of her language tests are age appropriate or better in all areas but vocabulary and auditory sequential memory.
  Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravenswing's source analysis has me less convinced that keeping the article is a reasonable outcome. I think the merge proposed above as an WP:ATD is very reasonable. Suriname0 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 3 independent reliable sources with significant coverage as cited in the article: The Wired for Sound book (3 pages); Audecibel Volume 43 (3 pages), Moment Magazine (article).--RespectCE (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Audecibel magazine source is not fully accessible through GBooks, but the preview for the one page cited in the article includes, "Six - year - old Rachel Chaikof of Atlanta, Georgia is Child of the Year for the 1994 campaign." Similarly, through GBooks, the Wired for Sound source appears to be a brief mention on one page, with her mother talking about her as a child. The Moment magazine source is a seven-graf article with multiple quotes from her at age 30, and her family is also discussed in the article. While there is some secondary context, this is only partial support for WP:BASIC notability. The WP:REFCLUTTER stacked at the end of each section makes it challenging to assess the significance of coverage in the sources, but it appears there are brief mentions, interviews/quotes, sometimes related to promotion of her family's nonprofit (e.g. (JTA, Wicked Local). In reviewing sources, I am not finding support for what appears to be the basic assertions of notability in the article, i.e. that she is an advocate (the section labeled advocacy in the article appears to be WP:PROMO for Cochlear Limited, an article that the creator of this article happens to have substantially contributed to, e.g. [27]), or that "she was hailed in oralist circles as a cochlear implant success story". Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I have no preferences for any CI company. In fact, I RETURNED information about Cochlear Limited violating anti-kickback laws that was removed by previous editors that obviously had COIs. I also wrote the article for Advanced Bionics, the main competitor of Cochlear Ltd, and some of the smaller CI companies like Nurotron which broke the monopoly Cochlear Ltd had in China. And as a matter of fact, I am currently working on a full rewrite of the article about MED-EL, the other "big three" cochlear implant company (The big three being Cochlear, Advanced Bionics, and MED-EL). I have also appealed on the internet to ask people to donate photos of CIs under free licenses permitted by Wikipedia, and it's quote unfortunate that we (Wikipedia) haven't gotten any good photos of the obsolete MED-EL and Advanced Bionics body-worn processors. My edits are in no way limited to things related to Cochlear Ltd and if you took a GOOD look at my edit history I'm sure you would realize that. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no rule requiring sources in Wikipedia articles to be fully available on the internet.--RespectCE (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also put in the information about the 1995 Nucleus 22 recalls in the Cochlear Ltd article. (further evidence of my work being to provide thorough information about CI-related topics, not to puff any particular brand.--RespectCE (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I just mega-expanded the MED-EL article, you can see it for yourself. I would write a wikipedia article about someone with a MED-EL implant if I could but since they have never had a monopoly (unlike another company, not naming names), there's quite a bit less people with them and therefore I don't know of anyone with one who is even half as famous as Chaikof. So there's that.--RespectCE (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" does not mean sources which namedrop the subject. It means that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This should not be so hard a notion to grasp. Ravenswing 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over a dozen pages of content about her in the Walk in my Shoes book and full-length feature articles in Moment and Weekly are hardly just "namedropping". I'm patently insulted that you think I don't already know the difference, as I have already explained that the article contains "backbone" sources with large amounts of detailed information going through multiple pages (ie, print books) and "extras"/supplemental sources that might have an extra fact or two or an update.--RespectCE (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a citation to a Jewish Advocate December 2016 article that biographed her in detail. But I guess you'll shrug it off as just another "name drop".--RespectCE (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll shrug it off as a weekly local paper, the same way your Walk In My Shoes book is from a self-published outfit: "After self-publishing her own novels, Jenny Hudson decided to start up Merrimack Media in 2008 to help authors get the editing, design, and promotional services they need to make their self-published books a success." These repeated attempts at pushing shoddy sources at us, combined with your combative behavior, has long since gotten tiresome. Classic case of the corollary to Ravenswing's First Law. Ravenswing 17:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Merrimack Media was self-publishing, but there's absolutely no ban on using weekly regional publications (Boston isn't exactly bumblefuck Idaho). And I would appreciate you dropping YOUR combative, disrespectful, and hostile attitude. Oh, and I checked your article stats, and you seem to have published your fair share of stubs and start-length articles to, so I really think you should apologize your your past remarks regarding me. I don't know about you, but almost all my stubs are topics that match corresponding longer articles in multiple other languages, and I have every intention of finishing them once I get a chance to do another Library of Congress trip to view some of the publications I want to cite. So start showing me a little respect. We are all volunteers here, contributing our precious time to producing articles. Maybe you think spatting upon my contributions will drive me away, but it won't. In fact, in sharp contrast to me, your contributions over the past few days have almost EXCLUSIVELY been on this page, which shows that you are not willing to offer much to Wikipedia besides starting flamewars in AFDs and pouting on ANI boards.--RespectCE (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of my last twenty article creations (other than redirects, of course), only one is a short stub. Of your last twenty, fourteen are two sentences or less, including such informative articles as "Lidiya Pavlovna Ivanova (Russian: Лидия Павловна Иванова; 17 March [O.S. 4 March] 1915 — 18 May 1979) was a Soviet milkmaid foreman who was twice awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labour for record milk yields from her cows" and "Kseniya Kupriyanovna Petukhova (Russian: Ксения Куприяновна Петухова; 16 January [O.S. 3 January] 1909 — 28 August 1977) was a caretaker of calves on a kolkhoz who was twice awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labour for her work." (Otherwise, none of us are soothsayers, and can only go on your actions, instead of trying to divine your intent regarding why you'd create at one or two sentences when there are already extensive articles -- and several extensively sourced -- for the same on the Russian Wikipedia available to be mined.) I admit that otherwise I've had a light year; only around 500 of my nearly 30,000 mainspace edits have come in the last six months. Ravenswing 17:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the second prong of WP:N also applies, because this article appears constructed with poorly-sourced WP:INDISCRIMINATE detail, including a lot of WP:TMI personal medical information related to when she was a minor, which also raises WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns. There is also seemingly related WP:PROMO, both for cochlear implants generally and a specific company, as well as multiple sources promoting her family's nonprofit organization. In addition, I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should also support deletion based on this discussion, because she appears to be a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Beccaynr (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly private medical information from when she was a minor when she also put put that info in a youtube video when she was 20 (not a minor)--RespectCE (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The fact that birds have feathers and some birds can fly does not mean an ostrich will take flight. - Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Printed books and electronic magazines and newspapers AREN'T original research.--RespectCE (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone here even TRIED accessing all the print books cited before jumping to the conclusion that her media coverage is only "namedropping"? I can convert the citations to sfn format if it would help understand the depth of her media coverage.--RespectCE (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I can't help but laugh over the fact that I am literally being personally attacked from opposite perspectives: some editors have accused me of creating this article as an "attack page" (bit laughable since I made a point of mentioning various honors the subject received) and from the other side it's been accused of being "promotional" because I mentioned the brand of implant (of course, I also mentioned it failing twice in a year) in question she has (which is publicly available information), mentioned the charity she family started to search for a cure for Usher 1F (hard to fathom anyone being opposed for creating a cure for a debilitating disease that causes poor balance AND blind-deafness), all because I expanded the article about the largest cochlear implant company (in the process of which, I added recall info that was not previously in the article and restored information about the company being fined for bribery that was removed by past editors). This is getting to the point of absurdity, with a huge bandwagon effect, of lazy editors jump the "delete" bandwagon before bothering to seek out the most important sources in the article!--RespectCE (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You respond to each and every post here. Just state your case and let it go, this isn't a personal attack. We're here to judge the quality of the sources to see if the article is justified. You're very passionate about the subject, we understand. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  My link to the Pulling a rabbit out of a hat essay specifically notes that in good faith, an editor may synthesize information to support a conclusion not otherwise reported by independent and reliable secondary sources. For example, there do not appear to be sources referring to the subject as an icon, advocate, or famous - this appears to be a conclusion reached by connecting various sources that report details such as a promotional appearance on a poster as a child, a promotional speech at a corporate function, or being quoted while promoting her family's nonprofit organization.
  
  Stacking references at the end of each section, instead of citing each sentence to help show where the information is from and the depth of information from each source, also contributes to the appearance of synthesis. It is a further concern to describe the subject as 'controversial' and then seem to focus with undue weight on aspects of her childhood that may be considered controversial, particularly when more recent sources do not mention this part of her biography, and instead seem to focus on promoting her family's nonprofit organization. My point is that in an effort to create interesting and useful content for the encyclopedia, there appears to have been a misapplication of a policy, and if the synthesis is discounted, there appears to be insufficient support for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaQuan McGowan

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

LaQuan McGowan

American football player who does not satisfy general notability or sports notability. The subject did not satisfy the old version of gridiron football notability, which has been dropped, because it does not appear that he played professionally.

There was a draft in draft space, which was then copy-pasted into article space, and the draft was blanked, but the draft has now been restored. A history merge has been requested for this version in article space.

The text of this article says nothing about significant coverage by independent sources. A review of the references shows that the first two are a database entry and a YouTube page and so are not significant or secondary. The third is an article in an arena football e-magazine, which is not independent because it is promoting arena football (and there is no record that he played). The fourth reference is a 404 error.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	espn.com	A database entry on college players	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	Youtube	Discussion on Youtube	Yes	No	No	No
3	arenafootballtalk.com	Story about signing	No, because electronic magazine is about arena football	Yes	Yes	No
4	carolinacobras.com	Has 404 error	No	No	No

There is a draft. The draft can be left standing. He might play professionally and be covered by the hometown daily newspaper. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, North Carolina, and Texas. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say he probably passes WP:GNG with the following articles: The green giant: One TD catch made LaQuan McGowan a cult hero, an extremely in-depth article from the Waco Tribune-Herald; 400-pound Baylor TE LaQuan McGowan wants to be a pro wrestler after the NFL from SB Nation; Baylor’s 410-pound LaQuan McGowan scored a touchdown, then trolled a referee from The Washington Post; LaQuan McGowan, Baylor's jolly green giant, is as personable as he is large due to time at Boys Ranch from The Dallas News; Whoa. Baylor TE LaQuan McGowan was absolutely huge in high school from USA Today; this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this from The Austin American-Statesman; this from Yahoo; and many other articles that can be found on google. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's tough to evaluate all of the articles BeanieFan11 posted because of paywalls & such, but the Waco Tribune-Herald and Dallas News pieces are SIGCOV. Hatman31 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. the Waco Tribune-Herald article, Dallas News article, the Arena Football Talk article are significant independent coverage (The fact that the one electronic magazine is about arena football does NOT exclude it from being independent coverage. It is not directly affiliated with the subject or his team). Also other paywalled articles presented by Beaniefan are likely GNG appropriate as well. Frank Anchor 16:47, 15 October 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!} 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble in the Streets

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

Fails WP:NFILM. There is a claim it was reviewed by Joe Bob Briggs, but I can't find it on the linked site, nor are there any actual comments by Briggs in the article. The executive producer and a writer are notable, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM with no third-party coverage and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Wasn't notable when the article was created and still is not now. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Nickm57 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything significant about the film. Fifthapril (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did a deep dive and wasn't able to find anything. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasons. Harbouri, an alt: Let's talk! (on my main) - What have I done?

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 Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato

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

I'm doubtful that this shrine has sufficient notability, based on third-party independent sources, to warrant its own page. Currently the article only has two unique citations, both directly related to the Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). There are passing mentions of the shrine in two Manila Times articles, but I don't think this satisfies the notability criteria per WP:NBUILD. For any unique information here, I would recommend that it be Merged into Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can I vote keep? Ploreky (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I see no reason for Deletion for this article. Why? as it is stated in WP:NBUILD, Third party sources are only to prove its notability and most of all verifiability, and as you said, you already founded 1, so there's no reason to delete it because you've already verified it. Next, if you think these aren't enough to establish notability, then I can give these links National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato, Heyplace churches, The milagrosans, pandurog ng bato mula sa hongkong, etc. I think atleast these links should verify the church. Now, if you think this article should be deleted because it only has 1 independent source, then I will say 1 source is better than nothing, In my experience on wikipedia, I've handled many articles that are not, in any way, quite notable, yet wikipedia allows it. I've edited many church less notable than this church like: Church of the Good Shepherd (Raquette Lake, New York), St John's Parish Church, South Hornchurch, Bel Air Church. Now, even though these articles lack 3rd sources, why did wikipedia allow it? It's because it's verified, that is what's important.

If we will follow your logic and will try to delete this article just because it doesn't have more than 1 independent source, then you must also delete these articles: INC Central Temple, Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral, ADD Convention Center etc. Because these articles doesn't even have 1 independent article within it. And thus, also doesn't have notability.

Why is it also a need to verify its notability? Isn't it common sense? That a headquarter of a notable denomination is also indeed notable? As stated in Wikipedia:NBUILD: buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance". Now, what do you think is this shrine is? This shrine is of Social and Architectural importance, no proofs needed, only common sense. Since this is a headquarters, it has Social and Architectural importance. Ploreky (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The next clause in the part you quoted from WP:NBUILD tells how the notability it describes is determined - by "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." None of the links you have provided satisfy this. The only independent, reliable source you've mentioned appears to be the Manila Times articles but they do not provide in-depth coverage. Everything else is either a WP:SPS or does not satisfy WP:RS. That other articles like this exist is insufficient rationale (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it Sir, WP:OTHERSTUFF is different from what I am saying. My reason is different from opinion. I'm going to ask, what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the National Shrine, with even independent articles, are LESS notable than the ones that doesn't have it? Where's the logic in that.

By sending me WP:OTHERSTUFF, your basically just telling me:

"Shut up, I do what I want to do, I don't care if the National Shrine is more notable than the other churches, if I want to delete it, I'm gonna delete it, I don't care about the other churches that doesn't show notability or those that are even less notable than this church I'll just let them go. And if you're gonna be against it, I'll just show that I'm the victim and you're the disruptor, that way, I can manipulate others so that I can do anything"

That's what you're basically trying to tell me right? or atleast that's what I think.

As the original maker of the NSIPB, I'll allow you to delete, or atleast merge this article into the denomination of it, as long as you do the same to Th es e articles as well, because it will be prejudistic if you just remove this only one article when all these articles I gave you denies WP:NBUILD. But, if you do not agree, and you only want to delete this specific article, then, I'll just fight for my basis until an admin hears us out. Ploreky (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I'm telling you. You might also do well to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Especially with the latter since you're establishing a pattern of interaction with those you disagree with that will likely lead to WP:ANI. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh, I'm so sorry, I ot a little bit overboard there. I'm really sorry, now that I got a good night sleep, I just realized it. Sorry Ploreky (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate any article you want for deletion, so long as it has merit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines): Not enough notability, needs multiple independent reliable secondary sources. If notability is found, I will change my vote to keep. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, If I'm right, these should be enough. 10 Facts about EDSA shrine , All events.com , National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato Quezon city , https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/07/31/news/apostolic-church-patriarch-and-founding-bishop/1809211, national-and-local-officials-lead-gawad-san-juan-florentino(Second Paragraph). http://acc-ingkong-blockrosarycrusaders.blogspot.com/2008/08/ang-ina-poon-bato-ang-ina-ng-mga.html, https://sealedlovedones.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mni-3-4-2011_message-for-auxiliaries.pdf, https://archive.tonite.abante.com.ph/acc-mutya-ng-pasko-2019-kinoronahan/ Ploreky (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a blog and doesn't actually talk about the shrine in question. The 2nd and 3rd links are two directory-type websites - they are neither reliable sources nor provide any coverage besides that it exists. The 4th and 5th links are a reliable source but only provide passing mention, not in-depth coverage. And the 6th and 7th link are from the ACC and therefore not independent. None of which satisfy WP:NBUILD. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, are you really insisting that??? Holy frick, First of all, what is wikipedia? It isn't just a website that you can just delete the articles you don't want? No matter how many links I give you, as long as you're not open-minded to it, you will never ever accept it. This article will improve wikipedia, Demands on an article about the Apostolic Catholic Church's Headquarters are increasing, so, I already gave my links, I already reasoned reasonably, This article is already commonsensically notable, that's why, if you still can't accept it, F*** you._{In case you get it wrong, it's frick}

First of all, how can you tell that the 1st link I give you does not pertain to the Shrine??? how? It is already stated there that it is already the shrine that the Church owns. Next, I'm actually wondering, How tf can you actually just throw/disregard the Refs I gave you just like that??? I can't even think its humanely possible, hahahahaha. I mean, you just literally throwed to the trash all of the links I gave you. What the hell.

I'm sorry if I'm being a mastodon. I just can't help it. You're disregarding our reasoning ang just listening to your ego. Hck your even questioning a user who have been an admin for 16 years! Mr.@Necrothesp years as being an admin may even be older than you. "None of which satisfy WP:NBUILD". Satisfy NBUILD or satisfy you? Ploreky (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the post title and text, the first link (to a "Discover Walks Blog" post) is about the EDSA Shrine, which is a different and distinct building. It's unfortunate that they got their photo captions wrong, but another example why blog posts do not generally meet WP:RS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of the sources are useful here. Was it discussed in local media at length or any article confirming the history of the place? Those would help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to ACC: with few improvements, Since it is notable within its own subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploreky (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are generally considered notable. And this one seems to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the policy or discussion that established that cathedrals are generally considered notable? WP:GNG still requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which sources do you feel satisfy this? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about as close to it as we get [28], so basically we need to meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article could be improved with sources about "Our lady of Ina Poon Bato", which is the focus of the shrine: e.g. 1. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue then that a Our Lady of Ina Poonbato might deserve an article then merge relevant information from this article to that. However, notability is usually not inherited. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already shown notability as per the sources presented above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the links that User:Ploreky has provided above and I'm not seeing which ones qualify as reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. Which ones do you see as satisfying this? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FyzixFighter: Oh f*** right! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they pass GNG, I restored my vote to the first one. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapatid, anong pinagdududa mo? Nagbigay na ako ng mga independenteng mga sources, anong hindi mo sure na nakapass ito sa GNG??? Kapatid, parehas tayong wikipedia editor, alam mo at alam ko ang batas. Hindi tayo magiging Extended confirmed user kung hindi tayo marunong diba? Ploreky (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the comments in English please, it keeps it fair for all who come to comment. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not still satisfied? Come on, I already gave 8 Source and 4 of them are Independent ones. I don't know why you still think that it's not notable.

Brother @FyzixFighter, what's still your problem? Notability? I already gave it. Kapatid na @SeanJ 2007, what is "right?" Come on, I already gave numerable links. Just vote keep. Just in case, review all the links again. Ploreky (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: I am not sure if the sources you mentioned can really pass GNG. I am editing Wikipedia for 1 year, but until now I don't know if a source can really pass GNG. I am just participating on the rules of Wikipedia. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, my vote is merge. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oooohhhh, okay okay. Just review the links I gave you, many of those are independent 3rd and 2nd party links. Ploreky (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBUILD with sources presented by Ploreky. They're reliable adn in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not going to !vote (neither "Keep", "Merge to Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)" nor "Delete" for failing the notability criteria of standards, specifically WP:NBUILD), but based on the current eight reference sources that are in the nominated page as of this writing, seven sources are came from the same website and the sole source was from Facebook (which is clearly NOT a source per WP:RS/P through WP:RSPFB and WP:EL/P through WP:FACEBOOK). In these findings, the article itself doesn't match and meet the Wikipedia policies and guidelines including per WP:SIGCOV as well as its notability stands. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to be honest, I am confused by the comments saying that the links provided by Ploreky represent significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources, thus satisfying WP:NBUILD. My own assessment of the links is as follows:

Placedigger - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - Yellowbook equivalent listing, passing mention and not a reliable source
HeyPlaces - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - another Yellowbook equivalent listing, passing mention, potentially user-generated and not a reliable source
THE MILAGROSANS - Ang Pambansang Dambana ng Ina Poon Bato - appears to be a blog by the ACC, only passing mention, wordpress site - not a reliable source, not independent
AMCEquip. - passing mention, looks like it might be a content farm?
Discover Walks Blog - Top 10 Little Known Facts About EDSA Shrine - blogpost is about the EDSA Shrine not the NSIPB
AllEvents page - passing mention, user-generated content, not a reliable source
Onsono - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - another Yellowbook/advertising equivalent listing, passing mention, not a reliable source
The Manila Times - Apostolic church patriarch and founding bishop - finally, something that qualifies as a reliable source... but only passing mention of NSIPB
The Manila Times - National and local officials lead Gawad San Juan Florentino - a reliable source... but only passing mention of NSIPB
ACC-Ingkon "Block Rosary Crusaders" - ACC affiliated blog, not independent
[29] - ACC published memo, not independent
Abante Tonite - ACC Mutya ng Pasko 2019 kinoronahan - ~~a reliable source~~ tabloid... but only passing mention of NSIPB

I don't see any of the links qualify as reliable, in-depth, and independent. For those who do think Ploreky's links satisfy NBUILD, where is my assessment incorrect? --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) correcting based on comment by Lenticel below. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to tell again, as stated in WP:GNG, you already proved it's notability. As you said, there is already atleast 3 independent sources. And that is more than enough to prove its notability, and the rest are just for verifications that the subject really exists.

As I will say again, as it is stated in WP:NBUILD buildings, like the NSIPB, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance as it is stated in this sentence, this alone should be enough to prove its notability as it is a national Headquarters of a notable denomination. Meaning, all of the members of this denomination already knows this shrine, hence, it is notable. Ploreky (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep forgetting the subsequent requirement listed in WP:NBUILD - "but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" (emphasis mine). To establish notability of a historically, socially, economically, or architecturally important building we need sources that are 1) in-depth coverage, 2) reliable, and 3) independent. Which of the sources provided satisfies all three? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, none of these are useful for this article. We need sources that talk about the place, not articles that simply mention it in relation to something else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). I only found one of the references stated above as a plausible reference. I've added other external sources to the parent article to improve its quality. Anyways, FyzixFighter's assessment are mostly correct except Abante Tonite is a tabloid and is probably not the best source out there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). There is not enough here for an article. There is an important difference between sources that mention a shrine and those that provide significant coverage. As the WP:GNG says: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources confirming it exists, but nothing we can use to build an article here. The "thing" 's website and church websites aren't RS and this is a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) and then redirect Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 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!} 00:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wisolar

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

advertising.. based upon thoroughly promotional sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much to use as sourcing, the ones given in the article appear promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 13 October 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.