Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 01	February 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of France stage winners on July 14th "Bastille Day"

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

Came across this article, at first it boggled me as to what it is about. I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July. If so, it would be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE unsourced list article. I do not easily see any other lists of segment winners of other nationalities/dates. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Cycling, and France. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this un-sourced list is about. There is no Fr wiki article to compare, so just delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no context or indication of importance? Dronebogus (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* it is a list of French-only leaders of the Tour de France segment/day which happens to occur on 14 July. FYI, this is incorrect, as it's a list of French people who win the stage of the Tour de France held on 14 July (not who are in race lead/yellow jersey that day). Warren Barguil winning on 14 July 2017 is definitely mentioned every Bastille Day since on commentary, and will look for sources about the list of people as a whole. The stats up until 2008 are verifiable [1] (though this source doesn't really prove notability, as it's a stats site). One paragraph about last 2 French winners on Bastille: [2]. Will keep looking when I get more time, but leaning towards delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if kept, it should be renamed to something easier to understand without ""s, like List of French Tour de France stage winners on Bastille Day. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT for being far too specific and narrow (the opposite of INDISCRIMINATE). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SALAT is a better rationale, thank you.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a thing in French Tour de France culture, and not a thing we should carry. The list is unfair to the non-French cyclists who worked hard that day. Neither should we carry the (shorter) list of Dutchies who won at the Alpe d'Huez. That's a thing in Dutch Tour de France culture. gidonb (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete further to my comments above, I have looked for and not found any WP:SIGCOV in English or French language sources, only passing mentions about the topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mitchell (author)

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

Non-notable author and roller blader. Seems like he has a few published books, and may have some influence in the inline skating industry, but nothing notable. Article was created by an SPA. Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Sportspeople, and California. Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll I see are books lists and his Simon And Shuester publisher's webpage. I don't find any critical reviews of his works. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Comcast#Sky Group. You might also consider Sky Group as a Merge target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sky World News

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

Unlaunched network, not enough detail to provide lasting notability. Can be covered on articles of related divisions instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Condense it down to a few sentences and pop it over to Comcast#Sky Group and/or NBCUniversal#Comcast era (2011–present). Mike Allen 01:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into Comcast#Sky Group and retain the first two paragraphs as a subsection within the Sky Group and/or Sky News articles. Rillington (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Comcast#Sky Group: As per the other two users. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Eugene Evans

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any coverage of him in secondary sources. The article only cites a few interviews (which are primary sources), IMDB (not a reliable source) and a couple of dead links. Since it is impossible to write a quality article without secondary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be considered notable, the article should be deleted. Baronet13 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing any additional reliable sourcing either. NASAvegas (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons noted above. DJ Cane (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Even the HuffPost article is from a blog.

QuintinK (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On one hand, the director's article is a great place to merge into all the articles about his films. One the other hand, there's very few secondary sources, primarily interviews, about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wise

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

Reads like a CV; no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject, mostly just a bibliography. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! I took a class from this guy at WWU and he is very well known in his field.

Evidence of meeting WP:PROF:

-The guidelines require "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Prof. Wise has made a significant impact on the field of West African Lit. He's published 20+ books on the subject and over 100 articles. Just look at his website. Significantly, he translated The Timbuktu Chronicles into English. This is a seminal work in historical West African documents - its significance is akin to Chaucer in the British tradition. Prof Wise made this important text accessible to Western scholars, students, and interested readers.

-The guidelines also require "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Prof was was a Fulbright Scholar not once but TWICE! This is the most widely recognized and prestigious international exchange program in the world. If you have a Fulbright in academia, you are considered to have received a prestigious award.

-For the same reasons, the Fulbright scholarship should qualify Prof. Wise for "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor"

-For the sake of brevity, I will make this the last one in this category, but the guidelines require "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." Not only has Professor Wise significantly contributed to the academic discourse on Sahelian literature, but he's produced a number of lectures and informational videos on West Africa that students in higher education all over the world use. Alternative formats are an incredibly useful tool in higher education, and he's made what is seen as a difficult subject accessible and interesting.

2600:8800:7290:6200:60DE:744D:B933:3411 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a Fulbright scholarship is certainly a laudable achievement, there are thousands issued every year, and as such does not confer notability. Producing "lectures and informational videos" is something that most professors do in the course of their work; the same goes with publishing papers and books. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:AUTHOR with many reviews of his books cited in the article. Of course it focuses on his writings - they are what make him notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. He appears to pas NAUTHOR. Despite that, this article needs quite a bit of work. I'm very busy IRL and can't do it now. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to elict a little more examination of this article and article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR.--Bexaendos (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Editors free to redirect if desired. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND UPE. Routine funding, investment news, PR, press-releases. FailsWP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At best, Redirect to Vinny Smith. Use WP:ORGCRIT. Insufficient references have all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, (4) secondary source. Vinny Smith may be smart, rich, and famous, but that doesn't confer notability on his private holding company. WP:INHERITORG Nor do the companies he invested in. A substantially similar discussion is being held about NantWorks Rhadow (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP, and the source review below. My search for sources has also not found substantial independent support for notability. A redirect could be created after deletion of this WP:BROCHURE. Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source review

Smith moves on after grueling battle with Dell (The Orange County Register, 2013) - background on Smith unrelated to the company, an interview with Smith that includes a mention of what he generally plans to invest in the company and what the company recently invested in, more background unrelated to the company, and "Toba Capital's Alteryx investment is typical of the type of company he’s interested in," with one-sentence description of Alteryx. This does not appear to be substantial coverage of the company per WP:CORPDEPTH and it is dependent on statements by the founder per WP:ORGIND.
With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry (The Mercury News, 2013) - announces Smith plans to invest in the company, has also been investing in various startups, rarely grants interviews, background unrelated to the company, a CEO is looking forward to working with the company, and an explanation from Smith for the name of the company.
Dell sells its majority stake in Smarsh to investment fund Toba Capital (The Oregonian, 2013) - trivial coverage of an announced a capital transaction per WP:CORPDEPTH, and a substantial part is based on statements from a Toba associate and another related party.
Tech investor Peter Thiel ups stake in Lystable (The Telegraph, 2015) - "The second round of funding, which also includes cash from Toba Capital, the San Francisco-based venture fund" and "Steve Goodman, partner at $500m fund Toba Capital and founder of job searching tool Bright, which was bought by LinkedIn for $130m, will join Lystable as an adviser" are the only mentions of the company, so this is not WP:CORPDEPTH.
Cloudant raises $12m in Series B funding (Boston Globe, 2013) - trivial coverage of an announced capital transation that appears to be dependent on statements from a company without independent coverage per WP:ORGIND.
Orange County Business Journal sources - the About Us page includes, "Presented in a lively and accessible format, the Business Journal is required reading for Orange County executives, managers and professionals—written in an up-tempo, breezy style that reveals the drama, excitement and fun in business." There are seven OCBJ sources: 7 sentences about the company related to announced annual financial results for several companies; 10 sentences about the company related to announced annual financial results for several companies; brief announcement of a capital transaction 2 3; interview with Smith, his wife, background on Smith, 3-sentence overview about the company, interview with a related party, two more sentences about the company, more about Smith and according to Smith; announced capital transaction with superficial background and dependent coverage.
There are also three Socialtech.com sources, and this website looks like a press-release generator, e.g. [3] that fails WP:ORGIND at minimum.
The remaining sources seem similar or worse in quality, independence, and/or depth.

Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great analysis of the references. I searched off-Wiki and found plenty about its investments, but nothing in-depth about the firm itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Jah

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

I proposed this article for deletion with the reason "The only article about Murad Jah says nothing about his princely role or his family. And in articles about the family, he is mentioned just once. He isn't notable, and hasn't received attention as the heir to a long-abolished state.". Since then, two articles about the succession were added as sources: [4] and [5]. Neither of them even mentions Murad Jah, making the case for deletion only stronger. Fram (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and India. Fram (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isnt inherited. Irrelevant references and fails to meet WP:BIO. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per M.Ashraf333, subject isn’t notable.--Doctorlimp (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It seems to fail WP:NPEOPLE due to lack of significant coverage about the subject themselves, rather than passing mentions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shoaib Mansoor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoman Productions

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable production company, fails WP:COMPANY, WP:ORGDEPTH. Just a directory of films produced by the company, wouldn't make it notable. Since its 1st nomination (in 2018, result was no consensus) no significant history is showing in refs rather than addition of film in the list. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoaib Mansoor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. 72.255.37.141 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — 72.255.37.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shoaib Mansoor....Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no comment. BeenDominic (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Shoaib Mansoor. Insight 3 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If there's a bigger conversation desired about this type of article, it should be had in a centralised location. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Republic of the Congo

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

In my opinion this is simply repeating content on Republic of the Congo and Index of Republic of the Congo–related articles and appears to be a form of WP:CONTENTFORK. Whilst I can see the value in having various ways to navigate content, I'm struggling to see why this particular type of content needs to be kept. It seems to me that this page could be deleted without any resulting loss of content or reduced navigability through relevant pages. JMWt (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The nominator is arguing against outlines as a page type. "Delete this outline because it is an outline." An AfD for a particular page is not the proper venue for discussing the deletion of a class of page. Outlines are structured topics lists, a long-established type of list, are a standard navigation page type on Wikipedia, and are part of Wikipedia:Contents.

The nominator also mentioned the associated index, and apparently sees value in keeping that, the other type of topics list. While both types of topics lists are valuable, at the time this discussion started the index had 32 links and the outline had over 100; now the outline has over 300 links. The index presents its links in no particular context (it's alphabetical), while this outline presents all its links in context (like a classified index).

While regular indexes are alphabetical and found at the back of books, the analogue for outlines are tables of contents, which are hierarchical (tree structures), and are found at the front of books. Outlines serve as tables of contents for subject areas on Wikipedia.

There are over 800 outlines, and together they make up one of the navigation systems of Wikipedia. (There are about 550 indexes). Different readers have different learning styles, and many find outlines more intuitive than alphabetical indexes for browsing a subject.

Concerning the co-existence of and synergy between navigation systems, per WP:CLN, outlines and indexes aren't considered to fork each other, and they exist in harmony.

For more information on outlines, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines, and Wikipedia:Outlines.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 00:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that The Transhumanist is right. In addition, this page could help anyone who is interested in researching or learning about the Republic of the Congo. It seems simple enough to keep on those grounds.Historyday01 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with The Transhumanist, this article is not repeating content from those pages.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any Sport in a Storm

AfDs for this article:

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

Any Sport in a Storm is not a notable The Owl House episode. If this exists, you can claim that every episode that can be backed up by 4 sources should have an article. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's the rationale for deletion? The nominator states the article has four sources. matt91486 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I was considering arguing that SKCRIT 1 applied, but the nominator does advance a rationale that, if true, would justify... well, not deletion, but merging or redirection to a show or season list article. But it's not a correct argument. Four reviews and a reception section doesn't demonstrate anything other than with our existing notability guidelines and the plethora of sites publishing reviews on the internet, that yes, pretty much any episode of anything is likely notable. My one caveat is that I am not familiar with the sites publishing these, but since the nominator did not question their reliability, independence, etc. I am presuming them to be fine for their use in the article. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell me how you can consider this TV-guide-like listing "a review". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. The nominators rationale is not reasonable, many TV series have articles for each episode.★Trekker (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in-depth, but is the source (TV Source Magazine) reliable? It claims to be an online magazine, but what does it really mean these days? They solicit submissions of reviews in exchange for some profit sharing, there is no mention of editorial controls. The other review in The Geeky Waffle is likewise problematic, I'd call that site a blog, it's staff consists of anonymous people (only revealing their first name) and a dog. IMHO the sources are borderline unreliable, and as such, there is no SIGCOV meeting coverage in RELIABLE sources. The other two footnotes are to a TV schedule page (totally useless for purpose of establishing notability), and The Gamer (website) short recap/review of three episodes including this one, which IMHO does not meet SIGCOV (although this site may be reliable at least) . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: TV Source Magazine does profess to have a board of editors, articles seem to be written by a regular staff rather than being user-generated content. "They solicit submissions of reviews ..." seems to me to say nothing more than that they'd like to hire additional staff. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am too strict assessing this source. I'll ping @VickKiang who has done similar assessments in the past in case they'd like to chip in here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of The Owl House episodes--for the time being, at best--until enough SIGCOV comes home to roost (no pun intended). (Typing as a Disney fan.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is easily established by numerous reliable independent sources. Serratra (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Which ones? Please be precise, otherwise it's just WP:THEREARESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I'm unable to find SIGCOV beyond the single source discussed above, which could easily be folded into a season article. The show is clearly notable, and each season could likely have a decent article, but based on what I've seen so far individual episodes are likely not notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vanamonde93. It's hard to find a source that's both reliable and in-depth. This could be folded into the season article, and redirects are cheap. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix-compatible devices

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

Fails WP:NOTESAL. Wikipedia not a listing of (current) compatible devices with a streaming service.

I am also nominating the below two articles for the same reason and notifying their creators manually.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Journalism, Film, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, Disney, Entertainment, Games, Technology, and Internet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTESAL and WP:NOTCATALOG. Mike Allen 20:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGUIDE. If anyone wants to know which devices are compatible with which streaming service, then they should look up the streaming service for advice. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This looks like something Netflix would host on its own website, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and above. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiyan Parashkevov

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

Can't find anything towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I searched in Google News and did a Bulgarian source search too. Cherno More is a match report mention, stating that he scored from a free kick and nothing more. Sportal has a very brief transfer announcement. Varna24 mentions him getting an assist and Dsport mentions him as one of 3 players getting released. All of this is trivial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaarel Sammet

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. When I created this article I thought that describing a new taxon to the world, makes you automatically notable for Wikipedia (for Wikispecies it makes you automatically notable). But I was wrong. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both WP:BASIC (no reliable secondary sources at all) and WP:GNG. MaterialWorks _(talk) 19:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Umanath Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Previously deleted at Umanath Singh and this is now the 2nd AfD under this title. Article creator contested the WP:G4 speedy delete.

The only source on him is Indian Rajputs, which states that he was born, went to university, got married and then later died. No indication of notability. I've searched Google Books and ProQuest and can't find anything. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. WP:DICDEF. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG. Notability isn't inherited as his grandfather is notable does not mean he is too Misterrrrr (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V2295 Ophiuchi

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

This article only really exists because an article about the more famous GRO J1719-24 was mistakenly created with this name. Other than the flurry of discovery reports, there is virtually no research dedicated to this object and it seems destined to be forever a tiny stub. Lithopsian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah I agree, I couldn't find anything about this object. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akilbek Allan

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

Unnotable subject, mostly primary sources and original research. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of notability, unfortunately. Almeida Fernando (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - The source exists, for a long time existed was a draft, nor violates the rules of WP:, I think should stay, because it is not spam or advertising, the article is about a living person. You can even further refine it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QRNKS (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" argument is particularly weak here, the presence of it means we need more input to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think we should keep it. As I said before about leaving it unconditionally. QRNKS (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep and Comment: I agree the comment is necessary to leave the project of a living person is interesting, you need to remove not a reference, but my answer would be to leave, but need to rewrite again to correct the biographical department. KzWikimen (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I propose to leave, by the requirement of wikipedia does not violate the rules, although there is little coverage, there is an argument to further refine the article. According to the opinion still need to correct the department, of course not which post to rewrite. Keep QRNKS (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you need to leave the article, you need to correct some errors, and remove unnecessary links and correct sections, leave and correct. DarmB13 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the sources in the article PeterHaris (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Little coverage of the English language, today prolonged not a lot of time searching for sources, on the remark, dalneesh should finalize this article. Preferably mine will be so although I am a newbie, admin leave this article. PeterHaris (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looked need to make adjustments not which revenge, immediately save and leave, no comment BeenDominic (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sock strike. Socks of QRNKS. Multiple. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources and huge unredeemable mess. Sockpuppetry is evidence that this is in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest we keep it, but delete the sources we don't need, 213.230.86.56 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolene

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

No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.

Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What indicates it lacks legal recognition? It's currently a small village, of just 9 people, but appears to be a minor tourist destination (as evident from the results when searching on the web for its Bulgaian name), and it appears to be of historical significance (the Bulgarian Wikipedia article states, with what looks like a good source, that it once had one of the largest fairs in the Ottoman Balkans). – Uanfala (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What indicates it lacks legal recognition? We don't have a source showing that it has legal recognition - and even if we did, WP:GEOLAND only grants a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of it, and WP:PAGEDECIDE can mean we shouldn't have an article even if the topic is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not basing your claims on anything then? The place is legally recognised as a settlement (naseleno myasto), which shows up in a number of places (such as this), but it doesn't have its own sub-municipal administrative body (kmetstvo). I don't know which of the two bars we should use here: the latter is too high, the former possibly too low (but not as low as you may expect if your experience is from a country where hamlets or unincorporated communities are more common than in Bulgaria). At any rate, I see enough to warrant a plausible presumption of notability, and I also see enough coverage to believe GNG will be met too. As for the PAGEDECIDE argument that the article duplicates content at Petrich Municipality: that was true for only a few hours yesterday, and only because you had just coped that content there [6]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing my claims on the lack of evidence, and as the burden is on the editor making the positive claim that is a suitable argument - I don't need to prove that sources don't exist, or that the location doesn't have legal recognition, you need to prove that they do or it does.

The source you have provided is a census report, and doesn't indicate legal recognition.

I see you have reverted my expansion of that page, on the basis that the source I used is unreliable. Either the source is unreliable, in which case the information also needs to be removed from the Dolene article, or it is reliable, and should be restored to the Petrich Municipality. Either way, the WP:PAGEDECIDE argument applies; for the moment, I have restored my edit; if you want to restore yours please remove the information from both articles. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you have provided is a census report: this is incorrect. [I]f you want to restore yours please remove the information from both articles: I would love to be able to update all village articles in this province, but I don't have the time. And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is incorrect It is from the national statistics units, and is a register of populations. I believe I am incorrect about it being from the census - it is from 2003, and there was no census conducted in that year - but it still appears to be statistical information and not an indication of legal recognition.

And I don't think my improvement in one article should be made conditional on making the same improvement in another. It isn't. But you cannot use your failure to argue that because Dolene contains the information that you removed as unreliable from Petrich Municipality it cannot be deleted under WP:PAGEDECIDE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link was to a register of legally recognised naseleni mesta. Now whether that category is enough to meet the sort of legal recognition assumed in GEOLAND, as I indicated above, is another matter. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a settlement with census data per the Romanian Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article on Bulgarian Wikipedia would certainly suggest that it had legal recognition at one time, even if it does not today. It seems to have once had a population of 736 with a church and school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanovo, Blagoevgrad Province

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

No WP:SIGCOV could be found; fails WP:GNG. Appears to lack legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND.

Standalone article not warranted under WP:PAGEDECIDE; duplicates content at Petrich Municipality. I propose redirecting to that article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I agree with you because there is not much written on it, and I am not in the mood in expanding it myself as well, but I found this rather official looking source of the National Register of Populated places from Bulgaria. I believe then the Wikipedia rules say it should be kept.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is fairly expanded in other languages and I found a source from the National Register of Populated places from Bulgaria Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if it only has a population of 4 it still seems to have census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article on Bulgarian Wikipedia would certainly suggest that it had legal recognition at one time, even if it does not today. It seems to have once had a population of 360. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee police sex scandal

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Per the WP:EVENT guideline, notability for this event is not supported by the sensational coverage. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, there appears to be no in-depth support for an effect and significant or widespread impact to support notability. There are also WP:BLP policy issues, including WP:BLPCRIME, that appear to add further support for deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Crime, Events, Police, Sexuality and gender, and Tennessee. Beccaynr (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five links for two lines of text? Care to elaborate? I'm not finding coverage outside of the local area, so no national attention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the article seems to have been created in good faith based on an initial burst of coverage that includes some national attention, and I edited the article to try to create a neutral version. In coverage I reviewed, I looked for indications of an effect with an impact as described in WP:EVENT but was unsuccessful, and given the WP:NOT and WP:BLP issues, deletion seems best. Beccaynr (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the reasons listed above would be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I saw this earlier this year, but it was on Twitter for all of 15 minutes. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are compelling policy-based reasons that this list does not belong in Wikipedia, which does not aim to be a list of everything, but to be a high-quality encyclopedia. That means not just listing songs in a discography, but providing prose analysis of them, summarizing what reliable sources say about their recording, reception, significance, and influence.

This list also fails the most common notability guideline for lists, because no independent reliable source has discussed the Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila as a group. And it fails the three purposes of lists. Without analysis, the list does not convey encyclopedic information. Out of the roughly 950 songs, none has a Wikipedia article, and there's no evidence that any of them are notable, so the list does not allow the reader to navigate among them. If it is intended as a development list, it should be in user space, not article space.

Merge is inappropriate because the source for 97% of the songs is "because editor Abbasulu says so". Only about 3% of the songs cite any source, the sources don't always support all of the content where cited, and the sources aren't always reliable (IMDb, ringostrack.com, Amazon). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vast list with no effective references. References based on the film are taken from apple streaming. . There is a not a single WP:SECONDARY source that confirms a single song is notable. There is nothing. It is a structured list that is effectively unsourced, copied and pasted from Wikipedia, discogs and clickbait sites.Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than the notability concerns, also doesn't come close to passing WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list that completely violates WP:V, with no WP:RS presented by anyone and no evidence of sources discussing this topic at length Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sabina Yasmin

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effectively unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per User:scope_creep. BD2412 T 02:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Veteran singer, and the article is well referenced. Valiaveetil (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)~~sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

It is most certainly not well referenced, in fact, it's a complete violation of WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, also utterly fails WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by K. S. Chithra

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to create a list for every language songs by a particular artist. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. If by then no sources are found then I believe the right course of action would be redirecting it to the main list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Draftify This list also contains a WP:BLP, which could saved be saved if referenced, which it isn't. It is the usually sloppy practice. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V for the WP:BLP and WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL8 for the list. The list covers a 30 year period, a lifes work and effectively no sources. Really sloppy. Potentially notable as well for the singer as there is a decent BLP. Draftify the BLP and delete the list. More copy/pasted junk. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See statement above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per User:scope_creep. I see no reason for draftification, when any sourced content can be speedily merged into the master list until there is enough sourced content to justify breaking out a child list. BD2412 T 02:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic of Kannada songs sung by this singer fails WP:CROSSCAT, the article fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and, most importantly, completely violates WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mussoorie. Joyous! | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mussoorie Municipal Council

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

WP:Notability. Usually, only the articles of large cities with a Municipal Corporation are created. There are hundreds of Municipal Councils of small towns which are too small to be notable enough to have an exclusive Wikipedia article. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Intro and Structure sections into Mussoorie. Size of jurisdiction is not the basis to keep or delete a spin-off article. In this case, a merge is appropriate to preserve the content. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mussoorie, as a viable WP:ATD, per Enos733. Per nom, subject does not meet the notability criteria for having a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dagoberto Mejía

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

Article about former footballer who played just one match in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deportivo Digital has some injury recovery notices about him but I don't think that it's enough really [7] [8] Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protathlitis

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Europe, and Greece. Kadı Message 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 02:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Shirbeygi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are all non WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Silikonz💬 16:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above statements of no notability established.--VViking_TalkEdits 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:RS. All of the sources are blogs, social media, and IMDB. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google or Newsbank (database search engine, deeper and wider than Google). Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Ruíz

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

Article about former footballer who played just two matches in the Mexican top division, and which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases; there is no significant coverage available at all. Jogurney (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing decent in ProQuest, Google or DDG as far as I could see Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not having source to meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, couldn't find source to support this article to still remain in article space.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, notability does not appear to exist in this case Almeida Fernando (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners

AfDs for this article:

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

The problem is notability (tagged since 2011). The refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage, and so is most of what can be found online.

I could find this seemingly-usable source. It has "opinion" in the URL, but it is a news piece with a byline; there is nothing egregious in the site’s "about" page and it is not listed at WP:RSP. Notwithstanding that, WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so one will not cut it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Cunard who contributed their analysis of sources to the 2015 AfD. I think the sources they pointed are either routine announcements or churnalism / interviews in disguise (i.e. articles written seemingly in the third-person but where the journalist merely repackaged what the primary source told them with no independent research or editorial choice).

Because I pinged someone whose expected view is opposite to mine, I consider this to not be a breach of WP:CANVASS, but feel free to ping every participant in the 2015 AfD if you disagree. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mauritius. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly referenced and fails to explain why the organisation is important. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of references out there. Unfortunately, none meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of any assertion or evidence of notability per WP:NCORP. Funds are run of the mill, and are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The coverage is weak outside of Economic Times. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akinlolu Jekins

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

There are no evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and United Kingdom. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly, he comes close to notability with two feature articles about his business endeavors (currently footnotes #1 and #8 in the article). For now, he has worked with a lot of famous people but per WP:NOTINHERITED he does not gain notability from them. Per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON he needs more reliable and significant coverage in his own right because he runs a relatively small operation. WP:ANYBIO is a problem too, because running a viable business just isn't enough. This all makes the article look like an attempted promotion of his business. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or weak delete. I don't really know enough about the reliability of Nigerian newspapers to say for sure. I would have thought that "Pulse" (source 8) is not reliable and so could not qualify to count toward notability. I think that the Guardian (number 1) is, and so would count, and I also found another in depth piece on him in Vanguard, which I also think is reliable. So if Pulse is reliable as DOOMSDAYER520 implied, then I think it would pass the threshold for qualifying. However, if it isn't, which I tend to think, then I don't think it would pass. Maybe this requires more commentary from someone with some knowledge or familiarity about Nigerian media publications. Chagropango (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by Liz as "delete". Reopening per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 24 in order to gather more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:REFBOMB but no WP:SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the ref bombing, lots of citations for not much bang. No GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — the Vanguard source is likely to be sponsored (no byline). The other sources are mostly interviews (probably accumulated for the sake of owning a Wikipedia entry). Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The coverage made available does not satisfy WP:GNG. No objection to recreation in draftspace or userspace. Frank Anchor 16:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of secondary, reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry Omlor

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

I found no reliable secondary source about this person. The subjects clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. Veverve (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ His one book "The Robber Church" is talked about here [9] and here [10] (but the second link isn't searchable unless you view the entire pdf). He's talked about on Catholic websites, those are about the only two critical discussions of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The first book is a WP:SPS (Lulu.com). The second is another one of Omlor's book, Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon simply hosted on a website; or it is an excerpt of Omlor's book The Robber Church, compare with [11]. In any case, none can be considered as reliable independent sources. Veverve (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of sourcing per explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch, Veverve. There are more than a few other articles in the same subject area (anti-V2 liturgical reform authors without notability) that I'm occasionally encountering and will need to put up for AfD next I see them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- Essentially all we have is a list of his publications, with the citation of an obituary in an Australian newspaper, which is odd for an American cleric and suggests greater notability than the article currently shows. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
an Australian newspaper, which is odd for an American cleric and suggests greater notability than the article currently shows: this is pure speculation; the person can have moved to Australia, and you have no source stating he was American or a cleric. Wikipedia operates with actual nnotability, not potential suggest[ed] greater notability; if a subject is notable then you should be able to prove it is by showing centered reliable independent sources on said subject (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Feel free to WP:HEYMANN things if you can. Veverve (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Ehime FC season

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

This was prodded last year for "Fails WP:NSEASONS. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE.", but deprodded without explanation or improvements. The article is in a sorry state since its creation in 2011, created by a long-blocked sockpuppeteer, sourced to a generic page for the league (so basically unsourced), for a second division team without anything tremarkable in this season. Even if we would want an article for this club season, very little is lost by getting rid of this version. Fram (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Fram (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if something notable did happen with Ehime this season, it can easily be covered at Ehime FC and 2008 J.League Division 2, both of which have plenty of room for more content. The stand-alone article for the sake of having one is wholly inappropriate in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability 58.96.202.175 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Agree with Spiderone that descriptive content about the 2008 Ehime season could easily be added to Ehime FC or the league article, as long as it's well sourced. Would further add that keeping lists with (questionable) personally identifiable information about non-notable individuals (i.e., birthdates (lacking citations) of players without Wikipedia pages) probably violates data privacy guidelines. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Mirani

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. References fail verification and are all fraudulent copyright violations. For example, The First Magazine is a copyvio of a Fab World Today article (blacklisted) and The Guardian Fox is a copyvio of an Open The News article (blacklisted as well). Also, all of these sites with the poorly written copied and pasted content seem to be all Wordpress blogs with either missing or blank About Us sections, which is a huge red flag. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://24citizen.com/2022/05/24/the-difference-between-pop-and-classical-music-from-the-point-of-view-of-hamed-mirani-a-famous-iranian-singer-the-and-popular-of-pop-music/	If you copy and paste "Pop music is defined as a style of music" into Google, it takes you to another website that this source plagiarises from	The 'about us' section is blank on the website.	None of the article is about him	✘ No
https://thefirstmagazine.com/2022/05/24/popular-and-successful-singer-hamed-mirani-iranian-singer-explained-about-different-types-of-voices-in-singing/	Article content is plagiarised from fabworldtoday, search "Men are extremely important in Iranian music"	No indication of reliability, site churns out about 2 'admin' articles each month.	None of the article is about him	✘ No
http://londontalker.com/2022/05/24/speeches-by-hamed-mirani-a-famous-iranian-singer-about-the-history-of-pop-music/		http://londontalker.com/authors/ authors section is blank	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
https://maxbulletin.com/2022/05/24/biography-of-hamed-mirani-iranian-singer-composer-and-musician/		Wordpress site with no indication of actual journalism	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
https://theguardianfox.com/2022/05/some-important-points-that-every-singer-or-vocal-student-should-follow-from-hamed-mirani-iranian-singer-point-of-view-with-a-pleasant-voice/		'About Us' is blank	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
http://khaleejledger.com/2022/05/24/21year-old-iranian-singer-hamed-mirani-a-famous-iranian-singer-talks-about-composing-poetry-and-melody/?unapproved=22&moderation-hash=6b9b1c339edd7f00360112934918d683#comment-22	Plagiarised from Time Bulletin		Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
https://theguardianfox.com/2022/06/the-difference-between-pop-and-classical-music-from-the-point-of-view-of-hamed-mirani-a-famous-iranian-singer-the-and-popular-of-pop-music/		'About Us' is blank	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
http://theusaage.com/2022/05/24/recommendations-of-hamed-mirani-a-popular-iranian-singer-and-musician-about-becoming-a-singer/		No indication of journalism. Note also the very poor quality Photoshop job and also the lower case 'Usa' instead of 'USA'	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
http://tribunedc.com/characteristics-of-a-good-singer-from-the-point-of-view-of-hamed-mirani-a-popular-iranian-singer-and-musician/		Blog written by 'admin'. Also 'Dc' instead of 'DC'	Mirani not discussed in article	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RS showing notability--VViking_TalkEdits 14:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Missing reliable sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a superstub too, what in that one sentence shows notability, even without the sourcing issues? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 18:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Really? Only one sentence? That doesn't prove any notability whatsoever. Don't even get me started on the references, which are not reliable whatsoever.Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 05:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Besides being too short to be a stub, it lacks reliable sources (see nom's analysis), which violates BLPO. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It also looks like there has been a lot of improvement to the article over this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Bangla Dance

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

Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non-WP:ROUTINE sources MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dance Bangla Dance is running since 2007, It passes WP:GNG, It is running in Bengali language, which is only known by the Bengali people. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Misterrrrr. Which non-routine sources do you think show that it meets WP:GNG? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, MrsSnoozyTurtle I wrote it passes WP:GNG because it has a good news coverage and running since 2007. [12] [13] News of return of Mithun Chakraborty as Grand Master [14] [15]. News of Srijit, Tapsee Pannu, Dev at the show [16] some more news like : [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. It's a very known and Trending Reality show in West Bengal state of India. I found these news articles because i understand somethiing in Bangla language. Thanks --- Misterrrrr (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable Bangla TV show. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cheesecake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked salmon cheesecake

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability - this article mentions a cake that combines two flavors, and notes barely more than its existence. This would make an alright redirect/section on Cheesecake, but it is not necessary to have a separate article. Cf. discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pineapple_cheesecake. RudolfSchreier (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. RudolfSchreier (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator proposes deletion, but puts forward a rationale that is essentially calling for merge and redirect. It was brought out in the previous AFD that several iconic cookery books have covered this dish, and that it appears in several books of prize-winning recipes, so it is a prize-winning dish. SpinningSpark 16:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize - I was unaware that the desired outcome of "merge and redirect" was not to be achieved through the AFD process. As you point out, I would be happy to keep the content, simply not the article - which I don't see moving past stub status. RudolfSchreier (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge and redirect" is a valid outcome at AFD, but if that is the desired outcome of the nominator, it is rarely a good idea to bring it here. It is usually far less confrontational to propose a merge at the article talk (for which there are standard templates). This ensures the regular editors at the proposed target are involved in the decision too – the group most likely to be cheesecake knowledgeable. Once you are here, you are in court with an adverserial mentality. I am still deciding whether I would actually support a merge. I want to see if I can find some of the sources mentioned in the previous AFD first to see how much this might be capable of expansion. SpinningSpark 20:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there a notability criteria for recipes? In the absense of anything else, there appear to be many online and offline sources which give recipes. Isn't that enough? JMWt (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any criteria at all, I'm afraid. I looked into the deletion of "Pineapple cheesecake" and extrapolated from there:

Would I want to see separate pages for strawberry cheesecake, raspberry cheesecake, etc.? No, if simply for the fact that those pages would have very little to contribute that the Cheesecake article wouldn't cover.

Could this be a section on the Cheesecake article? Yes, like Chicago-style cheesecake and New York cheesecake are right now. RudolfSchreier (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we usually determine notability. A bunch of published books including a recipe would appear to satisfy the GNG as far as I can tell. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is policy, then keeping the article would be consistent with it. To me personally, it paints an unfortunate picture of what Wikipedia could look like given enough bored editors. RudolfSchreier (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple cheesecake is not a good comparision here. As was said in the AFD, pineapples are just one of may fruits that can be used in cheesecake. Smoked salmon is something radically different. SpinningSpark 21:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think we need more than a how-to book for this (a recipe book is basically instructions), some sort of critical discussion in RS. This is about all I found [24] and it's a passing mention. If this was a car, we wouldn't use a Hayes manual on how to fix it for a reliable source, we'd need a discussion about the car. Same idea here. I don't see any sources discussing the cheesecake. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is further support for a Merge or Redirect of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the cheesecake article seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Merge to Cheesecake at best. Recipes are only notable if someone writes about the recipe, which is exceptionally rare except in the case of historic or revolutionary recipes. Dishes are more typically notable. Number of books that contain a recipe seldom support notability for the recipe, but they can indicate the dish is likely notable and more investigation is needed. This to me looks like a variation on cheesecake, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of those. I'm not seeing support for it being a notable variation. Valereee (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a mention in Cheesecake is acceptable, that's something that comes in so many flavors and variations we don't need to include anything for which recipes exist. Reywas92^Talk 05:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see sufficient coverage of the recipe to justify an article (as per Valereee). A merge to cheesecake of any material editors see fit would be appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that two of the delete !votes come across as based solely upon personal opinion, as the topic being too trivial in nature. However, notability guidelines do not extend to cover such subjective opinions. Some sources were presented, but afterward, not much analysis occurred here about them other than some minor commentary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yardley Inn

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

I do not believe this organization has received significant coverage from independent sources. I found some websites that make a trivial mention about some of the history. EvilxFish (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too trivial. NYC Guru (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some coverage of it, for example Bucks County Magazine, Burlington County Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer (2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Messenger-Press, Philadelphia Daily News, Bucks Happening. Looks like a GNG pass but I'm not too familiar with the business notability guidelines so won't be !voting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, this is way too trivial. I'm amazed that it has been on Wikipedia since 2009. Athel cb (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- We don't determine notability on whether a user thinks the article is of little value/importance (trivial definition), but rather, on whether an article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Are you saying that the above sources (some of which - 1 2 are full pages long in major newspapers) do not meet this standard? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree with the first point, but as for the notability being established by those sources, I am unsure whether this is the case because of the rather vague nature of what constitutes "significant coverage". Whereas it is well known in the area I work in what we would consider significant coverage or not, I am not sure if the newspaper articles qualify as such here. I will leave it up to people who know better to decide but if I found those newspapers when I first searched for sources, I don't think I would have created this! EvilxFish (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - unclear notability, though there are numerous RSs as seen above. I would be keen to see if the article could be fleshed out, but the current information seems somewhat generic and/or unsourced. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I could probably write a sourced version in 1-3 days, although it probably wouldn't be super long and detailed, since I have no experience in this topic area. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Inquirer piece looks the best, the rest also help GNG. The Zagat article shows notability and critical notice of the place. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a WP:Heymann. Any restaurant that has a history dating back to 1832 is quite likely notable, and particularly in the US. Closer, if the result is delete, would you please userfy it to me? I'm travelling right now and busy with other things, but if the alternative is that it goes away I'll get to it. Valereee (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Adams (programmer)

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

Doesn't seem notable. While the company he worked for is notable, there is nearly no coverage about him from secondary, reliable sources. OceanHok (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Many of the sources are Twitter and are not reliable. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a Great Idea!

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could not find a single independent source that mentions this program. Novemberjazz 03:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This definitely fails GNG. Notability is also not seen. Timothytyy (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a Bad Idea! to make an unsourced page (with no sources to be found) about a random infomercial show. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 03:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nutter Center

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

Obscure college arena, no controversy or scandal; "article" is mostly a listing of who had a concert there or every time the Globetrotters' game is announced in the local newspaper (I already took out the item-by-item fancruft about pro wrestling, with what "star" appeared which time). I would say the same if my college's arena didn't have any substantial sources in the article about it. Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Basketball, Ice hockey, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Wright State University; certainly this doesn't meet the GNG beyond routine event announcements and namedrops. Ravenswing 11:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested is fine, I don't think it's notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite/expand. This "obscure college arena" is the home arena for an NCAA Division I basketball program and is inherently notable. The fact that there was lots of crufty information that needed to be removed doesn't change the fact that this arena is the location of dozens of events each year that get more coverage (read: AP stories) than a casual local newspaper listing. -fuzzy510 (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand article. The sports center seems independently notable from the university. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass GNG, see [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] and others at Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG comfortably with the significant coverage found by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Goodson

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

WP:BLP with no effective reference. UPE article. What refs are there are interviews+lots company stuff. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. I do find amusement in seeing what sort of media coverage the average CEO can buy. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Canada, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither companies nor their CEOs are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead have to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability — but this is referenced almost entirely to a mixture of primary sources and marketing bumf that isn't support for notability at all, with the only hits that come from real GNG-worthy media being glancing namechecks of his existence or Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself rather than third-party reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Earwig returns a 73% copyvio percentage to this website. This is copied from Wikipedia and is not a copyright violation. I have removed the copyvio tag from the article and placed {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of prophecies of Joseph Smith

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

This article can not possibly have reliable sources, as it is a scorecard for whether a religion is right or not. Currently all sources are primary sources, with their authors creating new claims for why a prophecy was or was not fulfilled. One man, Richard Abanes, is cited for most of the prophecies as the only 'against' voice, while one group (FAIRMormon) is most of the 'for' voices.

This is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. It would be like having an article called Catholicism vs Protestantism that was just a list of issues with a checkmark on which group was right. Brirush (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Brirush (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not everything and it is certainly not a list of which religious prophecies may or may not have come true based on one interpretation or another. BogLogs (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a well-sourced article with potential for expansion. In contrast to other comments above, I think WP absolutely should be a place where "religious prophecies may or may not have come true" are detailed and explained. My only qualm is the extent to which an editor is expressing a personal opinion rather than giving the official position of the LTS church, and I'm not really in a position to make that assessment. JMWt (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that the article was previously thought to be biased in one direction and now is thought to be biased in the other, there seem to be sources for both sides. Certainly we can report on what churches think and what their critics think about them. Jahaza (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the basic subject is notable. The opinions on whether the prophecies were fulfilled could be summarised in a paragraph or two instead of column entries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep -- Joseph Smith was the first prophet of the LDS, so that his prophecies are obviously notable. The column as to whether they are fulfilled may be OR, though the views of LDS of this are probably adequately evidenced. Note I am a non-LDS Christian, which is why I do not normally comment on LDS topics. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the 'fulfilled' column is kept, the list itself is absolutely appropriate for WP. There are very few, if any, objective accounts of Smith's prophecies (the topic is heavily opinionated on all platforms). This page is a useful tool for any browsing student; it does not have to be a scorecard, please keep! 128.187.116.16 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Govind

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previous deleted as failing WP:SIGCOV. I denied G4 because it is significantly changed since the deleted version. UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, as a significant contributor to the article that’s under review, I wasn’t aware that the earlier version of it had undergone deletion after a discussion. As I understand, the article was deleted owing to failing WP:SIGCOV, back in 2021. Since then, the person has won a National Award and has a significant body of work to his credit. There are plenty of reputedly published sources attached to the article that meets WP:CREATIVE. Srijit777 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He got major award at national level. National Film Award for Best Audiography. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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