Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 23	January 25 >

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!} 22:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of India, Valletta

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All the sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. A primary sourced only dictionary entry. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 07:56, 31 January 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. This has been relisted twice which gave an editor 3 weeks to locate some sources. They were not forthcoming so I'm closing this discussion as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Molecules of Motion

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

I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Neither of the external links are valid sources, and searches, using both the "Molecules of Motion" and "Molecules in Motion" names turned up no coverage or reviews in reliable sources." The PROD was contested by the article creator, with the statement that further sources would be added to establish notability, however a month later there are no changes. Just to reiterate, I, myself, was unable to find any kind of significant coverage or reviews on the film in reliable sources upon my own searches. Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think you were right about the PROD. This is not notable.

Jonchache (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorry that this one fell through the cracks. Yes, I realize that it has been a month, but I am currently a one-man team at work so Wikipedia editing is on the backburner at the moment. There are several notable professional skaters (all of which have wikipedia entries) that are featured in this video. All I ask is to give me time to edit this page instead of being so trigger happy on finding pages to remove. Jasonstru (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable, independent sources and add them then perhaps this won't be deleted. But, just because some skaters that have entries on Wikipedia does not mean this film is notable as notability is not inherited. So, since I could find nothing to support the notability of this film I will also vote Delete DonaldD23 talk to me 02:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This brief description clearly is not WP:SIGCOV and my search could not find articles demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met. The keep comment is inaccurate as notability is nor inherited. VickKiang (talk) 20:30, 13 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!} 21:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no good sources to be found. BruceThomson (talk) 05:41, 30 January 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi (film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFF as production does not appear to be notable. Should be deleted or (preferably) moved to DRAFT until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:33, 10 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!} 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Just too soon. Not opposed to "moved to DRAFT" as ATD -- Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nomination until the production is shown to be notable or until it is released and reviewed to meet WP:NFF. -2pou (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a WP:ATD. Fails WP:NFF as the production is not demonstrated to be notable as per the current references and my WP:BEFORE (which are articles that mainly list the plot and cast along with quotes that are not significant coverage in my opinion). However, draftification is IMO viable given that the film could be notable following its release. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:25, 31 January 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.

Just FYI, this is not how you do a bundled nomination. In the future, follow the guidelines, tag the articlces involved and notify all of the article creators of an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Wrestling Coalition

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

No notable wrestling promotion. Barely no coverage around it. Most of the sourced don't work. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposing for nomination the titles. UWC Heavyweight Championship, UWC Tag Team Championship, UWC United States Championship, List of UWC Championships --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Nom. The article self-attests to non-notability with "a means to bring family-friendly wrestling to the South Jersey area." -- Otr500 (talk) 10:27, 28 January 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!} 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Biggs

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

No notable wrestler. Barely no coverage, except WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any coverage about this person. There's a pizza joint using this name, that's about all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 25 January 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. Procedural Keep as no deletion rational was provided by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies (actor)

I first saw this page when I was googling the 2018 film, The Cloverfield Paradox, only to find a description about his best known for his roles in the aforementioned 2018 film and the TV series, Renford Rejects. It's been a stub for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron (talk • contribs)

Comment You haven't given a reason for deleting the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:33, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notwithstanding the lack of a policy based justification by the nominator, and also notwithstanding the current poor state of the article - Davies appears to have a circa 20 year career and there are references available. I have added some of these to the article and listed some further appearances. It would also appear that Davies has also produced output under the alternate name Roger Davies-Roberts so this would need to be considered. ResonantDis_tortion 22:51, 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) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Davies has had numerous roles in notable tv series productions and films, over a circa 20 year career. Noted that these roles are not always stellar headline billing but many are 'series regulars' and therefore should be sufficiently significant to fulfil WP:NACTOR (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). I have listed more appearances to the article, and added more refs. ResonantDis_tortion 23:13, 24 January 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!} 03:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulistan Shah Abdul Latif School Karachi

AfDs for this article:

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

Mentions in news reports that are primary sources, of course. Non-notable for-profit private school. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's at least an allegation of notability: two notable alumni. That being said, proving it's notable based on WP:NSCHOOL or my own more generous standards. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having notable alumni doesn't make a school more notable, significant coverage does. Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 24 January 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) 22:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Hlaing Win

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

BLP on a footballer with no significant coverage cited. Best I can find is Myanmar Digital Newspaper, which is not even close to enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Newspaper source only has passing mention. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Devoke water 10:15, 31 January 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) 22:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naqa Al-Boqami

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

Badly sourced BLP; I can't find anything better than some YouTube videos showing post-match interviews or passing mentions in WP:RS rather than WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC-quality coverage. Al Khafji mentions him once. Wasel is also a trivial mention. Al Jazirah is the best source but still only mentions him once although it does at least state some facts including the fact that he only started one match and only lasted for one season in the professional league. If this Wikipedia article is to be believed (no sources seem to really support it), he spent the rest of his career at a very, very low level of football, including the fifth tier Saudi Fourth Division. I can't see any reason to keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV available. Jogurney (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.etc --Devoke water 10:17, 31 January 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!} 23:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Win Zin Oo

AfDs for this article:

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

Was kept previously because of the now-deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL which was linked to WP:FPL (I was among those in favour of keeping in the 2016 discussion). There was nobody within that discussion that argued that Win passes WP:GNG or what is now WP:SPORTBASIC. Given the changes that have occurred since, I think it's reasonable to have a 2nd AfD. Out of the 4 references currently used, only one of them is independent, a Myanmar Times article in which he is mentioned once in the caption.

I have done some searches in Burmese but found nothing better than Mizzima, which is a brief quote, MPT, a passing mention regarding a suspension and MM Load, which mentions him once in the text, in a list of injured players. Unless clear evidence of GNG can be found, the article must be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete- I found this separate Mizzima Burmese article talking about his injury and recovery as the primary topic of the article. It's not a lot to go by but it would meet WP:GNG. I think Mizzima is independent (at least of Win Zin Oo) and reliable outside of politics. A weak keep from me, for now. @Giant Snowman can you verify? EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EmeraldRange, injury reports are generally considered routine for sportspeople (akin to transfer/release/acquisition announcements), so this article wouldn't count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that would make sense. I think the article goes into depth a little more about Win Zin Oo, but it was already the only source I could find. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to say what Joelle said. GNG does state also that multiple sources are generally expected. so we would want more than one source ideally, especially for a BLP where there is no automatic bar for inclusion otherwise. A translated version of the injury announcement can be found here. It tells us the player's club, his position, the competition in which he was injured in and also a brief quote directly from the player himself. I don't think it's enough on its own but I'm happy to consider other views on the matter. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded - it's not significant coverage. Giant Snowman 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is definitely notable, but he fails WP:GNG for lack of source. So sadly, I want to explain the situation of the Burmese media. There is no sports media in Myanmar and no one has reported on the biography or any archive of a sportsperson. Sometime The Myanmar Times reported and interviewed some footballers. Unfortunately, following the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, The Myanmar Times suspended all publication. Many local newspapers have since gone out of business. A great loss for Burmese-related articles. Taung Tan (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that this is happening. I knew that things were not great but did not realise the extent. It's a shame to AfD so many of these articles, I want to clarify that I have nothing but love for the Burmese people (my close friend is married to a Kachin woman). My sole reason for being so active at Burmese AfDs is my wish to enforce WP:BLP and to ensure that we don't have articles on living people for whom no substantial coverage exists. I know that this will be more difficult for a Burmese footballer vs an English footballer of similar ability to reach the GNG bar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 30 January 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!} 23:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Isnin Saleh

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

I can't find anything notable about this person outside their arrest and execution. Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E, and WP:PERP also applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We do not need an article on everyone executed for drug trafficking. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back into the drug trafficking cases section of the article about Capital punishment in Singapore where this person's name appears, together with his co-offenders. The most notable thing about this case, as a whole, is that it was supposedly the largest recorded seizure of heroin in Singapore. However, the article has no cited sources to verify this. While WP:BIO1E, and WP:PERP, apply to the individual, WP:NCRIME may make the crime itself notable. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have discovered that large parts of this article are a very close paraphrasing of one of the cited sources. If the potentially copyright offending parts of the text are removed then the article reduces to about 4 or 5 sentences, basically the lead section and the section describing the execution. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi there, i dont think legal judgements are copyrighted, as the idea would be to announce it far and wide, which would necessitate the reproduction of parts of the text word for word. Also, even if it was, the law in Singapore allows the use a copyrighted work without infringing upon the actual copyright if its used by non-profit educational institutions. For example, educational institutions may use online works that are available for free for educational purposes[1] WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am not saying this is a copyright violation, only that the Wikipedia text closely paraphrases the judgement text. The website that the judgement comes from claims the contents of the web-page is copyright to the Government of Singapore, so I would rather accept that claim at face value than argue about it. However, because the text has been closely paraphrased, there is also minimal creative effort in the article itself, despite its size. For Wikipedia editors to claim there is copyright, there needs to be an added value of creativity. Additionally, I don't believe the non-profit or educational institution protection applies, because in cases where I have encountered this, there are additional quite specific limitations around the purpose the copying is intended to foster. Wikipedia text is freely available for anyone to reuse, for any purpose, provided they abide by Wikipedia's copyright terms. Lastly, Wikipedia has its own rules about copyright, which essentially says don't plagiarize other works (even when they are in the public domain), nor to pass them off as the editors own words. This means you need to attribute everything you write, and say where you got the information from. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SINGLEEVENT. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Fails WP:CRIME #1, and #2. Because we have article lists or embedded lists does not mean every person on the list is notable, nor is the event. I will offer that many of the names at Capital punishment in Singapore#Drug trafficking cases are not notable so there is no rationale to add to it. Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:PERP. WP:ONEVENT also applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 31 January 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!} 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eloisa Marchesoni

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. None of the cited sources constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most are passing mentions or quotations from Marchesoni in articles about other topics, or articles by Marchesoni herself. The exceptions are either interviews with Marchesoni without secondary commentary or analysis (non-independent), or self-published (non-reliable), or both. Jfire (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Cryptocurrency, Business, and Technology. Skynxnex (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - puffery, non-RSes and crypto spam - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original PROD — thanks. Meszzy² (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More crypto fluff. "Tokenomics" should really have a link to another article, otherwise this whole article falls flat; what the heck is that? Expert at age 26, with zero mentions in any kind of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and the image is likely a copyvio from her personal website. Try harder next time guys, this is getting easy to spot now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, references are a bunch of interviews with her, quotes from her and other passing mentions. Nothing substantial ABOUT her, and searches don't find anything significantly better. Just fluff and self-promotion, as many things crypto tend to be, sadly. Neiltonks (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolutely nothing there to indicate any kind of notability. Promotional fluff. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article that suffers from WP:BOMBARDMENT. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 10:19, 31 January 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!} 17:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cragg

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

Does not appear to meet GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Has worked on a variety of notable series but only seems to get passing mentions related to those, and just having a large body of work doesn't appear to be worth a pass. QuietHere (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. QuietHere (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I could not find independent reliable sources for a WP:BLP so what we end up with is a resume. Being on a list (fandom, filmreference, or IMDb), whose purpose is to catalog those people, does not translate to notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 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!} 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chee.Toz

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

Iranian bootleg Cheetos brand with very little coverage. I found a paragraph about this brand, but outside of that, I couldn't find anything reliable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, Asia, Middle East, and Iran. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Pretty much zero coverage, and the article tone seems a bit like an advertisement to me. "They have been compared to Cheetos, but with fewer preservatives." really? according to who? Additionally, the only reference appears to be a grocery store listing. ✯✬✩InterestGather (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability at all. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, the only reference doesn't seem to work either. ULPS (talk) 17:57, 25 January 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!} 17:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra Ahirwar

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

Non-notable individual, no sources found. IMdB, various social media sites. Article as it now stands appears to be a copyvio, but the individual does not meet GNG or ACTOR regardless. Two brief appearances in media aren't what we require for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable actor doesnot passes WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as per as nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. starship .paint (exalt) 12:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, there is no evidence of notability at this time. Almeida Fernando (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at this time the subject is a non notable actor. Danish Daniel 99 (talk) 09:52, 31 January 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!} 17:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements Interviews

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

Written like an essay, sources are about various items, not about the topic of the article. I don't see that it could be improved with a rewrite either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is written as a how-to-guide or essay, WP:NOTHOWTO. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 24 January 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. Wizardman 04:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kailashanand Giri Ji

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

Sourcing is insufficient. Nothing to indicate he meets N:PROF or any other relevant criteria of N:BIO. Creator won't accept draft space so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Star Mississippi 16:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kazamzam (talk) 15:42, 24 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!} 16:35, 24 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Clear that consensus will not develop for deletion. I encourage those who have helped find good sources to incorporate them and improve the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corleone family

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

Does not meet GNG or any other notability standard, and is not necessary as a split from List of The Godfather characters either. Severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems requiring WP:TNT. Should be redirected or deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. Skynxnex (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator cites the manual of style, demonstrating that the topic can be covered encyclopedically: MOS only determines how we present things, not what we present. No evidence of BEFORE, and nothing ever requires TNT. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My MOS concerns are secondary (which is why I put them second). The primary problem is lack of any basis for notability per GNG or any other standard, and a lack of necessity to split from any other article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pick on you individually, but any concern with MOS can be fixed by regular editing, and hence including one in a deletion rationale demonstrates that deletion is not needed. It's like saying, "Your honor, I didn't hit him, but he deserved it anyways." Kind of a silly example, but the point is that the first clause, if sufficient, is sufficient, and adding a second, incompatible rationale undermines the first.

I'd also suggest you look at what Google Scholar has to say about the Corleone family. Just because there aren't references now, doesn't mean some couldn't be added, and that undermines the notability argument per WP:NEXIST. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your explanation. For those wondering, I did check search results before nominating the article. My view is that almost all of the articles which appeared were either passing references, not in-depth coverage, or focused on The Godfather films as films, not on the Corleone family as a fictional family. However, it's clear that general opinion is running the other way. If the article can be improved and rewritten to focus on coverage in reliable sources and move past WP:NOTPLOT, that would be a good thing, but given its current state I believe WP:TNT would be useful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that there was no evidence of a BEFORE. Also, having "Severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems" are reasons for improving an article, as it is an admission of notability, not deleting it. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Godfather characters. While the nom would be better if it discussed BEFORE results, the article is a pure plot summary. Now, my BEFORE (a simple GS query from the link above) does suggest the topic is potentially notable, but that doesn't change the fact that in the current form the article doe fail WP:NOTPLOT. I'd be happy to vote keep if anyone bothers to start a reception/analysis section with RS; if that happens please ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I disagree that "...severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems..." is a reason to delete a page. Deleting is not cleanup, moreso, this supposed fictional family is notable. I was surprised when this came up on my watchlist. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is true that most of the initial promising results in Google Scholar are a bunch of passing mentions and unrelated topics, but I believe I found three good sources that are enough to pass GNG, this article in the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, this book chapter published by Palgrave Macmillan, and this paper in the Journal of Media Critiques, each of which focus on the Corleone family in general rather than a particular character or the themes of the films more broadly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:29, 28 January 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 Gopal Ganesh Agarkar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudharak

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

Passing mentions in sources that are more about its founder Gopal Ganesh Agarkar.

It fails WP:GNG. Editorkamran (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am voting Keep because when examining this, I found the circulation of this newspaper at 19th century was 2,565 which is very good number for the weekly newspaper which was published in 19th century. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to the concern over notability. Dympies (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the main subject (Gopal Ganesh Agarkar) per nom. Dympies (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gopal Ganesh Agarkar. It fails notability. Both are small articles; thus it is better to keep it on the main article. desmay (talk) 00:47, 18 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!} 15:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:53, 27 January 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 History 101 (novel). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mags L. Halliday

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

No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The article has seven references, of which two are dead links, two are Google Books pages for books the subject has written, and three are links to self-published sources about the books the subject has written. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Mooonswimmer 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No reviews of her books found, she also appears to write for the New Statesman. Only listings are Dr. Who fansites and various sales sites offering her books for sale. Nothing for GNG we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Just a note that two good reviews (as in, reliable) were found for H101, see the relevant AfD (in progress). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first result on GScholar is a book review for History 101 (also recently nominated for deletion), and a scholarly work citing her writing (the second result on GScholar) is available in full on ProQuest 1540147404: "The Girls Who Waited? Female Companions and Gender in Doctor Who", Jowett, Lorna. Critical Studies in Television; London Vol. 9, Iss. 1, (Spring 2014): 77-94. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is definitely significant coverage of the book (though I can't find another similarly useful source, so I think the book still probably fails WP:NBOOK) but I don't think it can be used to support notability for Halliday. I can't personally access the second source so I can't speak to it, but it's only one source and multiple would be needed. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is not much - there is a mention at the end of a paragraph of analysis: "Mags L. Halliday concludes, 'The problem is that smart, independent women don't make good companions, and that's a painful realization. I don't like the idea that my favourite series has, as a fundamental part of its set-up, no room for the kind of women I want to see'." which cites Mags. L Halliday, 'Seven to Doomsday: The Non-Domestication of Earthbound Doctor Who in Season Seven', in Deborah Stanish and L. M. Myles (eds), Chicks Unravel Time: Women Journey Through Every Season on Doctor Who, Mad Norwegian Press, 2012, p. 208. Beccaynr (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History 101 (novel), her book which seems notable. It's interesting case of an author that doesn't seem notable, yet penned at least one notable work. Well, WP:NOTINHERITED, she can have a Wikidata entry, and here I'd suggest merge and redirect (the article about her book can have a small section about the author's bio). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History 101 (novel) per Piotrus - this author writes under a pen name, and has a similar name to another writer of Who literature, so a small author bio appears helpful for the reader in the book article, which is supported by two reliable in-depth reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. I do not think there is enough for a standalone article, but some info on the novel's page is desirable. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the best thing to do here. Serratra (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there seems to be a consensus to Merge this article to History 101 (novel), that article is also nominated for a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied AUTHOR per the two book reviews mentioned above. I have corrected my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a merge either (as described above) if that helps the editor closing this debate later on. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 24 January 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 draftify to Draft:Amario Cozier-Duberry. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amario Cozier-Duberry

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

Page was deprodded with the rationale "deprod, take to afd to see if references can be found". He fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. All I could find was sources from his club and Arsenal blogs. Dougal18 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just below the GNG fresh-hold for me, created too early. I could see him passing GNG in the future know. I would need to see better sourcing online for me to want to keep. My suggestion would be to send this to draft space. Govvy (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I agree with Govvy. I found an article in The Sun, which is not WP:RS so does not confer notability. I also found more tabloid hype in Express and Daily Star but both these articles discuss the same thing so I would struggle to make a 'keep' argument from them alone. Keeping this in draft space is reasonable as he is not too far off from notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - per nom. Might very well become notable in a short space of time (1 year or so), but at the moment it just it is not. Angelo (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Arsenal are having such a good season that the likelihood he will get to play seems quite high, and the media coverage could come raining down at any moment, in a matter of months or even weeks. Yes, unfortunate that it's mostly the tabloids paying attention right now. Support draftification and continued improvement. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:13, 30 January 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 Line 6 Finch West. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood stop

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

I cannot see how this individual stop on an as yet unfinished transit system is notable; the article does not seem to contain aything that cannot be incorporated into Line 6 Finch West. The same goes for Jane and Finch stop, Tobermory stop and Sentinel stop; i'd bundle these if I knew how to. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the Finch West line. It's a large infrastructure project still being built, so these "stops" aren't opened or even notable yet. Maybe in the future when the line has opened and stuff grows up around each stop, we'd be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I im inclined to redirect articles of this nature but was unsure whether simply redirecting to Line 6 Finch West would work, and was toying with the idea of refining the target to the route map.TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable, and the sources included don't even discuss the station at all. The same should be done for the other articles as well. Their author was told this was the case but decided to ignore it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to redirecting the stations as an ATD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all While there is some platform infrastructure at these stops, frequent on-street surface stops that aren't considered full stations typically don't need their own articles. The main article can cover this unless and until more substantive stop-specific content and sources are added. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the other 3 were moved back to draftspace (though given that we already have an article for the Jane and Finch intersection, I'm not sure why the Jane and Finch stop wouldn't redirect or merge there User:Onel5969). Interesting dilemma in regards to Toronto subway stops. The line is scheduled to open later this year, so if there would be articles for each stop, then removing them now seems peevish. Unlike a typical streetcar stop, these are permanent installations, shown on the subway map, and won't be suddenly moved down the street next week. If you look at other cities, like Tramlink run by Transport for London (such as Therapia Lane tram stop, it has an article for each stop - and is on the tube map - even though they only run single cars every 10 minutes, rather than multi-unit trains. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see we created similar stop articles for Line 5 almost a decade ago, despite neither line (Driftwood is on Line 6) being currently planned to open until 2023. Why User:TheLongTone is there no issue with (for example) Birchmount stop? Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make these stops notable, it just means there are more non-notable stops that need to be dealt with. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The level of service is irrelevant - the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is what matters. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherstuffexists, isn't an AFD argument, but I'm not opposing here, trying to discuss. There's long history of such stops having articles - and a quarter-century after opening Therapia Lane tram stop is no better referenced (heck, it might be worse!), but I bet no one here will be AFDing that one! ~~If you want to go to policy,~~ WP:NSTATION says redirect not delete; but you voted delete, User:Trainsandotherthings. Nfitz (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example you linked is a good example of something that should probably be merged into another article rather than retained as a standalone article. And for the record, I don't mind redirecting the stations. And NSTATION is not policy either, by the way. It is an essay, and neither a policy nor a guideline. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is indeed an essay; I don't play in WP:WikiProject Stations very often! I thought I'd try something novel at AFD and actually try improving the article! Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Just improve the article" they say. But what if it can't be improved, because there are insufficient sources that exist to ever make a proper article? Have you considered that may be the case here? If I'm missing sources that could be used to justify this article, by all means say so and I will reconsider my vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be improved, it should be redirected until such time that there may be sufficient material for a single article- most likely to the line; though some stops have other more suitable redirection or merge targets, such as Jane and Finch and Emery Village. Possibly even the Driftwood stop should be redirected to Jane and Finch, given it's part of the same neighbourhood, and shares the notoriety. I improved some, but haven't had the chance to add any new referencesNfitz (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason other than that I was unaware of itTheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not notable in and of itself. At best it should redirect to its line. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Transit stops are notable features of the line(s) they serve and are almost always likely search terms, but they are frequently not individually notable so they should be covered on the article about the line or system until such time as they are individually notable. Exceptions do occur, but I can't find any evidence that this is one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 31 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Galich

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

Detailed analyses of sources shows that Ida Galich is a non-notable co-host of not very notable TV shows in Russia. No reliable links. Only passing mentions or self-citations LusikSnusik (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Russian sources mention Galich as a singer, actress and blogger. Russian Forbes ([2]) listed her among three owners of the most profitable internet blogs in Russia in 2020. A Russian version of Cosmopolitan briefly wrote about her as a contestant for the "Best Internet singer" award in 2019 ([3]). I have also found her profile on IMDB ([4]). She might be notable as an entertainer. ThegaBolt. (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:43, 24 January 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) 21:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomistic sacramental theology

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

Since the article's creation (2007) (see this version after the creator finished adding things), this article has been but an unsourced, very poorly written essay (WP:NOTESSAY) by its creator, user A E Francis, who also signed within the article itself with their initials ("AEF"). The user has shown on the talk page that they considered their walls of unsourced, unencyclopedic texts as fitting for an encyclopedia and did not plan on reworking this article.

I have in late 2022 removed all those unsourced parts, and have added some information. Since 9 September 2022‎, the article seems stable (despite A E Francis seemingly attempting to pursue what look likes the world's slowest edit war between this date and now).

Therefore, since the article is so small and only relies on primary sources, I propose it be either deleted, or merged to Thomas Aquinas#Theology then blank-and-redirected. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Christianity. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable, and nothing in it's current form violates policy, and forms a viable stub. The content removed was written and apparently largely unchanged from the early days of Wikipedia before most of these policies existed, so accusing the author of bad faith seems unwarranted. The empty sections should be deleted to make it clear this is a stub. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do accuse the author of trying, nowadays with those policies in place, to keep what is essentially their own essay on Wikipedia. They have once again restored their useless content today. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be a content dispute, or a behavior issue. I don't think AFD is the proper forum to resolve the conflict. Perhaps moving the essay to "userspace" while any content issues are addressed would be more constructive. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really believe that this article is so small (when A E Francis' terrible walls of blog posts are removed) and poorly sourced that it warrants at least a merge. Veverve (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused, to be honest. It seems clear to me that the topic is a subject of scholarly thought, see 1 and 2 and 3. So I don't really understand the basis of the AfD. JMWt (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect that the subject (though of no interest whatever to me) is notable. I wish those currently engaged in edit warring would instead devote some of their fervour to finding and citing sources. Maproom (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thomas Aquinas is known as one of the greatest theologians and biblical commentators of the 13th century. The article's topic is definitely notable, otherwise there would not be any monographs or collections of essays on the topic. See, for instance, [5].ThegaBolt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- The core of the article is a long quotation from this important medieval theologian's work. This is properly cited. I therefore do not see a problem with the article in its present state. On the other hand, the bio-article on Aquinas contains a series of sections on aspects of his theology, to which the central section at the core of this article might conveniently be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 25 January 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) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMAA Who's Who in the Martial Arts Hall of Fame

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

I cannot see enough international coverage to justify notability. The article seems to be written as an advert/puff piece for the linked people and organisation. Mountaincirque^talk 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mountaincirque^talk 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any real notability to it. Was created by a user who has since been blocked for using Wikipedia as a means to promote their friends and acquaintances and I think this falls under that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it possible to incorporate some of the article's content into American Martial Arts Alliance? Obviously all the tables in their entirety couldn't be incorporated, but perhaps one summary section of prose could work. The main concern with doing something like that though is I'm not sure the article about the organization itself even meets WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BY all means take any references that you think are valid and write a sentence or two in that article. Frankly though I think that that page too is on the borderline of being deleted. Most national Karate/martial arts associations are not notable, and these ones particularly seem to mostly focus on 'peacocking' other martial artists. In this case they seem to be piggy-backing heavily on Norris and Rothrock for example, maybe under the impression that having given an award to a notable person that they themselves become notable. Mountaincirque^talk 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I asked about this article a couple of times at WT:MARTIAL because I wasn't sure about its notability. The first time was around a year ago, but that query never got a response which was fine. The second time was the other day, and someone did reply. The article about the AMAA was created shortly after my first query and I wasn't aware of it until the other day. I had some exchanges in the past with the creator on Wikipedia regarding iffy sources being cited, possible COI and other things as well as on Commons about iffy image licensing related to other content they had created. This article was still on my watchlist since then and popped up when a new SPA account started editing it the other day. I wasn't even aware that the creator had been indef'd until the other day. Anyway, I just made the merge suggestion just to see what others might think since I do think a stand-alone article on the HOF isn't really warranted. Since the main article about the AMAA has serious issues too, perhaps it's not such a great idea to add to them by adding more unsourced content.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a bit more Googling for possible sources and I didn't find anything that might be useful. It's possible that there could be some off-line sources which discuss this subject or even its parent organization. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to MA matters, but I do think there are lots of magazines about the MA and perhaps some of them might have given this HOF some coverage. Such an WP:NEXIST argument would have to be pretty convincing though to justify keeping the article. So, even if it's not notable for a stand-alone article, I then thought it might possibly be a candidate for some kind of merging per WP:FAILORG; that, however, would only make sense if the main article about the parent organization didn't also have some major notability concerns. Unless there's another article to which this can be redirected, I don't even think a redirect is possible. Currently, it links to List of halls and walks of fame#Martial arts, but redirecting to that article would make no sense per MOS:CIRCULAR if the consensus is to delete this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is basically no independent coverage of this particular hall of fame. A martial arts "hall of fame" is generally not notable because there is no standard and there are so many of them. The coverage here is either by the AMAA itself or of the "so and so was inducted into this hall of fame" variety, none of which shows the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. All of the article's intro is an attempt to show that the hall of fame's creator, Jessie Bowen, is a notable martial artist--but it fails and is irrelevant to the hall's WP notability. Listing the members is an attempt to show notability, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Personally, I see nothing to support having this article on WP. I also looked at the AMAA article and didn't see significant independent coverage there, but that's a topic for another AfD discussion. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 25 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar

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 🇺🇦 10:39, 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) 10:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the biggest artists and most prolific playback singers in India, you would expect a comprehensive list of her songs on here. Needs sourcing and some polish but clearly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There we go again - India's most famous singer is punished for being too prolific. The previous AfD closed with a clear consensus to keep it. No, WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply, and if it does, then every list of songs on WP would be a database. The page needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable artist. She is known to atleast 50% of the globe's population. Has sung over 7,500 songs across the languages. One of the 50 most prolific singers of all time and mamy of her songs are available and traceable in the internet, databases such as hindigeetmala.org or muvyz.com. Abbasulu (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not seeing an NLIST failure, nor a reason why consensus would have changed in the 7 months since the last AfD resulted in keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 27 January 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!} 05:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MC Luna Trine

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

No independent sources about this non notable artist. The sources given are the typical promo pieces / press releases looking like "real" articles at first glance. No actual, reliable, music magazine or mainstream journalist seems to have given any attention to this artist yet. Fram (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Puerto Rico. Fram (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deprodded, so ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems like a cool person but the sources in the article don't meet notability and I can't find any that do. Hopefully just WP:TOOSOON. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looked promising [6], but it's a paid content article. Nothing found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 28 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alo Chhaya

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

Pay TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is WP:ROUTINE articles for television shows. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 10 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!} 08:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [7],[8],[9] These sources on this page have enough coverage. 103.102.138.10 (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google search found that this page has quite reliable sources. Nilpriyo 11:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nilpriyo. Google search results aren't considered WP:RS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle You are wrong to think only by doing Google search but not that. This page has a depth of sources that clearly pass WP:GNG.Nilpriyo 6:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Which source would those be? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:00, 25 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanumotir Khel

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

Pay TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is WP:ROUTINE articles for television shows. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 10 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!} 08:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [10],[11],[12]

These sources on this page have enough coverage. 103.102.138.10 (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:24, 24 January 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. Source analysis, article improvement and subsequent changes in !votes shows a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Khan

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

Non-notable actress, fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. The references are not discussing the actress but the only film Joyland (That too when the Pakistani government banned the film otherwise nothing) and the red carpet appearance at film festive. Her only notable work is Joyland as in the lead role, that's why she clearly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable actress the article meet the criteria with wikipedia as it have all the source links and falls down under notable trans actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known Notable actress, totally meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, The references are clearly indicting her news source and her career graph not only in joyland, she have appeared in a earlier film Darling and gained numerous awards and recognition in order to make her community and country proud, please stop using the transphobia here on wikipedia and let the article stay as it is mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Article has enough content and coverage to keep it on wikipedia. 111.119.188.13 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable actress the article meet the criteria with wikipedia and Alina Khan is very notable and has done two films with more projects as per her interviews. Article has enough content and coverage to keep it on wikipedia. Salut65 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Salut65, Alina Khan is very notable and has done two films, being an actress she should have significant roles in multiple notable films not only films. She just appeared in Joyland in a lead role. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.Ashraf333, Alina Khan is one of the very few actresses who has been reported by the top Newspapers of the world like LA Times, Express Tribune and many others. Hollywood Reporter, The Variety, are some of the leading industry reporters who have major articles. 2 films vs 1000 films is not a criteria. There are tons of articles for going to the top film festivals that none other notable actors of 1000 movies have acheived in Pakistan. Would suggest you do a little research. Salut65 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed M.Ashraf333 that one film have taken her country to Cannes film festival for the first time in the history from the pakistan, (A highly notable fest on films) Toronto film festival (another big fest) and also now she is selected under oscars, please make your facts clear on a notable actress. the films and artist articles you have created haven’t been to any places so far in their entire life, go and read all the sources generated on google. close this deletion chapter asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmpwork, the subject is actress instead of film, and Joyland doesn't make her notable actress. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Ashraf333, probably according to you it doesn’t but it does she have banged an award at cannes for her performance, and if you don’t consider her a notable doesn’t mean her article shouldn’t be on wikipedia. i fail to understand your negativity and criticism on a trans actress getting a good name in the history of Pakistani media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salut65، There will absolutely be articles written about her, and if there is one, mention it. If you look at WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:GNG, the criteria is pretty obvious, and of course Joyland won't make her notable, even after winning Oscar. Furthermore, notable is not a substitute for famous. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BASIC - sources appear to be focused on her and her acting career over time, and combined sources have significant independent and secondary content that support her notability and can help further develop the article, e.g. Pakistan’s short ‘Darling’ wins big at Venice Film Festival (Arab News, Sept. 2019), Short film Darling is a landmark moment for queer cinema in Pakistan (Dawn, Mar. 2020), Joyland: Taboo-tackling Pakistani film makes history at Cannes (Al Jazeera, May 2022), ‘Joyland’: Film Review | Cannes 2022 (Hollywood Reporter, May 2022), Cannes Review: Saim Sadiq’s ‘Joyland’ (Deadline May 2022), I Was Determined to Show My Family I Could Be Someone: ‘Joyland’ Star Alina Khan (Rolling Stone India May 2022), Joyland’s Alina Khan on winning at Cannes Film Festival as a trans Pakistani actor (Vogue India June 2022), Meet Negha S and Alina Khan, two trans actors, from India and Pakistan, who are changing the narrative (The Indian Express, Aug. 2022), ‘It’s not against Islam’: Pakistani trans actor tells of deep sadness over film ban (The Guardian, Nov. 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefor WP:BASIC. UtherSRG (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Updating my !vote to Keep per discussion with Beccaynr below. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Clearly goes to WP:BASIC Please close AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you've already made your views clear. !voting on this AfD multiple times is not going to help your case. (I'm trans myself, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funcrunch i’m not repeating my case or trying to act in a more smart way, its my responsibility being a trans to let people aware the basic rights and appreciation towards notable trans personalities. if you are a proud trans you should also make this habit of being vocal on fare treatment towards trans artists who are getting good recognition globally with due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources covering the person, there is no appreciation needed. Article should be able to stand using proper sourcing alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources about her listed in my comment above, although there is no requirement that sources about her be about more than her career, which includes work described as 'landmark' and 'historic'. This article can stand with available sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep the discussion on-topic and ensure arguments are grounded in Wikipedia policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. These refs above are for the film, not the actor. This actor has no career to speak ig and done nothing to generate any kind of established coverage. Seems to be a lot here who are confusing the film and the actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Coverage is interviews or about the films she's in. Nothing notable about the actor, films might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been working to clean up and expand the article based on available sources, and after reviewing WP:NFILM, including WP:NFO#4, which includes the Venice Film Festival award for Darling, as well as a source describing Darling as a unique accomplishment in cinema, WP:ACTOR notability for her work in two notable films appears supported, and there are sources that also help develop further biographical information. It appears that at least one critical review source has woven her 'interview' with an assessment of Darling, which is also further secondary commentary on her and her work. Khan appears to be a subject whose personal and professional notability are connected by a variety of independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. This is a persuasive argument. WP:NACTOR#1 states Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (bold mine). Both of the films she was in are notable, and "lead role" is by definition significant. However, is 2 enough for multiple? I would have expected the policy to state "more than one" or "two or more". "Multiple" is more nebulous. I may have to weaken or reverse my !vote - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "multiple" tends to be interpreted as 'more than one', but I also think there is a boost to her notability per the WP:BASIC criteria based on the coverage she has received as an individual. I am still working on the article to help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I finished up work on the article, I also found the Guardian notes she is the first transgender person to star in a major Pakistani film, so per WP:NACTOR#2, in the context of other sources directly about her e.g. 'changing the narrative' (The Indian Express), and her previous work in "a landmark moment for queer cinema in Pakistan" (Dawn), there appears to be notability support for making unique [...] or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm swayed be the arguments above. It's not a slam dunk, but just enough for ACTOR. Weak keep Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That she is the first transgender person to have a major role in Pakistani film is definitely notable.-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:07, 28 January 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!} 08:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Chopyk

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kline | yes? 23:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Kline | yes? 23:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Ukrainian and Russian articles contain several sources on Chopyk, but i am not sure that he is notable enough. Namely, he has been playing in amateur clubs since 2006. In 2005, the last year of his league career, he scored only one goal during the whole season.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No international success, so fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. BruceThomson (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this currently has a full quorum, but relisting for another week to allow more analysis of the Ukrainian and Russian articles and their sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No real proof of notability out there. Angelo (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything when searching "Сергій Чопік". The Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia articles have plenty of sources but all of them are trivial or are database profile pages. Xepcoh is the only non-stats database source and it only mentions Chopyk once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 25 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isudan Gadhvi

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article for deletion because this previous discussion seemed me controversial - There was 7 keep votes in the article but first vote was from the user who created the article, second vote was from a sock puppet, third vote was from an IP address, forth vote was again from a sock puppet, which means there was 3 good keep votes and 3 delete votes in the discussion.

And, I think he fails WP:NPOL because he was only a candidate in Chief Minister election. He was also a candidate for 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election from Khambhalia Assembly constituency which he lost. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Gujarat. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given the extent of sources provided can the nominator please say why they think this isn’t a GNG pass? Mccapra (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are many sources in the article but I am nomination the article because he is only a candidate for a Chief Minister election which fails Wikipedia:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe WP:NPOL overrides WP:NBASIC (which is a copy of WP:GNG). Unless you think there is a reason to disregard NBASIC/GNG. Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The basic criteria has already been established in the previous nomination. The wide and extensive coverage the subject received should leave no doubt.

No need to go over this again. Please recheck WP:NBASIC which states:

"People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". Krayon95 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Krayon95 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion on the article but LordVoldemort728, please do not relist an article until after seven days since it has been nominated per WP:RELIST, which states that However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. Additionally, given that you are the nominator you should not be deciding when to relist, which would be best left for uninvolved admins. Thank you for your continued contributions. VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LordVoldemort728, VickKiang is absolutely correct, a deletion discussion is relisted after a week if there is no consensus and this one has only been open several days. And as the nominator of this article, it is not your place to relist the discussion (or close it). Please do not do this again in the future or it could be considered disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will not do this again. I don't know about this rule. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: Even though you worded it neutrally, inviting other editors should generally be avoided, as it can be considered as WP:CANVASSING. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a Chief Minister 'Candidate' does not pass WP:NPOL, there are hundreds of parties in India and every party announces their CM Candidate. He has News because he is associated with a party which formed govt. in a state recently. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Misterrrrr (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination misunderstands that AfD is not a vote. The admin (78.26) close of the previous discussion clearly recognised some of the keep !votes were weak but noted "three unchallenged sources from the most recent argument demonstrating GNG is met". To repeat my contribution: "reliable sourcing clearly available (eg BBC Hindi, The Print, The Hindu)". This nomination borders on disruption. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third source is a press release. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a press release, it's The Hindu carrying a Press Trust of India report. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is no need to pass WP:NPOL if the subject passes WP:GNG. A lot of the coverage stems from subject being candidate for chief minister, and later because of becoming state head of a political party. But like discussed in the previous AfD, subject was receiving coverage before these two events. The subject still receives coverage outside of these events. More coverage can be found in Gujarati language sources if you use Gujarati script: ઇશુદાન ગઢવી. If we apply the same logic of failing NPOL to Rakhi Sawant, we will have to take her article to AfD too, as she contested 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and received 15 votes. In short, she fails NPOL too. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC Hindi and The Print articles in Goldsztajn's comment and BBC Gujarati, Rediff, The Quint, The Indian Express are in-depth articles on him. I'd say The Hindu's PTI report is not an in-depth one. Also, just a note, these articles are published in the context of the election and him being CM candidate despite him being a "popular TV reporter" WP:1E WP:BLP1E. [Perhaps there are sources from that period in Gujarati[?] and thus would be out of my reach.] Those articles still count towards GNG as they are in-depth. ~~There is also a sustained coverage on him, ex: TIE and The Hindu.~~ Altogether, he has notability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Amend: Revisiting those two stricken off, I see he has sporadic coverage in 2021 and early 2022 and only in limelight since November 2022. Still the in-depth coverage attains him notability 22:11, 29 January 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) 21:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle

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 🇺🇦 10:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I have never felt there is much point to having policy or policy arguments about deleting this kind of thing. It is hurting no one, and it's potentially useful to someone.

Of course Wikipedia needs to have notability guidelines. Otherwise, the encyclopedia would be cluttered by random individuals and their personal projects, or become the place to publicize small businesses - which would confuse readers and hurt its actual goals. However, this is not such a case, and the singer here is clearly notable.

If there is a page listing all her songs, does it hurt our readers?

Anyway, that's my two cents on a first principles basis. I made it a comment rather than a keep !vote, because it does not cite policy. CharredShorthand (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a precident for this exact reason. Other websites already do a perfectly good job at this, Wikipedia is not the place for it. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CharredShorthand: I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. And @FishandChipper: The concept of WP is not really very well defined. I consider it a beacon of knowledge and information. The more the merrier. I really can't understand those who feel so strongly about deleting any article really. So yes, it might need polishing and sourcing, but who does it harm? Inclusivity is the right path to everything. Just an opinion, of course. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:34, 27 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) 11:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly and notable and legit list which is nowhere close to WP:NOTDATABASE. The previous nomination closed following withdrawal and a deletion review. Bhosle happens to have been cited by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most recorded singer in history, so it's funny WP wouldn't list her recorded songs. Claims of no individual notability of every song go against WP:NLIST. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument presented in the nomination was already rejected in the previous AfD. No indication that anything has changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information is given appropriate context and is regarding a notable subject. As above, this nom provides no new argument not already decided upon in prior AfD, nor have changes to article reflected the need for reconsideration. Bgv. (talk)
Keep - Veteran artist. She is known to atleast 50% of the globe's population. Has sung over 12,)00 songs across the languages. One of the top 5 most prolific singers of all time and mamy of her songs are available and traceable in the internet, databases such as hindigeetmala.org or muvyz.com. She was inducted to Guinness Book of World Records for singing most number of songs and almost 65% of her all songs are listed in his article. Have atleast 100 references. Abbasulu (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing an NLIST failure, nor a reason why consensus would have changed in the 7 months since the last AfD resulted in keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog: If you enter the category, almost all the lists of recorded songs by Indian singers are up for deletion, and this one by Bhosle, for example, has been deleted despite two keeps and one delete, which I don't think constitute consensus, not even a weak one, to delete. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to ensure that those articles are not deleted is to add sources for each (or at least most) of the songs in the list. Most of the articles that have been proposed for deletion are in worse shape from a sourcing perspective than this one, and this one is pretty poor (even though I think there is enough to justify retaining the article, subject to adding sources or purging the unsourced material). Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It worries me a bit the number of keep !votes on this Afd when there is serious problems with this article and many other articles of the same type that this editor has created, that is not being addressed. While Afd is not cleanup, it should really be WP:TNT'd and started again. The reasons for this are many and varied. First it is a maintenance nightmare, there is no information on the songs making them virtually impossible to identify. There has been no filtering on the songs to define exactly what is notable and what is not, per norms, making them all effectively non-notable. They have not been checked, merely copied and pasted from various Wikipedia article, clickbait sites and sites similar to discogs, which makes them a WP:V nightmare because they are not correctly filtered for notability. The referencing has been approached in a similar sloppy manner. The very very poor referencing has been made on the film for some reason, in fits and starts, which is again outside norms with the expectation that it will satisfy the average editor, when its the usual practice, i.e consensus to reference every line in the table. So right away it fails WP:V. What is the most egregious aspect of this editor based on the previous Afd, is that the editor has used that as an execuse to create reams of them, all of them mostly unsourced making them effectively structured lists that fail WP:SIGCOV, WP:V and WP:NLIST and WP:DEL14. They should be all WP:TNT'd and if the editor is serious about having them on WP, create them again as proper referenced list article that confirm to consensus, WP:NLIST and WP:MOS and WP:SIGCOV. Because this mess certainly doesn't. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and several previous comments have pretty much convinced me that this list in its current form is untenable, not because of an issue with it as a whole but because the verifiability of any given song's details is nonexistent given the poor sourcing. It should either be slimmed down to only those items for which RS exists, if anyone feels capable of tackling such a task given its length, or it should be deleted without prejudice to recreation provided that verifiability is kept in mind from the start. CharredShorthand.talk; 17:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily see it as a list of songs, but in a sense a list of films. It can be easily sourced to reliable sources as is, the question is what to do if it gets too heavy and might thus require even additional subpages for each year or decade. She's too prolific (been cited by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most recorded singer in history). I don't think every song or film should be individually sourced, by the way. There are many lists where the reference is provided in advance. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if one RS covers many songs when such an RS exists - but I don't think many of the current sources are RS by our definition. In an ideal world I don't see why this list couldn't work - surely there are reliable primary or secondary sources for most of the movies' songs - but in its current form and in line with Wikipedia's expectations and requirements for sourcing, it does have real problems. CharredShorthand.talk; 12:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've seen the songs are from films. I am not into this matter, but wouldn't Asha Bhosle be credited in the films for her songs? If so, then the primary sources are right there. Daranios (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! At least assuming most those films are available/not lost media, and assuming all the songs are credited individually...? (I'm not sure if this is the case or not.)

I must admit to some unease when the source that's actually being used in practice is a user-generated site like Discogs. (At least, I'm assuming no one has so far been finding the actual movie to check the credits.)

But yes, that does help with verifiability. CharredShorthand.talk; 16:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discographies for notable singers are a standing part of Wikipedia, and if they are too long to include in the artists page, splitting them out seems the way to go. The fact that an artist is so sucessfull that the discography becomes very long is hardly an argument not to have it. The solution for problems of WP:Length is usually splitting, not deletion. The notability of Asha Bhosle does not seem to be in question, and also her songs have been discussed as a group in the given Guiness Book of Records and other secondary sources like this or this as examples. Not sure if splitting by language is the best way, though. Daranios (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must say that many pages of the sort are currently up for deletion and, surprisingly, this AfD appears to have brought about the most fruitful and productive debate in regard to song lists of Indian playback singers, especially in the points raised by Daranios and CharredShorthand, which have practical implications on how to improve these pages rather than just get rid of them. This is quite refreshing in the current sea of similar AfDs where the common rationale boils down to what I sadly recognise as personal, fixed position (because most policies cited are often irrelevant). That's why I'm upset that so many lists are nominated individually for deletion, and thus some are likely to be deleted. I've tried to ask for help and get all these AfDs merged into one. I see that similar AFDs at the moment, like those of Lata Mangeshkar and Chithra (also very prolific, the former also a Guinness Book World record holder for a long time, although the page does seem to have generated support for keep), to name a few, could have benefitted from a similar conversation about how to save these pages, and not look for every possible reason to delete them. That's what I believe the spirit of WP should be. Deletion/removal is always the easier route. I for one feel greatly appreciative of the one who spent so much time and put so much effort into creating these lists, even if it just means copy-pasting them all from other sources. I know that particular user did violate some policies in the process, but I assume good faith, just as I do on all those who nominate pages for deletion or vote to delete them. I urge everyone to rethink their position and see how these pages, which are very informative, can be saved. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most famous singers in the world, just needs sourcing and more information. These renominations are getting tedious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 31 January 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!} 06:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karaburun, Oğuzeli

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

This mahalle fails GNG and lacks the legal recognition required by WP:GEOLAND. It's unclear whether this is even a distinct settlement as opposed to a larger rural area used for census purposes, as satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of farm buildings at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. –dlthewave ☎ 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place is legally recognized and populated. Ayıntaplı (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bona fide but misguided nomination. This is a legally recognised place as evidenced by this list whereby it is clearly listed as having its own muhtar, and as such it is presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND. Please note that census-designated places or whatever are not a thing in Turkey, any place listed by TÜİK would necessarily have legal recognition. And also, satellite views to me show a small, scattered Turkish village - it's not uncommon at all to have houses scattered across a large area of land in conjunction with farmland. --GGT (talk) 17:05, 29 January 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. AFD deletion discussions are determined by policy-based arguments, not on speculating on the motives of the nominator. Let me know if you would like to work on this article in Draft space so that it might one day be approved by AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiya Anjam

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

Non-notable radio personality, does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG, the references are primary and unreliable that are just interviews, and no other in-depth importance found in reliable, secondary and independent sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Radio, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Apart from interviews, there are a few sources like Pakistan Today (the non-interview part) and Forbes that suggest some notability but overall not enough to pass WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakistan Today ref is the part of interview as the interviewer introducing her, if there was no interview, then obviously that part would not have happened. Forbes's contributor is also expressing the views of herself and the 2 RJs, conversion were held in Lahore cafe, clearly the primary source. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Though the subject is close to passing WP:GNG. Editorkamran (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran, close to passing WP:GNG. HOW? M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable page the subject have enough sources or links to let the article stay on wikipedia to define the radio personality who is working in the media industry from last 12 years. the forbes and other sources are talking abour her work which confirms her news and lifestyle being a public figure, will keep editing to improve the article. kindly close the debate on deletion of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Issue i strongly believe M.Ashraf333 have some personaly issue with my contribution to wikipedia where he have targeted 2 articles of mine. the first one of a pakistani movie which was filled with all sourced news links and eligiblity to be on wikipedia and now this, i don’t want to move and put deletion on your edited articles M.Ashraf333 so close this discussion and keep contributing to wikipedia in a positive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This user unnecessary nominating articles for deletion. 111.119.188.13 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the articles that this User has put AFD tag on are Notable. of this User personal agenda based problem with Pakistani articles and other Which is its main problem article to be deleted. It has disturbed many articles and is disturbing many articles. And it mostly tries to for deletion as daily practice articles The same user made a name on a proper Wikipedia by creating 10-12 articles from his user page and after that he thought that no one can stop you to disturb me. it's ravaging at a very high rate. It has gone through many battles. with too many users this User should be banned asap. 11:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkashjit Singh30 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete: NN bio. Fails all relevant notability tests. UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are notable and strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on my search and sources in the article, per WP:BASIC and WP:PROMO. There are several interviews without substantial secondary context or commentary, in a Q&A format, e.g. Daily Times (August 17, 2022), Fashion Times (August 24, 2022), The Express Tribune (July 23, 2018), several questionable sources, e.g. Propergaanda, Something Haute, HipInPakistan, GalaxyLollywood, and Brecoder, a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source, and what appears to be a recycled press release, even though it is bylined (PNI, Dec. 30, 2020) because the same copy appears in The Nation (Dec. 30, 2020). The best source appears to be Pakistan Today (Sept. 3, 2016) because it includes a brief overview of her career before the interview, but this (including the awards) does not appear to be enough to support WP:BASIC or other forms of notability per the guidelines and policies. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from mostly interviews. Those aren't useful for the article to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 00:30, 31 January 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruan Oliveira

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{pg}}}}}

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

This article does not indicate its notability, i.e. why this sportsman is significant. Mast303 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This indicates he has been unable to play for nearly two years due to injuries, and there just isn't enough coverage yet to meet the GNG. Perhaps if he resumes playing soon, the article can meet our guidelines, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per Jogurney. Giant Snowman 19:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Also, the fact he is "technically" still playing with Corinthians (is the loan information in the infobox actually correct? Because it would be a four year loan, that's a atypically long one...) does not imply the subject automatically getting coverage in case he ever resumes his career at that level, therefore not justifying a 'draftify' option in my eyes. Angelo (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazeta Esportiva article indicates Corinthians originally took Ruan on loan during 2019, but then purchased 10% of his rights in 2020: "Em 2020, disputou a Copa São Paulo, teve 10% dos seus direitos comprados e subiu ao profissional." It also says that he extended his contract with Corinthians until June 2023, so while the situation is confusing, I believe it is correct that he is under contract (not a loan) with Corinthians. He hasn't played a competitive match in nearly two years due to injury, so who knows if he will ever play for the club again. Jogurney (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per Jogurney. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:12, 30 January 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) 04:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Ryan

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

Per outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Bret Ryan (Character), which chose to restore this largely unsourced article about a fanfiction character associated with Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Content is entirely in-universe plot summary, and only source is Fanfiction.net. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G3 as a hoax. Jay 💬 04:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to some fanfiction? Seriously? Fails WP:GNG.~Utmost, extreme WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per editors above. BogLogs (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I disagree with the assessment at the RFD that this would not be eligible for a speedy - it clearly falls into the "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes" category" of WP:G3. Rorshacma (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Bret Ryan is not a real character from the book series. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP per editors above. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:50, 28 January 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. I don't see a consensus after 3 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. It might very well be brought to AFD again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidon

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

Unconfirmed claims and rumours, mostly non-notable pop references, anti-Israel propaganda jftsang 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article could be improved, but it looks like the "unconfirmed claims" section heading may be misleading, considering it contains sourced and attributed statements. What is the anti-Israel propaganda? I see that Kidon is frequently referenced in news, including English-language Israeli news to give a few examples.[13][14][15] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with keeping. The article is sourced, both by both Israeli and worldwide press, and the unit deserves an article. Bharel (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't offer any opinion here, except to say that it suits both Israel and its adversaries to claim that Mossad has some sort of superpowers, so we need to beware of people (who I'm sure include nobody who has commented so far) pushing an agenda in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mossad. While a new conclusion, this opinion actually builds on the points made above. Nominator describes the articles correctly. Given the current content of Kidon and Mossad, our Kidon article should be viewed as a preliminary and unjustified WP:SPINOFF and even as a WP:FORK of Mossad. The sole keep-sayer stands correct that theoretically all units in the Israeli security apparatus can be notable and sources will exist. The comment-sayer stands correct in noting that discussions with a direct or indirect relationship to Palestine have the tendency to become politicized. Folks should recommend what is good for Wikipedia, not for this or that side in a dispute! Since there is no hypothetical problem with the notability of this unit, only it is unclear what if anything is salvable, it should be redirected. For practical reasons (mentioned) also freeze from recreation without some form of supervision (minimal, an admin who can then keep an eye on the process) because these forks take our quality down. gidonb (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: no objection either to making this a disambiguation page for pointing out the unit of the (grand)parent, the film, and the person with the surname of Kidon. gidonb (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding merge. I do not object to a merge, just had not detected a sentence that was missing at the target. In fact, merging would be an improvement over the current situation. As I see it the entire topic of Kidon is inherently notable. That is where I agree with the keep-sayers. However, without meaningful text about the unit in the article WP:AFDd, missing at the target, redirect makes the most sense. gidonb (talk) 19:28, 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!} 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mossad: A trimmed down and properly sourced version should be merged. If the subject ever expands with proper sourcing the redirect can be overwritten // Timothy :: talk 21:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, it's covered in Haretz and confirmed by other sources. I'm not sure what we're disputing exactly. It meets GNG. You want to re-write it so it's NPOV, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post has coverage about the guy that founded the outfit. [16] and [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, divided between those advocating Merge and those wanting to Keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be merged with Mossad, but if not should at least redirect. Serratra (talk) 05:00, 25 January 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. Three AFDs in 2 months? I've never seen such persistence to delete an article where there is a clear consensus is to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armita Abbasi

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated this article for deletion (its 2nd nomination) a little over 3 weeks ago. The consensus was to Keep, with only one Delete !vote. Mooonswimmer 03:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand why this article could be nominated again for deletion 16 days after the closing admin (@User:Liz) closed it with the comment I hope to not see this article nominated for a third round at AFD for at least a year.. Even that second nomination was made only 24 days after the first one. Both prior nominations discussed and the issue of WP:BLP1E and consensus seemed clear. Does this mean that the nominator doesn't respect the consensus reached or does it mean that the nominator didn't read previous discussions before making this one, or is there another explanation about why we need to discussion this again? CT55555(talk) 03:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per history of AfD. Clearly meets GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per comments above Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep given the closing admin's comments when closing the second AfD on 7th January. The rationale in this renomination gives no reason to set that conclusion aside (and if there was, WP:DRV shouldbe the venue). AllyD (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per second AfD results. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep due to consensus reached at previous and recent discussions. CT55555(talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not delete this page. Doing so would silence the voice of Iranian women. This is a factual account of a strong and brave young woman who has been through hell at the hands of perverted security forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:21E4:3600:FC5C:2DD3:1E6:FFA2 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 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, borderline WP:SNOW keep, but unequivocally an outcome to keep. BD2412 T 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies. // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an WP:EVENT article, with international coverage of the WP:EFFECT that is WP:INDEPTH, e.g. How Two Teenagers Became the New Faces of Iran’s Protests (NYT, Oct. 13, 2022), Iran protests escalate after security forces kill a 16-year-old protester (Deseret News, Oct 11, 2022), Killing of another teenage protester gives Iran uprising a new symbol (Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2022), Another teenage girl dead at hands of Iran’s security forces, reports claim (Guardian, Oct. 7, 2022), Iran: further protests announced after death of 16-year-old vlogger – video report (Guardian, Oct. 7, 2022), Nika Shakarami: Iran protester's family forced to lie about death - source (BBC, Oct. 6, 2022) Iran protests: Iran's Gen Z 'realise life can be lived differently' (BBC, Oct. 14, 2022), Mom takes own life after Iran security forces accused of beating daughter to death (Arab News, Oct. 10, 2022), Students in Iran say they will continue to protest despite warnings, threats from regime (ABC News, Oct. 12, 2022), and there are additional sources cited in the previous AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E, this can be covered in articles about the event. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This already is a substantial article about a discrete subject that warrants a standalone article, that can also be further developed with available sources, so a merge does not seem appropriate. Based on the sources, WP:1E appears to support only an event article, instead of an article about the individual and an article about the event. Beccaynr (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Beccaynr, and also as per very strong consensus in previous AFD discussion. CT55555(talk) 05:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as already specified above and in the previous discussion where the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, this is not a biography of a person, but an event. Deaths and incidents that had less coverage over a much shorter period, and with much less lasting effect, have had their own articles. See for example accidental deaths of children in Category:Cases of people who fell into a well. As such, I see no valid motive for re-opening the deletion request.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus from the last AfD. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 25 January 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!} 01:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Mohammad Hosseini

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies. // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I strongly believe that the article meets wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I am not sure what is the basis of nominating this article for GNG, but maybe I am missing something here? The are several independent and reliable sources that have covered execution of Mohammad Hosseini. I include here only some of English articles about him and his execution (dozens of articles have also been published in Farsi):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64196635

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-executes-protesters.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-hangs-two-men-alleged-crimes-committed-during-protests-judiciary-2023-01-07/

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-protests-hosseini-executed-support-rallies/32230932.html Women-life-liberty-revolution (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an WP:EVENT article, and based on the sources, WP:1E appears to favor creating an article only about the event instead of articles about both the individual and the event. The WP:EFFECT of this event is sourced, and there is international coverage that is WP:INDEPTH that can further develop the article, e.g. Iran protests: 15 minutes to defend yourself against the death penalty (BBC News, Jan 18, 2023), Iran executes two men accused of killing Revolutionary Guard member (Axios, Jan. 7, 2023), Iran protests: Two men hanged over killing of militiaman (BBC News, Jan. 7, 2023), Iran executions: UK summons top diplomat in protest at killings (Jan. 9, 2023), Iranians protesting regime refuse to back down despite threats of arrest and execution (PBS, Jan. 12, 2023), Actor, doctor, engineer: stories of Iranians sentenced to death over killing at protest (Guardian, Dec. 30, 2022), EU ‘appalled’ by latest protest-related executions in Iran: Statement (Al Arabiya, Jan. 7, 2023), US condemns in ‘strongest terms’ Iran’s latest executions of protesters (TOI and AFP, Jan. 7, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with others that it meets WP:GNG. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG and is titled as an execution, which would meet the requirements to keep it under WP:1E. I also suggest a WP:SNOW close at this rate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable secondary sources so meets WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:1E. There are enough resources in Persian and English about this event.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 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 Page move to Lists of Ancient Chinese. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Chinese

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

The scope of this list is way too huge for a Wikipedia list. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have List of ancient Romans and List of ancient Greeks. On the other hand, there might be some difficulty defining the scope of this article (what marks the end of ancient China? Qin unification, the Opium Wars, the Xinhai revolution, something else?) that's less of a problem for those articles. Eventually it might be better for this article to become a list of lists and have individual articles like List of Han dynasty people, List of Tang dynasty people, etc. We already have Lists of people of the Three Kingdoms. I'm not sure what the best option is, but in principle the huge scope problem can be solved by dividing up the list and making the main article an index of the sub-lists. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To your point, anything Pre Qing dynasty should count as the Qing brings you from 16xx to 1912 or so. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we can all agree on a single definition of ancient China, the list would be way too huge and unmanageable for one list. Heck, even just List of Tang dynasty people would probably be too huge for a single list. I think the reason that Lists of people of the Three Kingdoms exists is that the Three Kingdoms period only lasted about 50 years, a relatively short period of time, and there aren't many historical sources for the period. (Sanguozhi, Houhanshu, and Jinshu are pretty much it) Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points. Deletion sounds reasonable if no one has a better idea. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Lists of Ancient Chinese". Both arguments above are pretty valid, so I think a restructure is probably a better solution. This list can be changed into a collection of smaller lists of Ancient Chinese individuals, sorted by centuries or fields, kind of like how Lists of wars is currently organized. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:55, 17 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!} 01:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Lists of Ancient Chinese" per Tutwakhamoe Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of Ancient Chinese people, per same reason as above but with extra clarification for consistency with Category:Ancient Chinese people. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:42, 26 January 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!} 00:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional budgeting

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

Pure original research. The initial revision claims the concept was developed by Simon Pfister and the article was created by Simonpfister (talk · contribs). Several days later the article was subsequently expanded by an IP that is very likely the same user. It's possible that "conditional budgeting" is a notable topic but would need to be rewritten from scratch with proper sourcing from an editor not closely connected with the topic. Jfire (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Jfire (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I get several hits in Scholar, showing how notable this term is, but the article here needs a rewrite, badly. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the possibility that this is a notable topic, but I don't think the Google Scholar hits demonstrate that. There are only seven unique hits (one duplicate). Of those, all but two are either passing mentions, or unrelated to the topic of this article, or both. One of the two that remains is the table of contents of the book "Cost Management Guidebook", a self-published source (WP:SPS). The last remaining result is Dickmeyer, Nathan. "Financial policy making and planning". New Directions for Higher Education., which definitely does cover the topic. For example, it says Another policy that decreases the effects of uncertainty requires dividing the budget into two parts: the operating budget and the conditional budget. However, this article is not cited anywhere else. So we have a low hit count to start with, a single potential source, and no evidence of impact for that one source. For a notable accounting and finance topic, I'd expect much better results -- compare Google Scholar on zero-based budgeting for example. Jfire (talk) 03:31, 17 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!} 01:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and the above source analysis. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable concept.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:54, 28 January 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!} 07:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SLOOP Project

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing issues for over a decade. No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources; the only Google scholar hit has three citations. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. The sole reliable source located in that discussion is a passing mention. Judging by the primary sources, the main contributor to the article appears to be a single-purpose account closely connected with the topic. WP:TNT Jfire (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. Jfire (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination jengod (talk) 23:32, 22 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!} 01:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no evidence of notability either in the article or outside it. This appears to have been a run-of-the-mill project with primary-only sources from project members. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only primary sources, nothing additional found with a search. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:43, 24 January 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!} 07:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaukun

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

I can´t find any reliable references and I cannot find the place on google maps. I presume it is the same as Chaukune Rural Municipality. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 17 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!} 00:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost definitely the same as Chaukune Rural Municipality. All the websites that came up from a Google search copy content from Wikipedia. Mucube (talk • contribs)

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. BD2412 T 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Insane

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

Article fails GNG. Sources are promotional, not RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and United Kingdom. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]*] (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing found for this circus act or person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless reliable, independent sources can be identified that devote significant coverage to this circus performer/act. The only reference in the article is a recapitulation of a press release. Most of the content is unreferenced, failing the core content policy Verifiability. The claim that Edward Tudor-Pole is an "ex-Sex Pistol" is false. He appeared in a fictional mockumentary film playing a possible replacement for one of the members of that band, but was never a member. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. starship .paint (exalt) 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the comments above there is no evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:40, 30 January 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 YP Holdings. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BellSouth Advertising & Publishing

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

Article fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets SIGCOV from RS. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as ATD to YP Holdings. Mccapra (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YP Holdings makes the most sense to me. ✯✬✩InterestGather (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ATD Redirect are really the only options. The one source is promotional. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 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.