Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 28	March 30 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0H

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

Deleted and unilaterally restored over a decade ago; even if the abbreviation is occasionally used, it doesn't need a DAB page because it's unclear what's actually being DABed. If any articles actually use this term, they should simply define it there rather than link it here. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep approximately all the two-character letter+number combinations are articles (though Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages was just deleted?). The entries are enough to keep this even if it isn't disambiguating articles. I'm also not sure if Zero hour or OH would be the redirect target, another reason to keep. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reports of the death of Category:Letter–number combination disambiguation pages are greatly exaggerated. However, there is rumored to be an imposter running around. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For other confused people: I happened to look at the page while the change for the category to use a different dash ("–" rather than "-") was partially complete. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per walt Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my humble opinion, this particular disamb is more helpful than harmful. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:12, 31 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unthank, Harwood

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

No evidence that this "village" exists. Unthank, near the coords given, appears to be the name of a single building, not a village. Not included in any list such as List of United Kingdom locations: U-Uppen. Was recently target of AI text addition, which may or may not be coincidence. PamD 23:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 23:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reason given. Amazingly, this article has been here since 2007. Athel cb (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete its not an OS settlement[1] (it shows up as "other feature") and doesn't appear anywhere in A Vision of Britain. Its in the parish of Forest and Frith so could be redirected there but given its not even a settlement I don't think it should be mentioned there but as it isn't even a settlement I don't think it could be so a redirect probably isn't appropriate. There is information at [2] saying its a house and at [3] saying its a "popular location for artists and photographers". I don't think that's enough for notability though but Books does return more though I'm still not sure. The house doesn't seem to be listed which may also have been an indication of notability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines the 3 in Cumbria are OS settlements and also the Skelton one was a township which probably makes it legally recognized administratively and the others have mentions in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. The Derbyshire one is also an OS settlement and the article has other content. The North Yorkshire one though not an OS settlement has a source for it being a village in the past. The Stanhope one may also not be notable as it isn't an OS settlement and doesn't have any sources. The Alnham one is clearly notable as a former parish even if not an OS settlement. The Haltwhistle one though not an OS settlement also has coverage in the Oxford book. So I'd say perhaps nominate the Stanhope one for deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's the name of a farm. There's this ecological appraisal prior to the derelict farmhouse and surrounding buildings' modernisation.[4] Rupples (talk) 22:57, 2 April 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 as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-I, with the requirement that the article only be sent back to mainspace through AfC review after improvement $Salvio giuliano$ 08:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCheyenne

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

Folks sometimes confuse existence with notability. Was draftified, and returned to mainspace without any additional in-depth sourcing. Current sources do nothing but mention the organization. Or are primary. Or are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only in-depth coverage I could find is https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/04/native-led-indigenized-energy-initiative-seeks-to-decolonize-renewable-energy/. CleanTechnica isn’t a listed RS, and discussions in the RS Noticeboard suggest is somewhere between being not reliable and great caution type sourcing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Cleantechnica and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#CleanTechnica, again. So that is just one, questionably reliable, detailed source. Not enough.

Otherwise, I see a few scattered mentions like https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/opinions/sutter-coal-montana-two-degrees/index.html, but not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:ORG. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, with requirement that the article only be sent back to mainspace through AfC review. This is an obvious WikiEdu case, from a class that has had a bunch of deletions already ([5]). Term isn't over yet, so I strongly urge draftification over deletion for the sake of the student editor, who may still be working on it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Nader Aimi

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

Despite playing in an international match, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage so he does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, I can't see any reason to keep. I also tried searching "محمد نادر عیمی" and found nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not show notability Alex-h (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of being worthy on Wikipedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Willetts

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some limited coverage [6], other stuff about her pregnancy and the like. Nothing substantial, just a working weatherperson. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Radio, Television, Badminton, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning weather presenter. Plenty of coverage: Why it's raining success for Helen in North Wales Weekly News - Thursday 18 May 1995; PLAYING THE EMPLOYMENT GAME in South Wales Echo - Monday 25 September 1995; I'm JUST HELEN in Wales on Sunday - Sunday 05 January 1997; BBC profiles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/gogleddorllewin/enwogion/adloniant/pages/helenwilletts.shtml and https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/about/19111979 Piecesofuk (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. Rillington (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. --Florentyna (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. My BEFORE showed nothing more than the promo material mentioned above.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
In article
BBC is her employer, not IS RS	1. "BBC Weather: Helen Willetts". Retrieved 30 September 2018.
Primary, school record, not SIGCOV	2. ^ "Graduation 2007". University of Nottingham. 12 July 2007. Retrieved 15 June 2008.
BBC is her employer, not IS RS, not a notable award	3. ^ "Weather Presenter Award". BBC News. 9 March 2006. Retrieved 21 January 2008.
Mentioned above
Promo	Why it's raining success for Helen in North Wales Weekly News - Thursday 18 May 1995;
Mention, not SIGCOV	PLAYING THE EMPLOYMENT GAME in South Wales Echo - Monday 25 September 1995;
Autobiographical, not IS RS SIGCOV	I'm JUST HELEN in Wales on Sunday - Sunday 05 January 1997;
BBC is her employer, not IS RS	BBC profiles: [7] and [8]

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 20:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Promo", it's a journalist reporting on the success of a weather presenter.

"Mention, not SIGCOV": The subsection is completely about her: includes her photo and biographical details.

"Autobiographical, not IS RS SIGCOV" It's a full-page feature in a national newspaper.

"BBC is her employer, not IS RS" She was employed by the Met Office, see for example https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-office-loses-bbc-contract-broadcaster-gives-no-reason-for-ending-100year-relationship-10468462.html Piecesofuk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-UK readers may be thinking of weather presentation being a local job, but Williams became a regular Met Office weather reporter on the BBC's most prestigious national nightly news programme - she was part of the team that took over from John Kettley and Michael Fish in 2000. A Nexis search finds various coverage of that at the time, along with a pretty good 2001 Western Mail profile of her (Charting the rise of a high-pressure career; Face to Face - Helen Willetts) and several newspaper stories from 2005 on her being the first News at 10 presenter to use 3D weather maps (plus an awful lot of non-RS tabloid commentary on her throughout her career, the least said about which the better). She's familiar to people across the UK and there seems to be at least some independent, in-depth coverage of her beyond the Met Office and BBC. Adam Sampson (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Piecesofuk. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 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. No clear support for keeping the article was expressed in the discussion and notability is questionable. I did consider draftifying the article, but no one seems to be working on it currently as the 10 edits prior to the nomination go back 2020. Happy to provide it if an editor is interested, or see WP:REFUND. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Downey

AfDs for this article:

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

article previously was keep, but confused how this person meets WP:GNG for persons... has not fulfilled any of the requirements and is merely quoted in many articles, the articles are providing sigcov of other topics rather than him. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning move to draft for potential further research. If the subject is the author of a book that is considered the book on an important field, that would seem to be a reason to keep. The article seems to be claiming this, but I would want to see more evidence of this stature. BD2412 T 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding anything beyond the short quotes in articles, as shown here. The book review listed here is a dead link and I can't find others. I believe that his book is self-published. The publisher, Wooden Table Press, was incorporated the year before his book was published, published no other books that I can find, and has no current web presence. It looks like a one-off to publish his book. Which also tells me that the article for Oil 101 should probably also be deleted. Lamona (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 03:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hills Fantasy

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

Musical piece of unclear notability. Has been unsourced since 2007. Per Google searches, this exists, but not sure if it is notable for an article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Austria. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to find some results in Google on this. I have a feeling that if we search for it in other languages that we could find more about it and determine it's notability. It seems to be some kind of song that was made to hype up troops for a war.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure what you’re finding but the composer is contemporary (born 1966) so the music definitely isn’t about hyping troops for war. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, WP:NMUSIC. completely unsourced. BEFORE showed nothing and de:[9] creator page lists the subject, but provides no sources or details (and no article). // Timothy :: talk 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage, even when including German-language sources in the search. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:57, 2 April 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. While there is a general consensus/concern in the discussion that there may be offline Chinese-language sources that would show notability, efforts to find them have not been successful and the consensus is to delete the article. Aoidh (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giog

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

Non-notable game. Unsourced since 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Asia. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I concur with the nom. But I'll also ping User:Bermicourt who has a good record of rescuing articles about card games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giog is a variant of chess played in Malaysia, in which Chinese chess pieces are used and played in a card-like manner. Variations of these games are prevalent in various regions of China and other Southeast Asian nations where Chinese communities reside. After reviewing pertinent materials, I have found that this particular game boasts highly intricate rules and is incredibly engaging. If more comprehensive information in English is included, I believe it can be preserved.악준동 (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@악준동: Can you please provide links to the materials you reviewed? So far our problem is a lack of reliable sources about the topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title is unusual for a Chinese game. It's definitely not a transliteration of Standard Mandarin, but it might be a transliteration of a one-syllable word in some other variety of Chinese (maybe Hakka?). If the game exists, it's possible the WP:COMMONNAME in English is something else. On Wikidata, the article is linked with zh:打棋摞, which is cited only to offline sources. None of the names listed in that article look likely to be transliterated as "giog". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can only find two original sources for this game. One is the account at pagat.com, on which this article appears to be based, and the other is a passing mention in a book on chess. According to pagat.com "Giog" is a Fujian Chinese romanisation of 爵 ("noble") and refers to the three-piece combination in the game. Giog also goes under other names. It isn't a true card game because it's played with Chinese chess pieces. For me, the jury is out in terms of notability because there is only one rule source. However, I am unable to search for it in Chinese, although I see that the Chinese language article linked to this one cites 3 book sources. So perhaps we should hold fire until a Chinese speaker can check it out (the original author isn't currently active on English Wikipedia). Bermicourt (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We should be very careful concluding sources don't exist when dealing with non-English languages, until a speaker of said language comments about BEFORE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think we should get clarity on the sources mentioned above.
// Timothy :: talk 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~don't delete for now~~ we are having language issues with sources. Not a hoax based on the sourcing we have and may be over the WP:N bar. If we get someone to say they've done the appropriate Chinese language searches and turned up nothing toward WP:N, I'd be okay with deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched in Chinese for both names mentioned in this discussion (打棋摞 and 爵) and the other names mentioned at the Chinese Wikipedia article (車輪棋戰 and 搬棋鉈) and couldn't find anything except very brief mentions and clearly unreliable sources. The name "爵" is hard to search for because it has other much more common meanings. I'm not really sure what to do with the sources cited at zh:打棋摞 – they're offline and my local library doesn't have them, so I can't tell whether they have significant coverage of this game. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete sources don't appear to meet the GNG, still some reservations, but... Thanks @Mx. Granger:. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping for a keep, but per above, fails GNG. Time given for a language expert to help, and no sources showing notability have been found. // Timothy :: talk 21:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article clearly introduces the rules of the traditional game of playing chess stack, and there are references to prove it. Therefore, I believe this article can be retaineDearwyh (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dearwyh: Can you please provide those references? If so, maybe the article can be kept. So far I've been unable to find reliable sources that cover the topic with any detail. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 3 April 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant (Resident Evil)

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

Per Zxcvbnm discussion at GAR page. Tyrant fails notability guidelines as a whole species and most of the content are from Mr. X. GlatorNator (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr. X is arguably notable but Tyrants in general are not, this is basically WP:SYNTH. All the references are trivial, no WP:SIGCOV here. Would need a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, Mr. X appears to be notable, so we should take all relevant content about him and put it into a Mr. X (Resident Evil) article, like what we did here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I started a draft at Draft:Mr. X (Resident Evil) with sources on the talk page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the article is enough with a reception that is short, but thanks for your effort on working on it. Maybe ill try to help, but having hard to time to write since om not fluent in english. GlatorNator (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's definitely unfinished. There is a lot of material for a reception section when it's actually done. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 1 April 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Boldyga

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

Promo, no sourcing of any kind found outside of routine business announcements or staff directories and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: then Redirect to RXNT. No IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. Oppose redirect wihout delete due to BLP issues. // Timothy :: talk 18:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 29 March 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 Reliance Industries. Given that @HJ Mitchell: has indeffed Pervezmusk, the disruption should stop and allow the editorial process to proceed. Star Mississippi 22:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Global Corporate Security

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

I tagged this CSD (A7, G11) [10]. Deleted but Recreated. Again CSD'd by another editor as G4, but this time rejected because it "the article has never been deleted via WP:AFD" [11], so here for a definitive delete and hopefully some salt since this has been recreated by what I think is a COI editor.

Fails GNG, CORP, Promotional. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you accusing me for promoting product or company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs)

Delete: NN business. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reliance Industries as this isn't independently notable per WP:CORP. @TimothyBlue: Technically, this could be speedily closed since you haven't actually explained why the article should be deleted - having been speedily deleted before is not a valid reason. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Here is the series of events, please tell me what I should have done different:
Article created for the first time by Pervezmusk [12]

Article tagged for CSD per A7 and G11 by TimothyBlue [13], then deleted by Jimfbleakas as A7 and G11 [14]

Article is recreated by Pervezmusk [15].

Article is tagged as CSD G4 by another editor (not me) [16]

Second CSD is rejected by SmartSE as not meeting G4 [17]

TimothyBlue understands that a THIRD CSD post would only be contested and removed by Pervezmusk so then posts to AfD with a explanation of the nonsense at CSD (see above). [18]

Pervezmusk removes AfD tags (validting my judgement that they would have contested another CSD [19].

@SmartSE: point out my flaws. Pervezmusk continues along, without even a peep.
I'm obviously in the wrong I need to know why. // Timothy :: talk 15:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked again after considering the above evidence and Pervezmusk has added additional sources to the article since nomimation, showing the flaws in my BEFORE, and I have found more and have added them to the article. Hopefully @Pervezmusk.: will be able to use them to expand the article. There will be more non-English sources that a language expert should review before deletion. Based on new sources and the flawed nomination this should be kept. Smartse is correct the nomination does not explain a rational for deletion, does not address sources in article, and failed CSDs are not a reason for deletion. I cannot withdraw because of the votes above, but I would if I could, so others should consider this a withdrawl based on new sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok atleast you understand your mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pervezmusk.: You very welcome; hopefully other editors will understand my comments. If you want your vote to be clear, you should change your statement above to begin with "*Keep" (in bold). Guidelines allow you to keep researching and adding references and expanding the article while this discussion is ongoing. // Timothy :: talk 16:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reliance Industries: Non-notable subsidiary, fails WP:NCORP as a stand-alone article. A couple of database type sources, a primary source and the one decent source is more focused on Reliance as a whole, mentioning several security related subsidiaries. Ravensfire (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please do not merge my article with Reliance limited. This article should be standalone article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors doubting @Pervezmusk.: determination to preserve their article should note how committed they are to removing AFD templates. [20],[21],[22],[23], [24], [25]. // Timothy :: talk 12:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am preserving this article because of fear of deletion of my article and my hardwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs) 13:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article shouldn't have been published as it wasn't and still isn't ready for mainspace. As it stands, there's only the one source from The Hindu that supports notability. Therefore doesn't pass GNG/NCORP. As it's a new article and there seems to have been a cock-up in procedure, rather than delete, the article could be moved to draftspace and the author given more time to develop it. Rupples (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can someone remove please AFD templates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervezmusk. (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. And please learn to sign your posts. I've told you 3 times on your talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reliance Industries Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 4 April 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. Could have been a G11, or borderline G12 so no need to relist or call this SOFT. Star Mississippi 22:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDare

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

Entire article is a copy/paste from the website. Orphaned article mostly created and updated by users that have not made any additional updates prior to or since. Removing the copyrighted parts would result in barely a stub remaining. WP:DYNAMITE Lindsey40186 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. Lindsey40186 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Widmark and Sara Isaksson

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

These artists do not appear to meet notability requirements and might rise to the threshold of a hoax. None of the linked references to the Grammys show what they purport to show and are simply links to the United States Grammy Awards, not the Grammis. There are no news results for the band or web results beyond album listings. Additionally, the only notability I could find was for Anders Widmark on his own. VioletEscalator (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. VioletEscalator (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. AI generated bullshit, see ANI. The "Swedish Grammy awards" they are claimed to have won do not exist and are not present in the cited sources (I suppose they might be claiming to have won the Grammis, but the 2003 Jazz award was won by Oddjob). I cannot find any evidence that any of the albums in the discography are real. I can find no evidence of the claimed collaboration with Bob Dylan, the claimed collaboration with Leonard Cohen is sourced to them individually recording covers for the album "Cohen - The Scandinavian Report" - how on earth does that source show that they recorded covers for their third album "lyrics"? These artists have collaborated on albums together, e.g. sv:Anders Widmark featuring Sara Isaksson and sv:Pool of Happiness, but this article is nonsense. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Wilhelm

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. Refs 1, 2, and 4 are her own writings; ref 3 is a local newspaper article about her becoming head of a folk high school. The works listed in the bibliography are an essay published in a collection of student papers, a master's thesis, and a dissertation. A WP:BEFORE turned up more routine local coverage in connection with her role at the folk high school. Cheers, gnu 57 20:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Journalism, and Germany. gnu 57 20:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I made some improvements to the article, but found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555(talk) 03:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Nothing here that would fulfill WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most likely path to notability would seem to be WP:AUTHOR, but the article lists only one book, and I tried and failed to find any published reviews of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a WP:BLP and there is nothing. The most blank WP:BEFORE I've seen in a while. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Alex-h (talk) 12:53, 1 April 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Shortall

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

Fails notability requirements under WP:NBASIC as none of the sources have significant coverage of the individual and a Google search did not yield any other sources to satisfy the reqs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Sources are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Primary, by author	1. Shortall, Jessica (2015-09-08). Work. Pump. Repeat.: The New Mom's Survival Guide to Breastfeeding and Going Back to Work. Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 978-1419718700.
Primary, by author	2. ^ Shortall, Jessica (3 March 2016). "Life in the Only Industrialized Country Without Paid Maternity Leave". The Atlantic. Retrieved 6 September 2016.
This ref comes the closest, but it is still promoish not SIGCOV	3. ^ Schiff, Steve (28 December 2015). "10 TED Talks That Will Help You Be a Better Parent". Time.com. Time, Inc. Retrieved 6 September 2016.
Promo, not IS	4. ^ "TED: Ideas Worth Spreading". December 2015. Retrieved 6 September 2016.
Mention, not SIGCOV, promoish	5. ^ "The Skoll Scholarship". Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved 6 September 2016.
Mention, not SIGCOV	6. ^ Lopez, Ashley. "Texas Business Community Raises Voice in Debates Over Anti-LGBT Legislation". Retrieved 2016-09-07.

Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Reads like somebody doing their job. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:09, 30 March 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 Prince William County, Virginia. ✗plicit 03:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William Chamber of Commerce

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

Local chamber of commerce lacking evidence of notability. Previously had copyvio issues, and remaining text may be a copyvio depending on whether https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Prince-William-Chamber-of-Commerce is a copy from Wikipedia or vice versa. Seems to have been edited by connected IP editor. Apocheir (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Virginia. Apocheir (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince William County, Virginia. Fails GNG, ORG. Nothing sourced for merge. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince William County, Virginia per Timothy. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 29 March 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. Star Mississippi 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 Egyptian films

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, no secondary sources. Editors are also advised to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST. _Jovian ^Eclipse 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very obvious WP:COPYVIO. Nate • (chatter) 22:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject does not have enough coverage anyway. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This subject does have enough coverage with citations from nearly all sources including books, jstor, scholar …etc. Please advise the actual reason for deletion putting in mind that this page is a translation from both Arabic and Egyptian Wikipedia. Masry684

@Masry684: Sorry but as of now none of the listed references particularly have this list as their main subject, not even the Arabic ones. _Jovian ^Eclipse 03:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't delete I cleaned up the article from all uncited data. Please give it another chance. Thanks. Masry684

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. Consensus is he's not a notable businessman. If it makes sense to mention the bid and therefore redirect this to Man United, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani

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

Disputed dratification WP:ROTM Qatari businessman just doing his reasonably senior job and not shown to pass WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Qatar. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, please? There's been a requested move, a move review, and now the requested move is open again at Talk:Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani. I know there's no technical reason why we can't have both discussions going on at the same time, but the risk is that we might get incompatible outcomes, leading to some poor sysop having to resolve a "move" consensus in one discussion with a "delete" consensus in another.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the requested move discussion. AFDs before RMs. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with that action, considering the amount of sources that have been mentioned in the RM. AfD isn't more important or superior to other community processes. If we started closing RMs because an AfD has begun, then we're creating an incentive for the losing side to open an AfD as a spoiling tactic. That's not desirable. Please consider self-reverting.—S Marshall T/C 07:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a surprised that the article was renamed again when the relisted discussion was still open. Malia Green (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is notable because he made a bid for Manchester United F.C. and many international sources are reporting about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malia Green (talk • contribs)
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E. Bidding on a sports club does not make a subject notable. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. BIO1E for the sport team bid, or NOTINHERITED from family. One of the sources states they are "little known". Money doesn't buy notability, neither do relationships. Nothing notable about their business career, which appears mostly to be a result of family connections, not independent notability. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Take away the football club bid and you aren't left with much. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He made a bid of $5.3 billion for Manchester United F.C., which also put him ahead of his two rivals, Jim Ratcliffe and Thomas Zilliacus. International sources such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the BBC and others (see many sources that have been mentioned in the RM) are reporting on him and his bid. I think the article should not be taken down until the decision is made and he lose. Malia Green (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside the bid attempt, no in-depth coverage, fails WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 5 April 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. ✗plicit 03:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kuclo

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

Limited sources. Reads like a resume. Tagged for notability issues since 2011. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bodybuilding. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found for this individual. All sources I find are websites listing competitions and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 29 March 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 Space (English band). Star Mississippi 22:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkie (musician)

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

No constructive updates since 2013, just simple mentions in the press. Bexaendos (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I AM David Yorkie Palmer and I updated some errors on my page. However, someone has changed it back and now it's up for deletion. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.110.249 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Space (English band), which is where he earned most of his media notice. Since leaving that band in 2005, he has been in other projects and became a producer, but I can only find one serviceable story that covers that portion of his career ([26]). Otherwise since Space he's made an honest living in music but without the coverage that is necessary for the independent notability that is required here. And BTW, having a stage name that is the same as a popular dog breed makes you very hard to find online. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 30 March 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. Star Mississippi 22:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Boyes

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

Non-notable Canadian Army officer. Was the 132nd Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan. Tragic, but this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 12:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leaving aside the dodgy memorial sites, there are 3 obituaries from good sources cited the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aiona Santana

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

Previously PRODded for unambiguous advertising/promotion. I think it's the same now. Article is full of PR pseudonews articles, passing mentions and content that does not amount anywhere near passing GNG. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aiona participated in Miss Universe Canada 2019, with performances at subsequent galas. As for the musical field, she has been recognized twice by the Latin Awards Canada, the most relevant Latin music awards in this country. Aiona is currently one of the female performers representing Latin music in Canada.

In the discussion of the article in Spanish, also proposed by the user Bedivere, her argument is that she doubts the relevance of Aiona Santana because the media only mention her (which is not entirely true), and that where they do interview her, they are irrelevant media. She (@Bedivere) suggests that I use the media that exist on Wikipedia as a reference, and that they also talk more about the artist.

When arguing in these spaces, the article has a section next to it that contains books, news and other utilities that contribute to a better argument, therefore, I am sharing below what appears when searching for Aiona news, at least in more than five media from Canada, the United States, Venezuela, Colombia and Argentina.

Aiona news in the "News" link of Wikipedia -> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Aiona+Santana%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1

I understand that Aiona is recognized in Canada, but there is no exclusive Wikipedia for this country, rather it is shared with the United States, England and other countries that use the English language, therefore, it seems coherent to me that this article is published where it belongs. Something similar happens to me when I write on the Spanish Wikipedia and the creators of Spain do not give much credit to what is relevant in Latin America, just because it is not well known in Spain.

I am grateful, and I hope that we can achieve the best for this article. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your penultimate paragraph is plain wrong Chucho. It does not matter where people are based or lived in, they should comply with the general notability guidelines. This person is not notable as a beauty pageant (she did not even get to the top 20 in Miss Universe Canada 2019, and that does not make her notable at all even if she were top 10); the Latin Awards Canada are of dubious notability and in fact the article reads like an advertisement; the remainder is your own opinion ("the most relevant..." etc.). Please provide proper sources to assess the otherwise lack of notability. You did point out a couple of sources in the Spanish Wikipedia but these were obvious public relations articles, obviously paid for, and were not even about the artist but the label. Bedivere (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage is more than enough to meet WP:GNG. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, Canada, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how she passes GNG. Could you please elaborate? To me, sources are insufficient per the reasoning pointed out in my nomination. Bedivere (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article uses a lot of prose to glorify her career so far, but it is mostly a repeat of the autobiography at her own promotional sites and social media feeds. She is not notable for getting to the middle levels of some beauty pageants. For her music career it is too soon for a Wikipedia article because she has not graduated beyond self-upload streaming services. For those above who are supporting the article, note that this is an encyclopedia in which someone must qualify for inclusion, and that requires reliable media coverage from robust sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow up to my previous remarks, I'm copying my comments at the nomination for deletion of Farandula Records, also a dubiously relevant label whose article was created by Checho. Here go my words:

The author of this article also seems to have a COI with the label, as they have also created the article for Aiona Santana (currently up for deletion) and also the Latin Music Awards (basically, IMO, a pay-to-win award ceremony which is also non-notable). The label has received coverage, but these articles mostly look like PR, paid-for articles. I'm beginning to think the author is being paid or strongly motivated to create these articles. Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second account, RyanAfton, who has uploaded on Commons (see talk page) some of the images ChuchoVCJMuzik has used to illustrate these articles. Too much of a coincidence?

Chucho has created articles about people of dubious notability, some of which have been already deleted. For example, Rafael McGuire was nominated for deletion (see here) and it was pointed out "Sources appear to be puff pieces/paid PR". Same applies here. Bedivere (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third user, Guairahumber, has uploaded some obviously PR photos of artists related to Paisclo Solutions Corp (whose deleted article was also created by Chucho). Guaira uploaded on 19 February File:B Martin 3.png, especially for an article created three days earlier by Chucho (B Martin, also of dubious notability). Perhaps this should be reported somewhere else, but I'm leaving it up here for now for commenters to analyze. --Bedivere (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are promos (usually about other subjects), mentions in listings, etc. BEFORE showed more promo and mentions, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable singer attempting a Wikipedia "profile", through the help of a music producer (Jésus Villareal aka ChuchoVCJMuzik) who created and curated the text. All we have is an avalanche of Advertorials masquerading as sources. Is there a business plan afoot here? -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 5 April 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. Star Mississippi 18:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Tech

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

weak references Ebbedlila (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP by a wide margin. Couldn't find anything on Google other than a few listings. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:35, 5 April 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. There is no consensus for a redirect, but one can always be created editorially. Star Mississippi 18:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf (campus cat)

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

This article most certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; the topic is one of probably hundreds of campus cats and the fact that he got minor coverage as a human-interest story in the local newspaper and two tabloids does not grant him GNG. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG. The sources given are reliable and secondary, and there are several, therefore it passes the notability guidelines. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the sources do not meet notability guidelines. KoA (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources not meet notability guidelines? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is to show they meet notability guidelines, not the other way around. Low effort common WP:ATA arguments like sources exist are a far cry from GNG. It's simply mischaracterizing the low quality sources and tabloids here. WP:FART/WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE gives some additional guidance on that. Fluff pieces don't make the subjects notable and merely existing in that realm of sources does not let someone legitimately say "therefore it passes the notability guidelines." KoA (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define "fluff piece" please. Full articles dedicated to the subject by multiple secondary sources hardly seems to fail SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nom already mentioned human-interest story otherwise known as soft news (of an even fluffier variety in this case than some of the less criticized types of soft news there). Generally those types of stories are not given much weight for existing in news sources and disregarded as news fluff when we get to "local animal" stories. You'd generally want something outside those spheres. KoA (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something really only "notable" to locals at best. Definitely not something for encyclopedic coverage much less WP:SIGCOV in sources. They're just fluff pieces. KoA (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add on that while we've been dealing with a lot of edit warring at the page with editors trying to maintain extremely low quality sourcing without consensus, there is a bit that's been fleshed out at the article on sources.

Of the original sources in this diff, the first is just the university's page and not independent. 3 is from WP:METRO and on the WP:RSP as not reliable. That only leaves two sources, The Warwick Tab and Conventry Telegraph, which are both local regional tabloids as others have mentioned. Nothing we can use here for WP:GNG or even WP:DUE content in an article. We'd pretty much be left with a stub saying the university calls it their official cat at best. Pretty much everything that's been brought up on the talk page has also just been local sources like the student newspaper. KoA (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to University of Warwick, article is definitely not notable enough on its own, but information about the cat could be in included in the University of Warwick article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed redirect before my delete comment above, but honestly I don't see this being a useful redirect (parentheticals rarely are by nature when the core name already isn't enough). The larger issue though is that there really isn't content to merge, even before I recently cleaned up a lot of fluff in the article. There was a lot of WP:UNDUE stuff independent of any AfD discussion in the article that would become even more undue at the university article. Content at the university page, if any, would probably best be crafted independently. I wouldn't really see it going past a "neato" tidbit one-liner though that they have a campus cat. A lot of campuses have some gimmick like George the campus squirrel, etc. that have a very local following, but typically wouldn't be of encyclopedic value at the university article. KoA (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm borderline on this. A cursory dig for sources mostly turns up social media posts and pages from the university's website. There is some independent coverage by the Coventry Telegraph, but that's local to the area. I also found an article in Metro - [27], which I'm guessing is one of the stories the nominator mentioned - but the consensus is that that's not a reliable source. Moonreach (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and reliable sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable for an encyclopedia – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on why you believe that it is not notable for an encyclopedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:GNG. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject has been covered in a UK national newspaper with a circulation of just under 1 million readers. Strobie (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The cat has an established presence and following on social media, and has been covered in national mainstream media. If this page is deleted, what would be the consequences for similar cat entries e.g Maru or Grumpy Cat? Where is the line drawn? I believe the subject is sufficiently noteworthy PurpleMouse (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpy Cat was the subject of international coverage in more than one undeniably reliable source for most of his life. As for the latter part of your argument, please see WP:AON. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don’t think I expressed myself well. I didn’t mean to argue that if this page was deleted then all cat articles should be deleted! But I can see how it can be read that way. Instead, I am interested where the line should be drawn. To me, this cat is well known enough, but I follow internet cats! I appreciate others with a lower level of interest in internet cats may not have heard of Rolf and will have a different opinion. I really hope the page stays, though. PurpleMouse (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our standard, as other comments have alluded to, is WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my God, are we serious? Couldn't this at least have waited a day (well, from where I am) so we could all properly appreciate this article in the spirit in which it was so clearly intended? As it is now there is absolutely no way this article could even facially be on subject considered notable. I am also not impressed by QuicoleJR's bludgeoning this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That's it, too severe edit wars, and possibly WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel Case. RobinCarmody (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What we have here are a student newspaper that fails WP:INDY, a site that fails WP:RSP, and local tabloids, doing fluff pieces, that are categorically not what we consider reliable sources. At most, some mention of this "official school cat" could be made at the university article, but even that's a stretch per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Metro is not a "local tabloid", it is a national newspaper that is referenced daily by the BBC: example. Strobie (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strobie, time to knock the repeated misrepresentation, especially after hitting 4RR and narrowly avoiding a block. Metro is specifically not a reliable source to the point it even has an entry at WP:METRO and you're well aware of that already. KoA (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daniel Case and SMcCandlish. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 5 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purrington's Cat Lounge

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

This article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. All coverage is local and routine, nothing that indicates any long-term significance. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I strongly disagree. The business is the first of its kind on the West Coast of the United States and among the first in North America, and has inspired the creation of similar cafes. The subject has received in-depth coverage in a variety of publications including major regional newspapers and magazines. Sufficient independent secondary coverage to pass GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has received essentially routine coverage in local newspapers about its opening, closing, re-opening, and last closing- this is normal stuff to find in the business section. It inspired attempts to establish one other cat cafe (that source mentions it in one sentence, and is itself a single-paragraph blurb). The last two sources are online listicles. Again, none of that indicates any actual significance. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly pass GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is incorrect (maybe it was added since nom) there are several nonlocal sources inlcluding Wine Enthusiast, a Las Vegas weekly, and Yahoo!. In any event The Oregonian is a significant regional newspaper, not a local coffee shop newsletter, which is what the relevant guideline cares about. Ditto for Oregon Public Broadcasting. In other words we don't just reject sources with "Oregon" in the title outright. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if it should be kept or not, but one of the reasons this kind of articles gets so much resistance is the very poor quality of much of the sources. The first cat café on the West Coast? Uh, no. Presumably the first, and in any case older, was "Cat Town Cafe", opened in Oakland in 2014, as reported by Time Magazine[28] and countless other major national and even international sources. Now there is a cat cafe that truly warrants an article. Fram (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So create an entry for Cat Town Cafe, too! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my reaction too. I think it drifts towards keep, but I haven't looked hard enough at the rest of the sources yet. I saw a lot of initial fluff in the article like at the Description section that I tried to clean up. Listing the specific entry fee and food items really came across as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That kind of stuff makes it harder to wade through the notability question because usually that's covering a lack of notability. Doesn't seem to be the case here, but definitely needing cleanup. KoA (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove the fact on one coffee shop article that it served hot chocolate and another that it used a brand of oat milk. For an article on a generic coffee shop, you gotta fill it with something... Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a business, Purrington's Cat Lounge needs to meet WP:ORG, and especially WP:AUD:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Among the qualifying reliable, independent sources are The Columbian, KGW, Willamette Week, Oregon Business, Wine Enthusiast, The Oregonian, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Northwest Travel Magazine, Time Out, and Las Vegas Weekly. IMHO, this is not even a close call: the article meets both WP:ORG and WP:AUD, more rigorous qualifying standards even than WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources gives a false impression: the vast majority of the actual articles being used as sources are essentially puff pieces from around when the cafe opened (none more than a few paragraphs of basic information, and are a step above press releases), plus local business news about it's closing, re-opening, and re-closing. Indication of long-term significance? No. Just a "notable to locals" cafe. I've seen similar coverage for basically every locally-owned business in my area in the local/regional newspapers, that still does not mean they merit articles. The Las Vegas Weekly is a trivial mention, btw, it absolutely does not count towards SIGCOV or GNG, and WP:NCORP specifically states that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists" is trivial coverage, which rules out the Wine Enthusiast, Northwest Travel Magazine, and Time Out mentions. And yes, I did go through and look at each of the sources. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GNG met. This page continues to merit Wikipedia requirements for inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Basically said it already in other comments, but it's had enough coverage for a now closed business, though I do agree with SilverTiger on it being a bit of a flash in the pan sort of thing that weakens its case with what can be considered trivial coverage. Still needs cleanup and a look at reducing fluff, and that's probably the larger issue with this one than the notability question. KoA (talk) 03:25, 30 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of felidaes by population

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

All the information in this list is duplicated at List of felids, where it is also complete and up-to-date. This list is essentially a content-fork now. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I question the utility of all these "X by population" lists. In this case it's particularly superfluous, as noted, except for the specific application of sorting the entire list by pop size, which doesn't work with the sectioned list. But an extra article for that functionality? No. Plus, how did that hackneyed plural stick around so long... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Construction Institute

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

Insignificant organisation with no coverage in mainstream media. And anyway, the whole article is a load of advertising. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did my own search and all I am seeing is press release/cursory coverage, nothing that I would describe as significant or in-depth. Fails Wikipedia:NBUSINESS due to lack of available sources. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:27, 29 March 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 Extended periodic table. Aoidh (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbitrium

AfDs for this article:

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

Although I am involved with WP:ELEMENTS and have authored some of the content of this article (see User:Double sharp/Unbitrium for specific attribution), I am not sure whether the topic meets the general notability guideline.

There is plenty of sourced content in this article, but little is pertinent specifically to element 123 (unlike 122, 124, 126, and superheavy elements in general; notability is not inherited), and is already covered in related articles such as extended periodic table. Since this page has been BLAR'd and drafts have been declined numerous times, it is clear that some disagreement exists regarding notability. The guideline MOS:NONEWELEMENTS was published earlier this year in an attempt to codify the consensus, as several project members (including myself) doubt that extensive new sources that would demonstrate notability have come into existence since then.

Additionally, Draft:Unbitrium was rejected yesterday by Robert McClenon citing the many arguments that this element is not notable, yet was moved into mainspace earlier today by DGG, citing that Any element for which there is sufficient published theoretical predictions, is notable. The question then becomes, what predictions are considered sufficient?

Because of the extensive disagreement and local consensus behind the guideline I linked, and the fact that the previous AfD was 12 years ago, I believe it's appropriate to establish a fresh consensus beyond WP:ELEMENTS as to whether this hypothetical chemical element is notable. From me, it's a weak redirect to extended periodic table, but I'm willing to reconsider if coverage specifically of element 123 in reliable sources is deemed sufficient. ^Complex/_Rational 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. This was a draft I created a while back when I still didn't understand the rules of wikipedia. When the draft was declined a few months ago, I then understood that it didn't pass the notability guildlines. Yesterday, someone I have no affiliation with decided to resubmit this draft, and I agree why it was rejected. However, I don't mind if it gets accepted or not, but for now I would say redirect to extended periodic table like unbipentium. ¹⁴¹ Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Extended periodic table and lock the redirect. I agree with ComplexRational that arguments can be made both ways. The question, and the answer is not obvious, is whether there is sufficient speculative theoretical information for a stand-alone article. My opinion is that there is not, but the results of this AFD should be a rough community consensus with regard to other theoretical elements. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The entire article is generic predictions about theoretical superactinide elements. (incidently, the same argument applies to Unbiquadium, which is a Good Article for reasons that escape me). Walt Yoder (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources in the unbiquadium article describe more extensive predictions specific to that element, as well as unsuccessful synthesis attempts, which unbitrium does not have. ^Complex/_Rational 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, one day these will be the "pre-discovery" sections. (They read a bit like Hassium#Natural occurrence or Livermorium#Unsuccessful synthesis attempts.) But there is enough history on 121, 122, 124, and 126 that the "pre-discovery" section by itself seems to justify an entry. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Extended periodic table and lock the redirect. Unbitrium does not currently have enough notability and notability is not inherited from other element pages. The references in the article refer to the superactinide elements in general rather than unbitrium, and the notability of it has been discussed time and time again with the consensus that it does not need its own article. If events happen and new information comes out, the full article can be recreated but it is clear that as of now unbitrium is not notable enough. Even so, I think locking the redirect would be good so that it is not changed into a full article (like it historically has been multiple times) or vandalised. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that unbitrium will become notable at some point in the future even though it is not notable now, so I think the level of protection to be placed is a point to be discussed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per MOS:NONEWELEMENTS. Also, InterstellarGamer12321 here nicely notes that notability (in all >=119 elements, i.e., theoretical elements) is derived from/based upon on their range of elements. R to Extended periodic table serves well. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to hear from User:DGG, who obviously promoted the article in GF. DePiep (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out references. Most are generic for those super heavy elements. Specific ones are dictionary entries, or Landolt-Börnstein repeated 3 times. These are not selective and so do not prove any notability. So agreeing with redirect. Protection is not a problem, as it can be unprotected as required if new information is published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the arguments above. I also agree with Graeme Bartlett that protection should not pose problems. Double sharp (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple sources in the article that appear to focus specifically on element 123 (reference numbers 60, 66, and 70/71/72). Is it enough? 123957a (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 70-72 are from a database that covers many elements, so only 60 and 66 are actually specific. I think it is not enough because no one has actually tried to synthesise this element (as at least happened for all others in 119-127) or looked for it in nature, so it is not clear if the few predictions that exist have been used for anything in the real world at all yet. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  #66, K. van der Schoof (2016), currently present in Extended periodic table under #96. DePiep (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- moot here. These sources now have been added to Extended periodic table § Unbitrium (E123) (new, dedicated). Relevance/removal: tbd from there. @Double sharp and 123957a: ping. -DePiep (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DePiep: I think this is not the right section, because the rest of that section is about experimental searches for the elements, not theoretical studies. As for Sukhoruchkin and Soroko, they have done such investigations for everything up to Z = 130, so they are not specific. Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moot here, resolve there. DePiep (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 60 is already in Unbiunium#Nuclear stability and isotopes. The multiple predictions mentioned there make it clear that we don't really know much about the potential stability (for one thing, 60 does not consider cluster decay, which other studies suggest should be significant in this region). So, I do not think we should really be basing an article on just one model, even if that happens to be the only one that has been applied to that element (because that's likely because 123 is too far out of reach experimentally to interest most researchers). Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{Infobox unbitrium}} be salted too, for the same reason. Creation request for example via WT:ELEMENTS. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Extended periodic table, for two reasons:

There is some information in this article that is not in the Extended periodic table article.
Most of the information in this article does not relate specifically to element 123, so it would be easier to find the information in the Extended periodic table article.

123957a (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, no secondary sources. Editors are also advised to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST. _Jovian ^Eclipse 15:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 15:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There's only two independent sources currently in the article, neither is particularly reliable or in-depth enough to overcome the GNG hurdle; and I can't find any other significant discussions of this one-off TV special. --Jayron 32 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. Show does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth from IS RS. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best in TV: The Greatest TV Shows of Our Time. // Timothy :: talk 02:53, 5 April 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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author request) and WP:CSD#G3 (obvious hoax), and a little bit of WP:SNOW.. Jayron 32 15:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Bentolila

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

I can find no evidence that the person described in this article actually exists. The citations to the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post are dead (despite only having been added 5 days ago) and do not exist on the Internet Archive. The third citation to The Independent is about a totally different person with no mention of Yaakov Bentolila. There does seem to be an academic of the same name with articles on the Hebrew and Spanish wikis, but that's clearly a different person from the one described here. I can find no sources pertaining to a Moroccan musician by that name, which is quite strange considering that he was supposedly notable enough to earn obituaries in the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post. On another note, I felt that the writing style of the article was a little "off", so I ran it through an AI writing detector. It came up as 91% likely to be AI generated. I hope this is not a hoax, but all of the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. Spicy (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Judaism, and Morocco. Spicy (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I thoroughly messed up on this one, and I too would like the page to be Deleted Gyan Know _{contributions?}
- Gyan.Know, can you explain why and how you created this page? I'm struggling to understand how this could have happened. Spicy (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice against hoaxes I basically did the same analysis of the article that the nominator did and if I didn't know better I'd say this was a hoax from a vandal, not an editor with a credible history and a few thousand edits. The sources from The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post appear to have been manufactured out of thin air with a deliberate aim of conjuring up an appearance of notability. If this is the best that AI can do, I'm unimpressed with our new robotic overlords. If this is a hoax or a joke, a serious warning is needed, if not a block. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Raleigh United Methodist Church

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

Lacks notability and independent sources. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and North Carolina. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: did a WP:BEFORE, only found this article. The rest aren't independent or reliable. Perhaps there are other sources offline, but I highly doubt it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Pbritti. Other than routine announcements in local news papers and the like, nothing exists outside of the church's own website. --Jayron 32 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and ORG. Completely normal church with completely normal local ROUTINE coverage, nothing notable, encyclopedic. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N. // Timothy :: talk 03:00, 5 April 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Saab net dress of Halle Berry

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

Delete per NOTNEWS. Barely passes GNG and is not notable outside of the 74th Academy Awards. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Lebanon. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation was already had about the page a long time ago, you can check in its history for the reasons why it was kept. Fashion is ephemeral, notability sometimes isn't clear cut. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't for the ephemeral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Oscars for that year, outside of the event, no lasting coverage. We only have a half-dozen lines of text, could be merged for all that is is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Academy Awards, right? As that is where the dress debuted. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware of what a synonym is, right? --Jayron 32 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know that they are synonyms. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Oscars. You do now. --Jayron 32 16:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 74th Academy Awards. There's probably enough to merit mention at Wikipedia, but not likely enough to merit a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not where red carpet fashion redirects to on Wikipedia. The articles for major awards shows do not have fashion sections Computer-ergonomics (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone stopping you from adding that information. --Jayron 32 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red carpet fashion is much more tied to the fashion world than the award itself, so it would be inappropriate to merge dresses with awards shows. As far as I can tell, for over a decade this has been the agreed upon way that red carpet fashion has been dealt with on the website. For several years, fashion editors were making articles for both individual dresses and for entire awards seasons but that has not taken place recently. Not a lot of fashion editors are left on Wikipedia. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dress was literally featured in "The Complete Book of Oscar Fashion" as seen in the citations. There should probably be more outfits from that book on Wikipedia, not fewer.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just being in a specific book does not make it notable. Several quality sources are required, and this article barely passes that. Furthermore, the dress is completely non-notable outside of the Academy Awards. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is currently in a museum. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in 2016 ET called it one of the best Oscar dresses of all time

And Elie Saab said the dress put his name on the international market

The article is underwritten, there is a case for rewriting it. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with moving this to draftspace and letting you improve it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with that. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources marshalled by Computer-ergonomics. There's no need to move the article to draft space in order to improve it. Furius (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did expect to be voting delete when I saw the title, but passes WP:GNG due to:

Plus many more, easily found by searching "elie saab" and "halle berry" on google news CT55555(talk) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Appears to have the sources for a fuller article and meet notability requirements. The article was started at a time that Jimbo Wales criticized the male bias of Wikipedia and said we should have hundreds of articles on dresses! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning it. I think it is always good to remember how certain we all seem of the notability of sports matches, every model of every car, every version of every iPhone operating system, every airplane type, every train type and how when it comes to topics less traditionally associated with male interests, we consider it tabloid, or intuitively not notable. CT55555(talk) 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fashion on Wikipedia is a dead zone in part because of the low number of women editors and in part because cis & trans non-women editors who have feminine interests have to worry their articles will be challenged for notability, even when they are well-sourced, which just happened to me with an article that had over a dozen reliable sources.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, though there was one editor I think who did a lot of good work on red carpet fashion. The ones I started were on some polls and ones I thought might have decent enough coverage, but some of them would probably be best merged into a Red carpet fashion in xx articles. This one appears to have had more coverage than some of the others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I mentioned this AFD in a related thread about gender and racial bias on Jimmy's talk page, without trying to canvass support here in case anybody says anything. I don't think this article was nominated because of a bias against women, and in the current state can understand why people would want to merge it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the cis male editor bias on Wikipedia has prevented this article and others like it from expansion for over a decade. The entire reason that this got nominated was that the original poster voted to delete a recent article I created about Lil Nas X's pink suit, and when I said "this is not something that doesn't belong here, here's an example with fewer sources than this" the original poster nominated this one for deletion as well. This is despite the fact that there seems to be little expertise in fashion going on in this thread. Like, open suggestions to miscategorize the outfit, merge it where it doesn't belong, etc. The confident dismissal of fashion as something that is automatically trivial even when one knows very little about it is rooted in gender bias. There's entire books dedicated to famous articles of clothing, it's not about how there should be more random dresses on Wikipedia to combat sexism. It's because it's a topic that people want to know about, and that Wikipedia could be a source of knowledge for, if more effort was put into it. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets all rules and regs. The more notable dress articles on Wikipedia the better (AOC's tax-the-rich dress comes to mind as a notable dress not represented in the encyclopedia's dress collection). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 5 April 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Szanton

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

Unreferenced in-article, a BEFORE check yielded only trivial mentions. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington, D.C.. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Checked things out myself; they're a real person, with real published books, but almost nothing at all has been written about them in reliable, independent sources, from what I can see. --Jayron 32 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AUTHOR: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Plenty of reviews the books. eg. [29][30][31]], which is all we need, and Szanton himself has coverage in RS [32][33] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search found ample coverage by reliable sources of the subject and/or the subject's books. I added some sections to the article, but it needs more work, including inline references. That does not, however, negate existing reliable sources found that clearly show notability. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per accessible book reviews. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed GNG (barely) per [34], [35]. // Timothy :: talk 03:10, 5 April 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Versace Suit and Harness of Lil Nas X

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

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Absent the coverage of the 2020 Grammies, there is no lasting coverage of this outfit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red carpet fashion is its own category on Wikipedia, and there are plenty of individual outfits that have similar or much less coverage. See list of individual dresses Computer-ergonomics (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Elie Saab net dress of Halle Berry has been up for years and has far fewer citations. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer-ergonomics: - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but if @Onel5969 were to look in the article history for the Halle Berry article, they would find that discussions like these about the notability of outfits have been had, with the consensus being that it exists on a case by case basis, and often its importance can be gleaned through hindsight.

In this case, the outfit's coverage is NOT restricted to a single day of coverage.

Lil Nas X's Best Outfits Ever - Elle (August 2022)

Lil Nas X’s Style Evolution Is a Masterclass in Bright and Bold Fashion - E News (August 2022)

Lil Nas X'S Style Evolution is Full of Self-Actualization and Sequins - Elite Daily (August 2022)

Lil Nas X’s best fashion moments, as his debut album is set to drop - The Independent (September 2021)

I could go on. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable on its own. I would say merge but there is no suitable topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article fits all of WP:GNG as laid out here, it's just simply not as common for people to write articles on fashion - in theory this could be merged into a "red carpet fashion of 2020" article, but nobody has made an article like that since 2009 and I personally don't have time to make one. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the sources again, and this article appears to be well-sourced and notable. Keep. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Oscars for that year (or whatever awards ceremony it was). Notability is only connected to that event; if it spawned a fashion trend where everyone started wearing it, I'd see keeping it as an article. Otherwise, it's only notable in relation to the awards. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 62nd Grammy Awards, which it says in the first sentence of the article. The articles for individual Grammy Award years do not have fashion sections, nor is there a Grammy Awards fashion category. It is very strange to me that you are voting on whether to keep, delete, or merge an article you apparently have not read about a topic you seem to not know anything about Computer-ergonomics (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for references that talk about the outfit, not the event. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This outfit has been continually reported on by the news for three years. I would appreciate the voice of someone who tends to edit fashion articles on this one because the guidelines are a bit murky and nobody in this thread seems to have a long history with editing in this category.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Computer-ergonomics — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per discussion above. I agree that this is, on the face of it, an obscure subject for an article, but references show there's persistent notability. Moonreach (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very well-sourced article. Furius (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while there are several mentions of the suit after the initial reporting, that's what they are, mentions. After the initial coverage, there is no in-depth coverage of the outfit, so the "enduring" aspect of WP:NOTNEWS is not met. None of the keep !votes address this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, Grammy Award winners have their outfits placed in the Grammy museum, which would have inspired another round of reporting for sure. However, the 62nd Grammys were not featured in the museum due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So unfortunately, the reporting legacy of this outfit was cut shorter than it would have been otherwise. Additionally, Lil Nas X himself has become such a style icon that there are hundreds of articles about his clothing. I personally chose to write an article about this one because I (and many other people interested in fashion) feel like this is a very interesting fashion turning point for him. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where WP:NOTNEWS says that enduring coverage requires that subsequent references be in-depth. It seems enough to me that there are subsequent references that identify an event as having been significant. Furius (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." - enduring notability, not enduring coverage, which means that the coverage needs to be significant.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are treating that section as setting a higher standard than it does. In context, it is saying that "routine coverage" of an event or person does not establish notability. But the contemporary sources cited in the article are not routine. They are in-depth coverage, like reviews of a movie published following its release.

Elsewhere, we have WP:SUSTAINED: "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" (my emphasis); WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage;" WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (which, again, speaks of continuing coverage). The last emphasises that the the point is to establish whether a topic is of "passing or lasting significance." In this case, we have later sources saying that it was of lasting significance in the world of fashion.

The notability guidelines do not require the existence of in-depth coverage over a number of years. Furius (talk) 21:36, 3 April 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1981–82 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team

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

Another contested as a "controversial redirect", when only has a single independent source. Currently fails WP:GNG and should either be redirected or draftified in its current state, but since it was contested, we are here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic. Auburn is and was a top-level, SEC men's basketball team -- and the article is brand-spanking new, having just been created this month. And what's more, a freshman by the name of Charles Barkley emerged as the team's star. See [36], [37]. A search of Newspapers.com turns up some 1,500 articles, just in Alabama, about Auburn's 1981-82 season. See, e.g., [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Thus, I conclude that the article passes WP:GNG and needs improvement, but not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reasoning as my comment on the 1980-81 season. The sources turned up by Cbl62 are evidence that the article passes GNG. In general, I would expect that a top-level Division I men's basketball season would pass GNG, given how much coverage men's college basketball gets in the US. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no high-major school that should not have every season article created. They all get major press all year long.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1E

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of notability concerns, there is almost no encyclopedic content in the article. A mention on the DAB page 1E (disambiguation) with a link to The Carlyle Group (note a 2021 acquisition [45]) is sufficient. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a company the article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This article's sources consist solely of press releases, database entries, and employee interviews, none of which contribute to notability. Searching online didn't turn up anything that would show notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 08:40, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synaescope

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

fails WP:GNG. only released one EP, no notable members, barely any coverage--- FMSky (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have some minor notice in the Australian metal media ([46], [47]) but it is just basic release announcements, and the appearance in Heavy Magazine (already cited) is just their name in a list of favorite things for the year. They're not totally unknown in their country, but their coverage does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV and there is little reliable info on which to build an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Article created by band member. I created the following table (in part to test out the table generator script): ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://heavymag.com.au/heavy-mag-awards-winners-announced-for-2015/	? Website includes a lot of promotional material	Just one mention	✘ No
https://heavymag.com.au/premiere-synaescope-release-new-track/	? Website includes a lot of promotional material		? Unknown
https://www.deezer.com/en/album/15586704?app_id=140685		?	✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/album/6B4FE8mu8dckj9UY4Aj7OK		?	✘ No
https://music.apple.com/au/album/the-illusion-of-control-single/1211452208		?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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. Star Mississippi 13:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Coleman (IT Professional)

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

Looks like it was previously (soft) deleted under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Coleman (cybersecurity)

Same issues as before, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO more broadly for unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are weak: Forbes "council posts" are just as lousy blog material as the contributor posts. The two local papers are covering a "speech at Harvard" which seems to actually be a pay-to-play run by a consultant/coach booked at the off-campus Harvard Faculty Club. TechTimes is not a WP:RS any more - tons of unmarked "guest posting" and paid placement. Not clear on the notability, really: small firm owner, 1 of 26 authors in a collaborative book of no particular note. Was not able to find much else, although there are a lot of people with that name. Note this was also undisclosed paid editing. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:10, 30 March 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 United Parcel Service. Star Mississippi 13:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Access America Transport

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 09:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Parcel Service per nom, fails NCORP. The company got bought by Coyote Logistics which in turn got bought by UPS, so redirect as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 03:41, 31 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Gamer

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourcing insufficient to demonstrate notability. The idea that playing Fortnite and Grand Theft Auto V may make you notable is a charming conceit, but it's not backed by WP:SIGCOV in RSes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Canada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does have a piece of SIGCOV in Polygon, but I couldn't really find anything else of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, only hits on .ca websites are Alexa Answers, then pintrest and other non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: In addition to Zxcvbnm's source above, I found a NYT article that features him enough to consider it significant coverage as well. ([48]). Between the Polygon article above, this NYT article, and a scattering of small amounts of coverage in Dot Esports (a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) with an example here [49]), I'd say he passes WP:THREE to meet GNG, but barely. Nomader (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage, but it doesn't hit the threshold of WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources Nomader gave. Hurricane BP Member (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources to prove notability. Promotional in tone and contains mainly primary sources, blogs or news releases. and the Verge source makes no mention of the subject at all. (The article is also terribly written.) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not finding enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Still fails notability. GlatorNator (talk) 23:24, 5 April 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. Star Mississippi 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Bus crashes, like other traffic accidents, are routine events. Sandstein 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Saudi Arabia. Sandstein 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - sad, but true. A routine and minor event that has not attracted widespread coverage and is unlikely to result in major change to Saudi law or any other enduring impact (apart from to the victims and their families). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that this sad event will lead to a substantive change in policy or approach in the long run. SN54129 12:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Not a bus crash of significance (has average casualty count and the like).~~

~~- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

:Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2023 - for the same reasons I stated above. I would also like to note that there hasn't been any significant governmental, foreign, or public response unlike other incidents. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Currently neutral per @DarkSide830 - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 15:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others ULPS (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The types of sources available, and the breadth and depth of the coverage, indicate to me that this is beyond a mere local news event. --Jayron 32 13:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. Additionally, I think the invocation of NOTNEWS here is premature at this juncture. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article might have been created earlier than it should have been, a violation of WP:DELAY does not justify a violation of WP:RAPID. Jayron's and DarkSide's points are valid as well. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a variety of sources & I don’t see how this bus crash is all that different from the Kaffrine bus crash, the 2023 Lasbela bus crash, the Gualaca bus crash or the 2023 Kallar Kahar bus accident, all of which have articles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Sure, bus crashes are a type of traffic collision, which is a pretty routine occurrence (unfortunately). But a death toll of 20 people strikes me as being quite a bit higher than average, and the implications it holds for Saudi Arabia's management of the Hajj gives the event an added significance that I feel merits a full article. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTNEWS doesn't apply here; there's nothing routine about a crash that killed 20 people. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Bus crashes are just that, accidents involving a bus. But with 20 people killed in such an event? That's not your usual bus crash, that's a tragedy. Especially when the deceased victims were all umrah pilgrims on their way to Mecca. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:39, 1 April 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!} 07:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Heggheim

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

No evidence of notability. Sources in article are database or not independent, and sources online aren't much better. The best seems to be this (found by the editor who removed the prod, thanks), but it is an article about the club, where players are interviewed about it. At the moment, this is a third-division player without the necessary sourcing about her to warrant an article. Fram (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Norway. Fram (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing football no longer equals notable and there is no evidence here or online for any claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. --Mvqr (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG; although she is club captain, I'm not finding any in-depth online coverage (although some is paywalled, so I'm not entirely sure). There's plenty of routine stuff like match reports or a story on how Viking is investing in its women's team, but nothing detailed on Heggheim herself. Jogurney (talk) 19:56, 30 March 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 08:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goonies Never Say Die

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

PROD was contested but I'm still not convinced given the lack of coverage I saw in searching before I placed the PROD. Also not particularly convinced of Deep Elm Records' notability which makes me question the WP:BAND#5 claim. QuietHere (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, my original reasoning from the PROD:

Apparent non-notability. Even with an archive of the Rock Sound review and this one from PopMatters, I don't see enough to save this. Also worth noting the apparent CoI behind the page's creation.

QuietHere (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prod contester; I added sources found by QuietHere and some of my own, which include coverage in major (international) music news outlets such as Pop Matters and Exclaim!. The article notes coverage in Alternative Press, which I can corroborate as I was subscribing to the paper magazine at the time (though I no longer have the paper copy, which is why I haven't added the footnote). I believe we can take the Metal Hammer review on good faith, as the others in the article have checked out, and offline sources are as good as online. That's enough to cross the threshold for bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 07:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patamar Capital

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

Notability tagged for years, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, is written like a company profile, and seems to be a spam magnet. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 29 March 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!} 05:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashee's Beauty Salon

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

Non-notable salon, fails to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT, have no WP:SIGCOV and in-depth WP:ORGDEPTH coverage, unreliable sources, promotional article, gossip blogposts, and mentions in top 10 like list. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-known for being racist isn't really wiki-worthy. Rest of the coverage is trivial. Not meeting NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Beauty Salon article filled with promotional content does not meet WP:GNG. Gothamk (talk) 02:45, 1 April 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 Comoros at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahamada Haoulata

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable athlete, seems to have done poorly (7th place I'm assuming is bad, I'm not great at sports), also seems to have been copied from here, not sure if content is copyrighted. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No SIGCOV in the article, and I'm not finding anything in my searches. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Beyond what's in the article, there's a one-line statement in the New York Times that her event time set a national record: [50]. I'm still skeptical that that's enough to count as significant coverage, but at least it's a newspaper and not just a database. As for the nomination statement: 7th would be pretty good, actually (although not good enough to be automatically notable) but her actual place was only 7th in her heat, much worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comoros at the 1996 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to event after the New York Times. TaylorKobeRift (talk) 10:33, 29 March 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!} 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oon Yung

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. The only source provided is a dead link. Could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Archive.org is freely available. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The article only contains a small mention of Oon Yung. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is worthwhile to search for his name in Korean script, 온영. I don't read Korean. My initial search for the Korean name didn't find any hits for the diplomat, but several for "World on Yonge", a condominium complex in Canada that sounds like his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Korean so I looked around on Korean search engines 네이버 and 다음, but I could not find even a single mention of this person. I doubt this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Carpimaps (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Carpimaps:, do you support keep or delete of this article? LibStar (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support delete. There are no articles about this man on various news sites in Korea. At the moment, I don't see any achievements worth recording to him. Meloncookie (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no source that Oon Yung is a transliteration of 온영 (which would more likely be transliterated to "On Yung"). The fact that the transliteration is "Oon" suggests that the surname is likely "운", and not "온" (or potentially "Oon Yung" could be his given name, and his surname might not have been included in the article). :3 F4U (they /it) 01:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have enough information to keep the article, so I think it's better to delete this document. Leeeunsuk (talk • Special:Contributions/Leeeunsuk) 16:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is right to delete this article because there is not enough reference or explanation. CHO woohyuck (talk) 08:13, 3 April 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. ✗plicit 03:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African Heritage Museum

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage, the 2 provided sources are tourism sites. Not to be confused with the Pan African museum in Ghana. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, this organization plainly fails WP:GNG. The only sources I can find are tourism websites. I tried searching within some Gambian news websites and didn't find anything. Patr2016 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. I did find a reliable source writing about it, but not with significant coverage. So while I have improved the article, I think it doesn't meet the criteria. CT55555(talk) 03:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, that it sells its collection moves it closer to a gallery than a traditional museum, and galleries have such a hard time proving notability. I am unable to find sourcing (as was the case when I first edited it), but cognizant that English language sourcing is a challenge, so I land weak. Star Mississippi 12:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:53, 31 March 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 see equally committed editors arguing for Delete and for Keep although the most recent contributors, after listed citations and article improvement are leaning Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred's Big City Food

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

Article is about a restaurant in Gainesville, FL that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. There is local coverage, but of the standard variety (i.e. giving out meals at Thanksgiving, open to customer suggestions, etc.) Also to note, article was created by the sock of blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication that this has received wider coverage than routine local news coverage or that it's distinguished itself more than a generic local business would to establish notability per WP:NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. I was actually going to come back to this article and tag it with notability. Almost finished with all of the articles in WP:FLA that haven't been given an assessment. Also, if it's created by a blocked editor then G5 applies. – The Grid (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said G5, except there has been enough editing from editors that were not the sock that G5 wouldn't apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources
Mildred's Big City Food is based in Gainesville, Florida. It was formerly known as Mildred's Cottage Gourmet and Coffee House. The restaurant received reviews in the regional newspapers the Orlando Sentinel, the Tallahassee Democrat, and The Gainesville Sun. Orlando, Florida, is 257 miles (414 km) from Gainesville, and the Tallahassee, Florida, is 154 miles (248 km) from Gainesville. That the restaurant was reviewed in regional newspapers that far away from it strongly contributes to notability. The sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience.
The reviews meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews, which says, "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources."
Sources
1. Joseph, Scott (2006-08-06). "School's in, so let's hit Mildred's - A restaurant named for Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning film gives its customers the red-carpet treatment in Gainesville". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The restaurant review notes: "And let's speak here of Mildred. That would be Mildred Pierce, the only role for which Joan Crawford won an Academy Award. ... The connection with Mildred's Big City Food is a tenuous one and more of an inside joke between the owners than anything else. ... The other part of the name is an obvious tongue-in-cheek reference to the sort of dishes one might find in a city larger than Gainesville, say Tallahassee. Still, the menu, which, according to my server, changes nightly, is neither flamboyant nor unnecessarily creative. ... The restaurant's small dining room features a row of banquettes along a wall of shuttered windows and walls sporting metal sconces. Tables are covered with white cloths and topped with white butcher paper. A slender tapered silver candlestick with oil lamp and black shade provides a bit of romantic atmosphere. Two rows of what appear to be copper pipes run along the ceiling and serve as rods for beige curtains with black tassels that are draped so as to provide a sort of canopy."
2. Guttman, Lorrie (1996-05-09). "A nice surprise found off the beaten path". Tallahassee Democrat. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The restaurant review notes: "Mildred's Cottage Gourmet and Coffee House, is in fact, on a road we barely found. We just happened to see a sign for Mildred's ... In fact, with its high-beamed ceilings and multileveled interior, not to mention its gourmet foodstuffs on stainless-steel racks and its elaborate coffee bar, Mildred's would have fit into Tampa's trendy Hyde Park area, where we'd been the previous day. ... [discussion about sandwiches] I had that last one, and it was delicious. Ellie thoroughly enjoyed the hummus and a salad, and my husband raved about the chicken salad with fresh herbs. For dessert, we had wonderful chilled apple crisp, fantastic blueberry cobbler and just-right Key lime pie."
3. Carlson, David (1999-08-27). "Mildred's two new faces". The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Google News Archive.
  The restaurant review notes: "Mildred's Big City Food is a restaurant with a split personality. It began life a few years ago as Mildred's Cottage Gourmet, a popular lunch spot, coffee shop and gourmet market in Micanopy. Now it's moved to Gainesville and by day it's an order-at-the-counter sort of place with upscale sandwiches and salads. ... At dinner, Mildred's tries to transform itself into an upscale bistro, but for me, it just doesn't quite succeed. ... The braised lamb shanks (yes, there were two small ones!) were perfectly cooked, the meat almost falling off the bone, but they had not been properly trimmed before cooking, leaving the dish greasy and gamy-tasting."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Hair, Jaden (2009-03-01). "Judge Jaden". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
    The article notes: "So, I headed over to a little restaurant in Gainesville called Mildred's Big City Food for an early lunch. It serves simply good, honest food. In fact, I think the name is misleading, because this place is all about local, organic and sustainable - qualities I associate with small-town food. This one little restaurant purchases more local ingredients than 50 of the largest restaurants in Gainesville combined. Mildred's is one of the rare gems that stand for taking care of the community. Their food is all made from scratch, and Chef Bert Gill was gracious enough to provide the recipe for one of his most popular salads."
  2. Guttman, Lorrie (1999-08-26). "Got milk? Don't forget to drink some". Tallahassee Democrat. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Mildred's had moved about a dozen miles north, to Gainesville, and has been reborn as Mildred's Big City Food. ... At lunchtime, you can order from the sandwich-salad menu, or choose one of the tempting takeout dishes. ... At night, it's from-the-menu only, and Joe was sorry he couldn't try the lamb potpie in the takeout case. But he was plenty happy with his Stilton-filled steak. ... Any time of day, you can stuff yourself silly with the sinful, hugely portioned Mildred's desserts."
  3. Lafray, Joyce (2005). Joyce Lafray's Big Guide to Florida Restaurants. Charleston, South Carolina: Seaside Publishing. p. 278. ISBN 1-4196-0799-5. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Mildred's is a funky European café by day, an American Bistro in the evening when the chef is at his best, It's also a favorite of many Florida writers, including Jeff Klinkenberg, St. Petersburg Times nature columnist and author of Real Florida. You will not find any endangered species here, but you will find excellent fresh seafood, lamb, pasta and an outstanding Key lime pie. Ginger-cured salmon on basmati rice with tangerine oil, pan-fried mangrove snapper on fresh squash and vidalia gratin and quail wrapped in a fig leaf are a few choice selections. The whimsical menu changes daily and desserts are made-from-scratch."
  4. Friend, Sandra; Wolf, Kathy (2012) [2007]. North Florida and the Florida Panhandle 2nd Edition: Includes St Augustine Panama City Pensacola And Jacksonville (2 ed.). Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-88150-965-6. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Winner of numerous awards, Mildred's Big City Food is a hot spot for those who enjoy good food beyond café fare. Sandwiches at lunchtime include beef brisket with beer-cheddar sauce and a sloppy tempeh-joe with fried onions; creative salads and a quiche of the day. Dinner starts at 5, with three perfect courses to select from: perhaps fresh sardines with a roasted shallot custard, followed by a carrot ginger bisque with carrot salad, and hanger steak with a leek-mushroom tartlet, paired with the perfect fine."
  5. Insight Guides Florida. Singapore: Insight Guides. 2015. ISBN 978-1-78005-547-3. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Chef-owner Bert Gill buys organic produce from local farmers and seafood fresh off the boat in Cedar Key. The menu changes daily and includes imaginatively prepared specials like mushroom soup with truffle oil, sweetbreads with poached egg, and braised venison with Florida butter beans."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mildred's Big City Food to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"
Cunard (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources above/article/BEFORE are a mixture of promos and ROUTINE, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. This is a normal average business, nothing encyclopedic. // Timothy :: talk 13:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The restaurant has received significant coverage in independent RS in two different cities that are literally 2 hours away, and in opposite directions. That's exactly what we need to see for a restaurant: significant coverage outside the local area. When a restaurant is notable, food editors from far away cities write about it -- in full, in-person reviews, which is what both Cunard's #1 and #2 are -- and the only reason for that is because they're telling their readers it's worth it as a destination (or at least worth a side trip/worth a stop). If it were even just a single instance, I'd be saying it wasn't over the hump. Two plus sigcov locally puts it over the hump of notability for a resetaurant. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was pretty flimsy early on but I've expanded it over time with some more sources including ones that mention communication participation and ownership changes. At this point I'm comfortable in saying that it meets notability guidelines even if it's still a bit on the small side. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:12, 30 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Serpent

AfDs for this article:

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

Prevously deleted and recreated. Fails GNG and NFILM. Here are the sources from the article:

Film database: Red Serpent at KinoPoisk
Film database: Кино-театр.ру (2023-02-11). "Красный змей (2003): актёры и роли". kino-teatr.ru. Retrieved 2023-03-14.
Contributor review: Валерий Кичин (2003-04-08). "Медвежья болезнь". Российская газета. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
Youtube promotion video: BadComedian (2017-02-27). "Невский: Начало". YouTube. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
My firewall is blocking this site and says it is dangerous. Didn't proceed. Андрей Волков (2021-04-27). "Первый боевик Невского". Postcriticism. Retrieved 2023-03-09.

BEFORE in English and Russian showed, promotional material, database records, listings etc, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS. // Timothy :: talk 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. It has been deleted a little over a year ago, with pretty much the same concerns.
Mike Allen 14:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference 3 is a review by a notable film critic and the Postcriticism piece is significant critical commentary (I don't use a firewall and had no warnings or dire effects) imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided to show they are notable. Mike Allen 01:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Volkov is a professional Russian film critic, journalist, writer, author of RussoRosso, Darker, Postcriticism and others publications [51], [52], [53]. Берберов Иван (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to Valery Kichin (journalist) who wrote the review in the third reference. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let me just translate for y'all what I read in the firewall-suspicious source. "The Red Serpent" might not have been of interest if Alexander Nevsky's career as an action hero had not begun with him.... Bazhenov ridiculed the stupidity and cheapness of these films, but only thanks to his criticism did someone watch them. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Берберов Иван (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ia a short quote from the article. That a film has bad reviews is not a reason for deletion, indeed it shows that it has had independent criticism which in this case includes significant content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - IMHO, the fact that the film received bad reviews does not mean that it is not notable at all.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:55, 30 March 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!} 03:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Vijay Murugan

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

Tamil art director, production designer and actor - a remarkable combination of talents, and yet failing WP:GNG, this has been draftified a couple of times, particularly to 'segregate' UPE, which is very much a concern here. Other material out there is highly promotional, but RSes are like rocking horse teeth... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Tamil Nadu. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been on the fence about this one. When the draft was moved back from draftspace for the second time by its creator, I thought of nominating it for deletion; the reason I didn't, and instead cleaned it up a bit, was that Murugan has won a Vijay award. However, I'm not sure how notable that award is in itself given that it was cancelled after a few years and I now think it isn't really grounds for notability on its own. I've searched for sources to support his notability, but not found anything. Of course it is possible that sources exist in Tamil, but I doubt that significant coverage would exist without any trace of it in English. There is an obvious conflict of interest: the draft creator registered 11 months ago and has only edited about Murugan, hasn't reacted to any questions about paid editing, and removed the AfD and COI templates today while also restoring some unsourced claims. All in all, I don't see how Murugan is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:CREATIVE. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RK vijay Murugan art director predominantly works in Tamil industry for past twenty years. So all the news magazine & articles are only in Tamil language.

Please Note a wiki article with his mention for your reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Award_for_Best_Art_Director SEO Article (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SEO Article: First of all, please address the questions on your user talk page. After that, could you mention here three Tamil language sources that are not in the article now, and that are reliable, independent, and secondary, and are about Murugan specifically? Interviews, such as this, are not secondary and don't show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 29 March 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. Nominator tagged this page for CSD deletion so consider this nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ziabar (Gaskar)

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

There are not any references. plus that Ziabar was made one year ago before this article's creation. NameGame (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NameGame (talk) 01:46, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 03:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UAV Navigation

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

Most of what is available is non in-depth coverage or from publications that aren't reliable. Fails WP:NCORP. ABHammad (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ABHammad (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is press-releases, I'm not showing much else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with the above, non in-depth coverage or from publications that aren't reliable. Fails WP:NCORP. Timtime88 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't remember the last time I saw so many 404 errors at sources. And the other ones are mostly primary, unfortunately. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:22, 31 March 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.