Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 01	November 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National College Lacrosse League

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is just a results listing of a non notable competition. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NORG, fails CLN (as far as it contains a list), lacks sources from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV about the subject addressing it directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:12, 5 November 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 04:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Junior College Lacrosse Association

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

Subject completely lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and California. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 November 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 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Team YUVAA

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in secondary sources is limited to brief mentions or acknowledgements, but no significant coverage. Cited sources in the article describe work adjacent to and by people affiliated with Team YUVAA, but do not discuss the organization itself in any detail. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, COVID-19, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 3 November 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 page's undeletion.

If an editor would like to create a Redirect to Wiktionary, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

〇 (disambiguation)

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

There are currently 200 pages in the category Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. Usually, Wikipedia policy is to WP:TRANSLITERATE article titles. In the past this category of pages has been treated as an exception because many Chinese characters are not just used in Chinese but also Korean, Japanese, etc, and have multiple valid transliterations.

While I acknowledge these characters are ambiguous, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of dis-ambiguating them. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT nor a translator. Where appropriate (such as for 〇 (disambiguation)) I propose that we redirect readers to Wiktionary. Otherwise, I think these pages should be deleted. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, China, Japan, and Korea. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be specific (if not overly so) criteria for when an article title in Chinese characters is appropriate. Presently, I can only think of "several surnames corresponding to the same romanization", à la Li (surname 李), and analogous situations where it is simply the least troublesome, most natural disambiguator. — Remsense聊 22:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely agree that sometimes the character is the only reasonable disambiguator, specifically in the case of names, and I'm hoping the scope is dabpages with titles comprised entirely of CJK glyphs. Folly Mox (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: MOS:ZH. Folly Mox (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Folly Mox (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. see AfD:土城 and Talk:She (Chinese character) for recent discussion related to this topic. — Remsense聊 22:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what to do with this page, but I disagree with the idea that we should delete everything in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. It's well-established that for topics from non-English-speaking countries, it's valid to have redirects from foreign-language titles (WP:RLOTE). When it comes to CJK titles, there are some that have multiple valid targets (e.g. New World Development, Shinsekai, and Shinsegae for 新世界). When a would-be redirect has multiple valid targets, the well-established solution is to turn it into a disambiguation page. Normally it would be better to put the disambiguation page at a transliterated title and redirect the CJK title there, but in many of these cases there is no transliteration that's valid for all of the targets, so keeping the disambiguation page at the CJK title seems best. Again, not sure about 〇 (disambiguation) specifically, just responding to the broader point about disambiguation pages like this. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of you are making good points. I'd be satisfied if we laid down some clearer guidance about when these pages are/are not appropriate. I think 〇 (disambiguation) is a good example of when they are not, because "〇" does not correspond to the title of any specific page. In my opinion, these pages also shouldn't try to list all the uses of each transliteration, if there are multiple (instead it should just link to the disambiguation page for that transliteration).

Would this have been better as a RfC? I wasn't sure where it belonged. SilverStar54 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can always be moved there if deemed apropos! And yes—I think that's the crux of the issue. Disambiguation pages are for, well, disambiguation.
Maybe this is overly reductive, but I think you have to picture someone sitting down at the English Wikipedia and typing a term into the search bar. If that is an implausible situation, there shouldn't be a disambiguation page for that term. — Remsense聊 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, to me that last point is the strongest argument for why we shouldn't have this sort of page. I have a hard time imagining someone searching for Chinese characters on English Wikipedia. But I guess it does happen! SilverStar54 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean, to be clear! We are in agreement. Remsense聊 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I using Mx. Granger's example above of 新世界, we have a dabpage that includes five content articles: New World Development (transliterated Xin Shidai, delta tone markings), its subsidiaries New World Department Store China and New World Telecommunications, Shinsekai – neighbourhoodPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallbackPages displaying short descriptions with no spaces, and Shinsegae – South Korean company. We also have a link to a further dabpage, Shin Sekai, a redlink to The New World (TV series) (zh:新世界 (2015年電視劇)), and an unlinked entry about a later TV series by the same name (zh:新世界 (2020年電視劇)). I'll note also at this juncture that the zh.wp 新世界 dabpage lists over twenty articles, two redlinks, and two interwiki links.
Meanwhile, if I plug "新世界" (apostrophes included) into Special:Search over mainspace, I get 255 matches, most of which I haven't clicked through to, and which include articles linked from Shin Sekai like Shin Sekaï, but which also include seemingly valid list entries for 新世界 or Shin Sekai like Biosphere (album) and New World Amusement Park.
I'm currently agnostic on whether these dabpages are more helpful or unhelpful, and despite a comment in an earlier AfD that they should all stay or all go, there could very well be some that are more better and some that are more worse.
From a practicality standpoint, a single word or term in CJK glyphs is unlikely to be a smart thing to search for if a person is searching for one of the articles linked from the dabpages (by which I mean they should employ a second search term, like "Osaka", "amusement park", "department store", "Hong Kong", etc). On the other hand, for the particular case explored, the 新世界 dabpage does help winnow out a lot of search hits that are less likely to be what the person is searching for (like, from the first page of results, Fantasy Land Tour 2004 in Taipei, List of Terra Formars episodes, and Jiahewanggang station).
I don't know if I have a point I'm trying to make, or really any idea what if anything to do about this category of dabpages. I'll report back if a thought shows up. Folly Mox (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think this cuts to the heart of it. There is a space of cases between functioning as a dictionary, and functioning as a redirect here. — Remsense聊 21:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Discussion is wonderful and important. But we also need some opinions on what should happen with this specific article for this discussion to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on 〇 (disambiguation) specifically remains the same. The entries are three dictionary definitions of "〇" and a topic (Marumaru Tsuma (○○妻), 2015 Japanese television drama aired on NTV) that doesn't have its own page and doesn't seem likely to be referred to just as "〇". Readers would be better served by a redirect to Wiktionary. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force, apparently a task force focused on these disambiguation pages, and left a notification about this discussion there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. After I merged the entry of primary topic and removed invalid entries per WP:DABMENTION and WP:PARTIAL, the only remaining entry doesn't have its own article. Thus, there's no reason to keep it and if a soft redirect to Wiktionary is preferred per SilverStar54, it should be implemented with {{Wiktionary redirect}} at the base name 〇, like other pages in Category:Redirects to Wiktionary. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:04, 7 November 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!} 07:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Urbani

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vincent Urbani

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

I am the article subject, and I recognize that I am not a notable or public figure. As a private individual, I have no desire to maintain a Wikipedia article about myself, sharing private and personal informations. Additionally, some of the information within the article is incorrect. Vincenturbani2023 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for now to verify that subject is really you. This page is on WP since 2012. You never asked this before. AAonlyA (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove the subject is me because I have access to all the emails and webpage related to my photographic work. The article shares personal and incorrect information and this is the reasons why I'm asking for immediate deletion. Vincenturbani2023 (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, Germany, Italy, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems not good news coverage.--AAonlyA (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- if the nom can prove it is about him then we should delete it as a courtesy, if not weak keep. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO (creative professional). WP:BLP applies to this article. Sources in the article are a perm dead link and a link to a site the subject is associated with that fails WP:IS. I removed unsourced material per WP:BLP and WP:V, and promo links and nothing is left. before, after I was unable to find any WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:BLP level sources. BLP is a policy and requires strong sourcing. I have no idea if the above person is the subject, but unless someone can find multiple BLP level sources to meet WP:N, this should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been cut back to one sentence. This is what it looked like before this AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue - after removing the unsourced material almost nothing remains and if there are not other sources then fails GNG, even if the request didn't come from the subject --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAICS the article has never had the Wikipedia-type sources required to support the content for a BLP. The subject doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Notwithstanding, the article has been proposed for deletion (presumably) by its subject, unless independent, reliable sourcing is found to establish notability there is a strong argument for its deletion. Rupples (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir al-Qummi

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

Non-notable. Only has one unreliable source. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many Google Books references.--AAonlyA (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there reason to doubt that this is, as the Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi article says, "one of the earliest and most important available Shi'a exegetical sources"? If that's true, it's quite clearly notable. The nomination rationale does not address this. Jfire (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Knowledgegatherer23: would any of the many references in the Persian fa:تفسیر قمی or Arabic ar:تفسير القمي versions of this article work here after running through a translator like Google?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page is significantly more developed in Arabic and Persian and simply needs expanding from those pages. The general notability appears clear from the seminal nature of the work in Shi'ism. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Yes, now that I look at it, I would support expansion from the arwiki or fawiki. However, arwiki seems to rely on one source a lot. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:24, 4 November 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 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahani Saker

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

CEO of a hospitality group that doesn't appear to be notable, and winner of a Burj CEO Awards, what doesn't appear to meet any of our notability criteria either. Insufficient depth of coverage in any reliable sources, just mentioned and quoted in Gulf Times and The Peninsula (newspaper). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Qatar, and Syria. Skynxnex (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 November 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 keep‎. No rationale provided for deletion, speedy keep under SK#1. Also seems to be a WP:SNOW incoming as well. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Gaza City

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

Probably should be merged into 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip for the time being. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - WP:TOOSOON & WP:RAPID & WP:BEFORE are the things at play here. The nominator proposed this "deletion" as a merge saying "for the time being", indicating a WP:TOOSOON logic. I am saying wait as (1) the event started today (2 November) and (2) big WP:RAPID and no WP:BEFORE events occurred, with this "merge proposal" being started as an AfD with no talk page discussions and no prod roughly 4 hours after article creation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify then merge - I agree this is "too soon" and "too rapid" this would not be my normal response but we're going to get a bunch of articles about this war over the net several days. I've been seeing 1 to 5 at AfD every day. If we keep merging them, it'll be a lot of work by somebody - the closing admin? The AfD nominator? Santa Claus?

I suggest draftifying any potentially useful forks to more or less put them in storage until the dust settles. Then someone can look at a bunch of them together and merge the best pieces.

At the same time, they should be marked such that a merger is already approved. That way, there won't be a talk page merger discussion for each one.

This is an unorthodox proposal. Does it make sense? Do our rules allow it? Would this concept need approval beyond this AfD? Does it make life harder or easier for admins?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another article about this. Battle of Gaza City covers the same thing. This is a case of two articles about the same thing. There should be one article about this battle. Regardless of what the title uses at the start. "Siege" or "Battle". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, I just boldly redirected the battle article to the siege article since the siege article is linked to all the other articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The IDF has encircled Gaza. The siege has begun. It's plainly notable per all the reliable sources that have acknowledged the encirclement. This is and will be a major singular battle in the war. One thing: rather than a screenshot of the more fluid map, some photos of the battle post-encirclement should be used (if any are available). -- Veggies (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is not in question, and we have rapidly created articles in a developing military situation before. If it's too soon now, it won't be in 12-24 hours. Moving it all over the place is unnecessary WP:BURO. Fermiboson (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and Fermiboson Flalf^Talk 13:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No deletion rationale is being proposed. We can discuss a merge on the article talk page. Let'srun (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Skitash (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hard to see how this is not going to develop into a useful article on a noteworthy event. An army encircling a city and allowing no supplies in is called a wikt:siege.--| Orgullomoore (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might have been too soon when created (no comment on that claim) but its now a thing and no claim for deletion - merge should be proposed on the article talk page --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By now, it is obvious that this is a large-scale military operation, with the potential to become the most significant battle of this war. It is very well within the notability criteria. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this article is VERY notable and this is not how you do a move request Abo Yemen ✉ 06:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep this is going to be the single most important battle of the war. It is articles like Battle of Re'im that should be deleted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with pretty much everyone here. It is very notable. Dwscomet (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Nice (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I'm not entirely sure on what sorts of reviews are considered notable/RS in this genre, but it appears to satisfy the "cannot grow beyond a stub" rule of thumb. Fermiboson (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork is one of the largest and most reputable currently active music review websites. BrooklynVegan is also long-established and notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Wisestwol (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adding also reviews from other established publications New Noise Magazine and Stereogum. I believe the release is notable as it served as a breakthrough for the band and led to them being signed to the label Wax Bodega, which in turn led to a reissuing of the EP on vinyl. The success of this EP also enabled the band to join sold-out tours across Canada, the USA, UK and Europe and has so far garnered over 4 million streams on Spotify. Wisestwol (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Stereogum and BrooklynVegan pieces are a bit too short to really count, but Pitchfork and New Noise are plenty on their own. It's not much -- only just barely above a stub at the moment, and relying entirely on primary sources for the non-review sections -- but for our purposes, it's enough to pass on notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:28, 3 November 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. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fun Ball

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

Not notable enough to justify its own page. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Besides the book mention from The Totally Sweet '90s cited in the article, there is also a CNET article about Happy Fun Ball, presumably written by a vetted human journalist, and a mention in Saturday Night Live FAQ, presumably not a primary source. This clearly fulfills WP:SIGCOV, and there is enough context in the first two sources to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. It just squeaks by independent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm; do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball article. 😉 Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —darling (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator wasnt aware of the CNET article and the other book I agree with the idea that its barely passes WP:SIGCOV Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Catholic Church in United Kingdom

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

This organisation utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH. As a reminder, WP:PASSING mentions cannot be used to establish notability, see WP:SIGCOV.

There is no independent reliable work mainly discussing this group (WP:SIGCOV) anywhere, the only exception being this Katolickiej Agencji Informacyjnej article.

See also the 0 mention of this group on Google Scholar: [1] and [2].

And this group has only one single mention on Google books: a WP:PASSING mention in a footnote of the 2022 The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religion and Migration ([3], p. 292, footnote 2).

Furthermore, this group's website appears to be completely dead. And the UK Register states this organisation was dissolved in 2020, i.e. two years after the organisation's incorporation.

I also suspect User:Uzytkownikmm86, who created this article, is linked to this organisation, due to them posting pictures of this group's clergy and church services on WikiCommons. This would mean this article was created as an mean of WP:PROMOTION for this group.

As a sidenote, I suspect this group is but a new name of Polish Episcopal Church; but this time I have no proof to support my suspicions apart from the fact both Polish Episcopal Church and Polish-Catholic Church in United Kingdom were created by the same user.

Thus, I think this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Poland, and United Kingdom. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ NCHURCH mostly applies to individual church building or religious temples, not so much denomination. In general, the community almost always keeps articles about a bona fide religious denomination provided that there is a reasonable level of RS evidence that it actually exists and that it consists of more than a handful of affiliated congregations. Unfortunately, this group fails even that very low bar. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my above and Piotrus cmt below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland, where a split can be mentioned based on the cited KAI source (the source is reasonably reliable for an openly Catholic outlet, effectively an official media of Catholic Church in Poland: pl:Katolicka Agencja Informacyjna.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland as explained above, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland per above. Even if it were marginally notable, the extent of content and coverage present indicate to me that this is one of those times that it would be better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. A short section on activities in the U.K., or a few sentences in the history section of the merge target, would be more than sufficient to adequately cover the nominated article's subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 8 November 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 Bag Boy Lover Boy. Consensus, albeit weakly, is that sourcing is insufficient. Comas' film is a viable ATD however Star Mississippi 02:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Comas

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

Non-notable biography that pretty much relies on IMDB for information. There is practically nothing about this person that is online outside of general social media and listing of filmography. Despite one film being linked, even the sources for that film don't go into detail about this person. This is simply a non-notable person. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Spain, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, my name is Daniela Benhamou- I've been following Toni Comas, and I can confirm that he is currently in the final stages of completing his feature film, "Silent Notes," which features Daniel Durant, known for his role in the Oscar award-winning movie "Coda." Comas's work has garnered significant attention and recognition in the film industry, supported by various articles in major publications.

To validate the significance of Toni Comas's work, one need only perform a quick Google search using the keywords "Toni Comas Indiana." This search will yield numerous results from official publications that showcase his achievements and contributions to the world of cinema. Notably, Toni Comas has refrained from self-promotion on social media, relying instead on the merit of his work to speak for itself.

One of Comas's notable achievements is his film "Indiana," which was featured on the list of "100 horror Movies That Must Be Seen" by the esteemed critic Quim Cases. Furthermore, some of the most respected newspapers in Spain, such as El Pais, El Periodico, ABC, and El Mundo, have published positive reviews about Comas's work, underscoring his impact on the Spanish film industry.

In addition to critical acclaim, the Fantasia Film Festival has recognized Comas's film "Indiana" by naming it "The Movie of the Year" in their review, further solidifying his place as a noteworthy filmmaker in the world of cinema. With a commitment to quality and an emphasis on letting his work do the talking, Toni Comas has become a respected figure in the film industry, earning recognition and praise from critics and publications alike.

In addition to his accomplishments in the world of cinema, Toni Comas has also established a personal and creative relationship with Nobel Prize-winning writer Svetlana Alexievich. This unique connection served as a wellspring of inspiration for Comas, ultimately leading to the creation of the film "Chernobyl, 1986." 96.250.207.128 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And no sources provided. This IP has a close connection to the subject just by searching the name provided and resembles a COI that helps reflect the lack of meeting the merits of notability and inclusion of this article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links for you to consider.

1- "...is a near-perfect example of how to make a great low-key independent horror film."

http://dailygrindhouse.com/thewire/2017-fantasia-film-festival-dispatch-6/

2- In this article from "El periodico" one of the larges news papers from Spain Toni Comas is compared to Renoir, Lubitsch o Lang

"... Y como en su época la tuvieron Renoir, Lubitsch o Lang, sabe ofrecer la mirada del 'extranjero' sobre la compleja realidad estadounidense."

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/ocio-y-cultura/20180607/critica-indiana-toni-comas-6863217

3- In this article from "La Vanguardia" the larger news paper in some regions of Spain, they mention the influence of Hitchkock and Lynch in Toni Comas work.

"...Aunque el Hitchcock de "Con la muerte en los talones" es un referente visual claro en la escena de los maizales, Toni Comas confiesa que le gusta David Lynch por "cómo maneja la imagen y los tiempos",

https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20180531/443964895949/toni-comas-explora-lo-sobrenatural-del-medio-oeste-de-eeuu-en-filme-indiana.html

4- This is one of the few reviews found in roten tomatoes. Toni Comas is compared to a movie of John Huston

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana

"Indiana" is a road movie with similar textures as "Sangre Sabia," the exceptional, strange, and supernatural film by John Huston. It argues that what's between us is nothing, but nothing bad.

5- Modern Horros says talking about the mocie Indiana in the Fantasia film festivel "The beautiful thing about film festivals such as Fantasia is that it allows for the discovery of a hidden gem that often goes overlooked. Toni Comas’ debut feature is that sleeper film of the festival."

https://modernhorrors.com/indiana-fantasia-review/

6- In this article the film of Toni Comas is compated to the film Shyamalan.

http://www.otroscineseuropa.com/critica-indiana-toni-comas-noves-visions-plus-factor-humano/

And many many more... 96.250.207.128 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reviews of a film. That does not establish notability about Toni Comas because there is very little reference or mention of him. None of these are about him. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't need links to reviews of his films but to articles ON or ABOUT him. Don't say "Google this", it's the responsibility of those editors arguing to Keep an article to bring them into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage in Gbooks about a WW2 person with this name, nothing for a film person. I can't find coverage. The mentions of his films are fine, but we need articles that talk about the individual, not about stuff they've done. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked at this at all, but if he is a director wouldn't reviews of his films count under WP:CREATIVE? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of a movie are about the movie. In what way is it entirely about the filmmaker? It's not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Perry (translator)

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

Original PROD rationale: Not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. First source barely scrapes by, the latter half of the article is about the history of the award and not about Perry. Second source barely mentions him at all. No other sources located on a search.

De-PROD'd as: Deprodding; enough here to merit a wider discussion at AfD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, Literature, and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a keep per WP:CREATIVE:
- WP:CREATIVE.4 for receiving critical attention for their work, eg:
  1. 3 awards are noted in the article, including Oxford-Weidenfeld Translation Prize [4] and sv:Bernard Shaw-priset [5].
  2. Critical praise for translation including NYT [6]
- WP:CREATIVE.3, for significant contribution to Marcella, an English-language show where the original scripts were written in Swedish and translated by the subject into English [7]

—siro χ o 05:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are only as good as the coverage that comes from receiving them. If there is no coverage of the receipt of the award, it hardly contributes to a claim of notability. That NYT article you linked barely mentions Perry - one sentence mentioning his name and saying the critic isn't even sure who to credit for the beauty of the sentences. It can hardly be said to be significant coverage of him or his work if the writer wasn't even sure who was responsible. The Broadcast article you linked mentions him only in passing, and does not focus on him. Again, hardly sigcov. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find sourcing about this translator. Gsearch is straight to book seller sites, wordpress and other non-RS. I don't seem mentions in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's really not much sourcing out there for this guy and I get the impression most is either offline or in Swedish. I decided to look at the awards and I think that this guy could pass WP:NACADEMIC based on the award from the Swedish Academy alone. The other prizes generally look good (at the very least not vanity awards) as the Oxford-Weidenfeld Translation Prize is given out by New College, The Queen's College and St Anne's College in Oxford, but the Swedish Academy trumps them all. I'd say that this award qualifies under criteria 2 of NACADEMIC easily.

The Swedish Academy is one of the Royal Academies of Sweden. It's also the institution that selects who wins the Nobel Prize in Literature. Per the Wikipedia article they give out about 50 awards per year and to be very honest, this is probably the biggest prize a Swedish-to-English translator could probably receive. I'd see an official award from them (not a grant or scholarship but an actual award) as the equivalent of receiving an Oscar or Emmy. You get an award from them because you're considered to be one of the best in your given awards area for the given year. As far as the selectiveness of the Academy awards go, I took a look at the list for the 2004 awards. I counted about 57 names, which includes the people who won the grants and scholarships.

I think what really hurt this article and its credibility is the fact that it really looked like a piece of promotional puffery at first glance. This is why it's so important to write in a neutral point of view because it can backfire spectacularly. In any case, I'd say he passes NACADEMIC. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as whether he passes WP:CREATIVE, I'd say he passes on that as well per the Swedish Academy award. If he were to win say, an Oscar for a screenplay he'd be notable on that alone and I view their awards to be on the same scale. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus through more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack. It does appear that the Swedish Academy award would make them qualify under point 4 of WP:CREATIVE and point 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Tollens (talk) 05:50, 3 November 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 Scout's Honor... by Way of Blood. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild for da Night

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

I am unconvinced that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The refs are either user-generated YouTube videos or a non-SIGCOV database entry with insufficient editorial oversight (i.e., no staff expertise/editorial policies). BEFORE found a few book refs with several mentions but these fail SIGCOV. My previous blank and redirect was contested, so AfD is the next logical step. VickKiang (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scout's Honor... by Way of Blood: I found this brief review but nothing else, and that review is too short to be worth anything anyway. Doesn't appear to have received enough coverage, and being a "huge hit" (seemingly according to the artist in an interview) without any charting won't cut it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scout's Honor... by Way of Blood, I couldn't find sources to pas WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hochstadt

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Created by a WP:SPA back in 2008; seems to have slipped through the cracks of review. GuardianH (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR 3. --Jahaza (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of Mobility and Modernity: Migration in Germany, 1820-1989[8][9][10][11][12]
- Reviews of Exodus to Shanghai: Stories of Escape from the Third Reich[13][14][15][16]

Jahaza (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Judaism, Illinois, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:Author and possibly WP:Prof, Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR, see arguments above. --hroest 13:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR given the sources above and on the article --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as above. I added the reviews listed above to the article, along with several more. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:07, 8 November 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 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajram Limani

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

Semi-advertorialized ("his supporters praise him for his dedication to public service and his efforts to improve the lives of citizens in the region") WP:BLP of a political figure not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The claim here is that he has been deputy director of the municipal branch of a political party in one city, which is not an "inherently" notable role that confers a free pass over NPOL -- but the sourcing is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG, as it consists of short blurbs and a brief WP:BLP1E blip of single-day coverage in the context of having been a casual bystander near somebody else doing something, which is not in and of itself a reason why a local political organizer would pass the ten year test as a topic of special significance over and above other local political organizers. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Macedonia. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Hero: A Tribute to John Lennon

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

Not a particularly notable album. Only sources are Discogs (user-generated) and AllMusic, seemingly the only review. Also no charting. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found charting and a review from Cashbox and a review from See Magazine. There's also this from Billboard which might be charting but I'm not entirely clear. The first two plus AllMusic's review are solid for NALBUM#1/GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a pre-Internet release there are few reviews to be found online today, but the article can be enhanced with the sources found by Q.H. above. A Google Books search also reveals a few more hardcopy reviews (e.g. [17]), while the album is described at least briefly in books about various contributing bands [e.g. [18]) and in some biographies of John Lennon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 2 November 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 Peter Hammill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fie! Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Hammill. This didn't need to come to AfD; it's an obvious solution and much preferable to creating a redlink. Chubbles (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Hammill not independently notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Graham (snooker player)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search, which included a check of the the British Newspaper Archive, failed to uncover any significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. There is one paragraph about Graham in the 5th edition of the Benson and Hedges Snooker Yearbook (1988), which basically briefly lists which professional qualifying events he scored points at, and that he defeated Clive Everton in a play-off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring sufficient sources, mostly database entries. Suonii180 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro O Tablado

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILD. No secondary RS I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and Brazil. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. I searched on www.google.pt and found multiple potential references. I added two to the article in a new "see also" section.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable theatre, can be expanded with sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 3 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Williams (linebacker)

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

None of the current sources are WP:INDEPENDENT, and I could not find enough significant coverage in secondary sources to suggest that the topic meets notability guidelines. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Texas. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the secondary sources present in the article. Diff

BurgeoningContracting 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Although somewhat weak), appears to pass WP:GNG, see for example Waco Tribune-Herald, MyParisTexas, KWTX, Fox44, EParisExtra, plus lesser coverage at KXXV and Fox44 (2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources posted above. Enough to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 18:53, 2 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movies.com

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

Fails GNG and NWEB. The two present sources only talk about the site's aquisition. No other sources immediately visible NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article was in sad shape, which passed muster around here when it was created almost 18 years ago, I suppose. I have expanded and added more citations, I think the website is certainly notable. It is kind of funny how many of the basic URLs that people thought would be automatic cash cows in the late 1990s didn't succeed, like this one, and Pets.com as the quintessential example. I guess humans prefer interesting brand names. E.g., I just checked, books.com redirects to Barnes & Noble's website.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved using multiple reliable sources as per WP:HEY so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 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!} 23:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nginx–MySQL–PHP packages

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

This list is extremely short and doesn't cite any sources. I don't think it fits under standalone list notability guidelines, because it's a List of X of Y of Z. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LEMP stack would've met the notability requirements, but the article doesn't discuss it, instead focusing on packaging of all of the stack components together, which doesn't seem to be widely described in sources and, frankly, uncommon. Won't oppose Redirect to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants or Move to LEMP stack as a second choice. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 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!} 23:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Everett

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

Per WP:ARTIST. No claim of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:TOOSOON No significant coverage available to improve the article as written. Not in any notable exhibitions or collections. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:00, 7 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ICFAI University, Tripura

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

Largely PROMO for the university, with large chunks of text non-sourced, rest of the sourcing is primary or simple lists or legislative texts. I find no external coverage of the institution itself, only of students having won xyz award. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tendentiously edited by paid editor, blatant advertising and fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very promotional however may not meet G11. But anyways fails WP:NORG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost every one of the 66 references I’ve found are promotional, and possible WP:UPE involvement. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 20:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From 66 I've found some are promotional but not entirely many of them have cited for reference which looks ok. We should make some changes to it so it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia and in a neutral point of view KujoJoske (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC):Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you consider as valid, please present your top 3 here so we can review. Oaktree b (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources invariably fail either WP:ORGIND or WP:ORGDEPTH or both Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~:There are "n" number of articles similar to this but there isn't a single issue with them. Why? KujoJoske (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if there are other articles on organisations that fail requirements, you can request their deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag them for deletion as well, we need to review them Oaktree b (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please search with the keywords like University, University in India, Institute in India, Institute, Colleges and check the articles published KujoJoske (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I'm surprised many of prominent institute have cited poor source and blatantly advertising and no actions have been taken that's seems very suspicious. KujoJoske (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Please keep the discussion here to the article at hand. You can nominate any articles for deletion that you feel are invalid, on their pages. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socks are out in full force today. It does seem suspicious yes, thank you Mr. Sock. I wondered why it was so interesting to you. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept universities established by state legislation. The quality of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Always better then SPAM. The Banner talk 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tendentiously edited by paid editor, blatant advertising and fails WP:NORG. The Banner talk 16:32, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Min Ko Thu

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

Would have been an unsourced BLP if it were not for me adding the Soccerway link. My searches using the Burmese name did not yield any relevant hits. The best that I could find from his English name was ASEAN Football, which is just a trivial mention. I couldn't find anything in my WP:BEFORE search that shows a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and none of the sources that were added to this in the past showed significant coverage from an independent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- I have added 2 sources from the Arabic Wiki, but they fail WP:SIGCOV. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real León

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

The article is unreferenced and there is lack of significant coverage 1keyhole (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG. No sources I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 2 November 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 23:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alain Bingan

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

The sourcing for this article just is not good enough for a WP:BLP. Even the 2011 archive, which is the furthest back that I could find, is a dead link. In any case, cotonsport.com would not have been an independent source. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV under "Paul Bingan", "Paul Alain Bingan" or "Alain Bingan" or even anything to get this over the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I respect that this article has gone unchallenged since 2008 but I think that it's time to consider deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 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 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fiss

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

This article does not seem to cover a notable subject, and doesn't meet WP:NPOV. The only WP:RS is as playing a minor non-speaking role in a film. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements; only coverage I could find was this [19], which is a routine PR announcement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 2 November 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 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés López de Noche

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources not independent, fails WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 8 November 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 by Drmies per WP:CSD#G5 (created by a banned editor). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Surace

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

Highly promotional BLP, but does contain some assertions of notability (on first reading, at least). Happy‑melon 13:21, 2 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does read very much as a self written article in my opinion, again, on first reading. Dialupnetwork (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet academic notability and I don't see significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as written, sounds like he's a routine medical businessman, no doubt a good guy, but not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and even were he notable, the article would be a TNT-case, being promotional start to finish. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Peixoto

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

Played a few games for Dempo then seemingly disappeared. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources I can find are Rediff, Pune Mirror and The Hard Tackle, all of which only mention Peixoto once and do not address him in any detail at all. The two current references are both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 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 23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Gusti Made Astawa

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

Potential failure of WP:GNG and possibly even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Playing as a professional is no longer an automatic exemption from GNG. All I can find are database sources, Wikipedia mirrors and a Blogspot page called 'Aremania'. There is also a page on Indonesian Teacher Association which has no info. From it we can presume that he is/was a teacher but there is no true claim to notability here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 2 November 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. I've also salted the three titles I know about, Icaria (fest), ICARIA (event) and Icaria (event). Bishonen | tålk 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icaria (fest)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Previously G11'd as ICARIA (event), then recreated as Icaria (event), again G11, then recreated now. Looking to get it salted. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, plain and simple G11. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt non notable, repeatedly re-created by paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

previous I have proposed for deletion trying to create a neutral point of view article and not any intention to promote in any way. ChoudharySamrat (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. As a user with a conflict of interest, please do not create the article directly, but submit it as a draft so it can be reviewed prior to having it go in article space. From then, you can use {{edit COI}} to suggest further revisions on the article's talk page. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of announcements of people performing at the festival, nothing about the festival itself. Article as it is now doesn't even confirm where it takes place, random city in an un-named country... Poorly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Agartala, Tripura, India, but the name of the city is only made clear in the infobox. (And not everyone knows that Tripura is an Indian state, so India should also be mentioned but isn't) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Hedengård

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

Lack of notability. Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, Fashion, Internet, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This may be an instance of a person notable for only one event. Hedengård received coverage after allegedly being fat-shamed by the modeling industry despite being thin. As indicated on the article, this was covered in many outlets, including E! News, The Independent, and Cosmo. I'd be interested in knowing if more has surfaced since 2015, especially if sources may be available in Swedish. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:1E, there is literally zero coverage before or after the 2015 event. --hroest 03:53, 7 November 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 14:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Friedlander

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

PR article about a non-notable WP:JOURNALIST, created by possible COI account Noam25. I could not find a single secondary source about this person, every source on the article is primary or otherwise unreliable. Fails GNG. SparklyNights 04:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United States of America. SparklyNights 04:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Participants of this discussion should watch out for UPE in the Noam Friedlander page and/or in this discussion. Please see this. SparklyNights 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources in the article are independent reliable sources. Even the article about her being shot is one that she authored. BD2412 T 03:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many, many interviews found BY her, nothing written ABOUT her. Appears a working journalist. The film career appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 2 November 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!} 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Camara

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. A search for sources yields almost exclusively user-generated content. The lack of reliable sources for the information has implications for WP:BLP. I have counted two regional newspapers (one German, one American) but cannot as yet find anything that indicates enough notability for a standalone article. Nonovix (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nonovix (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete probably WP:TOOSOON; does not have SIGCOV, the only articles I could find did not contain in-depth coverage, were not RS or described a youtube video: [20] [21] [22]. The coverage is either shallow as in El Diario Montañés or not in a RS. --hroest 03:44, 7 November 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 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antabli Fountain

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

Some random fountain. A search barely returns anything. Aintabli (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs work and there seem to be some variant spellings but this and this and this convince me it's an notable landmark of the souk, with a history dating to the Ottoman period, etc jengod (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe passing mentions in several publications and websites are enough to justify a separate article on a small fountain. According to the sources, this fountain is known because of a shop or street vendor formerly located next to the fountain operated by a family of the same name, which verges on WP:NGEO#No inherited notability. The fountain might have its history dating back to the Ottoman period, but as far as I can see, its current form is anything but Ottoman, and I'm interested if any sources give an "in-depth account" of its Ottoman history. Souk Ayas deserves an article more, in which this fountain could be mentioned. Aintabli (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is sourced to an interview with a person that remembered it from long ago, hardly a RS. I can't find anything. I tried search for French sources "fontaine d'Antabli", still nothing came up. Delete for any sort of sourcing, not meeting GNG Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Few sources or any sign of notability. Like Oaktree pointed out, what sources do exist may hardly be classified under WP:RS. GuardianH (talk) 19:46, 2 November 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 Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I see a consensus to Redirect this artilce (for now). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Afton

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply put, the article doesn't have significant, third party discussion in reliable sources. The sources that are here are either primarily unreliable, or fall back on ValNet with little substance (please note while I'm not *against* ValNet sources, the lists being the backbone of an article should give pause). While there was some assumption the recent film may provide articles for notability, a quick search shows that's not the case. Things are further compounded by the confusion as to *which* versions of "Springtrap" count as Afton, which certainly doesn't help matters.

I will take an aside and mention that setting this up, I'm aware this is being frequented by a lot of anonymous and new users: I'd like to direct them to WP:N as the guideline involved here. The matter isn't saying Afton can't have an article, I'm arguing the sources available don't make it viable for Wikipedia's standards, and if you're going to suggest sources, check WP:VG/S for reliability first. I'll also just be safe and point out that AfD's aren't a vote they're a discussion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. This franchise could definitely use a proper List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters, and I encourage it to be split off from the franchise page and expanded appropriately, but Afton alone does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The confusion over the characters would probably make that also a bit of a mess I feel. There's also the matter that there may not really be enough to say about the individual characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  How the characters are organized is a matter for talk page discussion in the character list. However, it is unquestionable that this franchise should have such a list at this time, all that is needed is for someone to create it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It can only be considered unquestionable if the characters can be proven to first have significant reception as a group. And as Kung Fu Man says, there is a good chance that there will be confusion over the characters due to the puzzle-box narrative of the franchise, leading to a large WP:FANCRUFTy mess. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters - I tried several times to find adequate sources for something like this. I was holding out and hoping people would praise the character in the film adaptation, but after its critical failure and nothing showing up after a week in theaters, the characters notability is likely dead in the water. I would love for a character as crazy as this to hae an article, but it unfortunately doesn't seem like it can stand in its own.

NegativeMP1 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was a runaway commercial success and will almost certainly be getting one or more sequels, so I think there is actually a chance that the character will be notable at some point down the line. Right now, however, not really. WP:TOOSOON applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I would love to see this article restored at its current state later-- I think it's pretty good-- but the sources are not really covering it, as per the above. A quick search for Afton right now doesn't bring up much, but given his setup in the current film, Afton'll have time to shine later. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I could not find significant coverage of this character's reception after examining movie reviews across multiple days, and skimming Google Books/Scholar. The Valnet sources generally do not lead to notability per WP:VG/S consensus. Best to redirect unless something more significant comes up. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it seems obvious to me that this character clearly passes GNG. There are 19 sources, many of which are not Valnet sources. Furthermore, even if we for some reason decide that all the sources in the page are invalid, notability isn't determined by what's in the page itself. Sources absolutely exist because this franchise has had nearly a decade of speculation and reviews. In addition, with the movie coming out recently, even more sources are being made. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:REFBOMB - a zillion trivial mentions still does not equal significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass GNG though Di, that's the problem. And assuming a subject should be able to due to age also doesn't work out otherwise we'd have far more Pokemon articles to say the least, let along stuff like the Dead or Alive cast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the article is at a good state and although I concede the sourcing is shoddy at the moment I imagine there's enough to keep the article and detail it to Wikipedia standards if you look to older sources that aren't just news about the movie. Also agree with @Di (they-them) that it's premature at the moment since the movie just released- I think it would be more appropriate to revisit the notability status of this article after media attention to it has concluded. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HadesTTW. I found various sources on the character. I think if movie details are added then it definatly can be expanded. If not keep then Draftify it Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: What sources exactly? Not doubting you just would probably be good to get a better idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: This [23] history of the character and this [24] this talks about his connection to Micheal in the games and how its undermind by Mike in the movie, and this [25] which talks about the Spring bonnie/Springtrap distinction.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: The problem is though none of them are really discussing the character, those are fine for the body (and two of them being Valnet doesn't help as they're not opinion pieces as it were. Compare it to, say Nemesis (Resident Evil) or Merchant (Resident Evil), where the character is being analyzed and getting reactions. That's the sort of sourcing you want to aim for. Even in cases like Valnet if you can get a source like this where it's actively discussing thoughts and reactions on a subject you can cite you can build with that. Do you get what I'm saying? Those sources just don't seem to be present enough for Afton or even Springtrap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ask but can you explain what a Valnet source is? Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here, this may help: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet. Basically Valnet is often encouraged to be avoided for reception because they're a content farm: less discussing something and regurgitating reddit and whatnot for content, or in the case there just giving a blow by blow. You can sometimes get strong sources still from the sites, but you shouldn't build the spine of your article on them, especially a multitude of pages.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty much what Di said, this can be seen in the explosion of pageviews recently, this character is clearly notable and even more sources are bound to appear. self strike, feel free to ignore this Wandering Morpheme 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not a metric to determine if a character is notable or not. We determine notability though significant coverage from reliable sources. NegativeMP1 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see a lot of users asserting that there must be sources for this character due to the recent film adaptation, or that older sources may exist that provide commentary on the character. The problem is, I have done several preliminary searches on both Google Scholar and Books (no commentary significant turned up on Scholar, no reliable hits at all for Books) and reading the film reviews from various reliable film sources (using WP:FILM/R and Rotten Tomatoes) across over a week after release turns up a dearth of significant commentary on the character, especially its reception. The only source that has a small amount of non-Valnet commentary is the SlashFilm source already in the article, but the article only gives a minor amount of attention to Afton like "he's a terrifying villain like Jigsaw" and nothing super substantial. If the subject is notable, please provide reliable (non-Valnet) sources for it that provide significant commentary on how the character was received, because the majority of the critical reviews have probably already been written over a week after the film's release. The Night Watch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While I think Afton has grounds for an article, the sources just don't exist right now. I'd say that it's best this article be recreated if more sources turn up in the future, which seems likely given the character's popularity and the potential of future FNAF movies. Right now, though, a redirect seems the best option. Pokelego999 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999, should have an article just not right now. Sebbog13 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect After looking I have concluded that there arent enough sources, while there may be someday, as of now I think that it is best to redirect it to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. However I think that as there may be enough in the future I thinkdeletion should be avoided (see WP:PRESERVE.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. While there is potential for the character to warrant his own Wikipedia page, I don't think it's substantial enough to justify it now. I'd say redirect for now and come back to the topic if we can get the article to be substantial enough to warrant spinning it out of Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD. Subject doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a stong opinion one way or the other. Only that experienced users (not me in this instance) probably shouldn't be directed to AfC in order to move a draft into mainspace. AfD is the correct venue for that discussion. GMG ^talk 23:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. Personally, William could get an article if he had enough sources. But he doesn't yet. Perhaps he could get a page sometime in the future. FriendlyGrim (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2023 (PST)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K27EC-D

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

Notable only on local level. Only sources are FCC and RabbitEars. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Check out WP:LOCAL and proceed accordingly! Americanfreedom (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable translator that never originated any local programming. We're not going to find any local sources for this outside its existence being noted, Americanfreedom. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even something whose notability actually is "only on local level" would probably garner some coverage at that level. I suppose it's not impossible for a pair of low-power stations — this article covers two, and a third one that was closed a decade earlier than the others — that seemingly only carried national religious services to somehow still obtain the requisite significant coverage that would meet the GNG, but I'm not holding my breath. Frankly, it's hard to see any notability here on any level. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 3 November 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw this Nomination (Spanish Version of the article has more info& references that can be added to the English Article. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Machetá

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

Non-notable location, the only 2 sources don't show notability, cited for expansion since 2016. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND as a populated and legally recognized place. Looks like some Spanish-language sources exist [26], though I can't discern the depth of the coverage or the reliability of said sources. Ping me if something comes up regarding those. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article that couldn't be fixed by adding some sources, of which there are plenty on the Spanish version. Machetá is vastly more notable than many of the obscure places in the USA that come up regularly in these discussions. Athel cb (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Spanish WP entry on this town: [27] has a lot of quality references (and some non-quality ones), demonstrating there is a lot that can be said about this place, if someone wants to translate some of the sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:34, 2 November 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 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Garmin products

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

Mostly not sourced; while reviews can be found for some products (and capsule reviews abound) most of these products aren't notable. The sources given are almost completely from Garmin's own website. The list itself has problems with WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Garmin has 16 results total, seven of which are actual products with their own articles. Garmin iQue has no references other than a link to a YouTube video. The others seem to have a lot of references to press releases and their own website. Lot to look through. If this article was prunned of anything that didn't have references to independent reliable sources, perhaps it could be a legitimate article. right now its just a long rambling catalog. Dream Focus 06:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE WP:NOTPROMO. Mention of any notable products can appear on the company's article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NLIST. No evidence of independent reliable sources discussing Garmin products as a whole specifically. Liu1126 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reolink

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:COMPANY. Sources cited don't look like WP:SIGCOV. Muzilon (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it feels surprising how little coverage there seems to be from a quick search given that they seem to be a relatively major company in the market. But I think I'm likely to agree here, even if I'd like to take the time to dig a little more. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really couldn't find anything even close suitable at all on the company itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 2 November 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 12:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YourStory

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable publication. References are routine announcements or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously deleted and user creating the new page removed SPEEDY tag. Taking to AfD to decide. CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As an alternative, a merge into Shradha Sharma may be appropriate since coverage about her is more significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer look, I am not so sure that she would meet guidelines either. Will need to look closer at the coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the sources are routine updates. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's got to be delete; the subject doesn't seem particularly notable at the moment, and sentences like "YourStory has played a pivotal role in shaping the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country by providing a platform for emerging businesses to share their journeys and experiences", which is not well-supported by any of the three sources that follow, are hopelessly peacockish. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 2 November 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Ross Haywood

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Being a assistant United States attorney does not correlate to someone meeting the notability requirements. A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems reasonable. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as WP:ATD, but won't bold my !vote because ProQuest is down right now. —siro χ o 02:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect per the results of the numerous similar AfD's on judicial nominees, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the article is copyvio from a news article published a few hours before this one was created. I'm surprised it wasn't called out in 7 years. Maybe I'm wrong? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio exists. The papers themselves were regurgitating word for word from the official White House announcement, which obviously is in the public domain. Not going to bother restoring the deleted information since this article is getting deleted anyhow, but there is zero need for redaction. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 5 November 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!} 03:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relacom

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

There is no sourcing for this article and I was unable to find additional sources upon searching. Additionally all of the users who substantially contributed are now blocked so I was unable to find anyone to discuss the merits of this article with. Libs4Libraries (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to not delete just yet - but however, I strongly agree, it is way, way short on references and badly needs more. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:58, 1 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Europe, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the contributors are all blocked, doesn't that make the article eligible for CSD G5? Fermiboson (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's coverage in Finnish newspapers about Relacom Finland, but it's just your basic announcement type things without any independent analysis:

Starts co-determination talks prior to lay-offs [28]
Doesn't intend to lay off people [29]
Employees walk out [30]
Lays off 100 people [31]
Lays off another 365 people [32]
Lays off 430 [33]
Goes bankcrupt [34]

Reliable sources, certainly, but the articles have all the hallmarks of simply regurgitating a press release. I'm not seeing any coverage about the parent company in Finnish. Swedish papers might have better coverage, but hypothetical coverage does not count. As such, I'll go with "delete" unless someone can actually identify good WP:CORPDEPTH sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:10, 5 November 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 Ikkjutt Jammu. Following the complicated advice of User:Siroxo Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete:This Article is a pramotion based.User:Secularyear2023 — Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 1 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Hinduism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ikkjutt Jammu as WP:ATD, move the resulting redirect to Ankur Sharma (politician) to preserve history, and then move Ankur Sharma (disambiguation) to this location, updating the appropriate link. —siro χ o 03:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Siro.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:32, 4 November 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. Here's hoping editors can add newly found sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Guys

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

Both sources are user-generated and therefore do not count as RS. One is specifically listed as UNreliable. Could not find SIGCOV online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. To start, we have SIGCOV in a couple books: [35] and [36]. Given the era there's likely to be more offline sources as well. It was on a major network for 5 years, so it's almost certain to be notable. —siro χ o 04:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The first book source seems ok, I can't open the second. I found this brief review in Uproxx, [37]. I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find in newspapers are plot summaries in TV listings from the period it aired. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was studied as part of the new children's television law/guidelines [38], [39], second one analyzed the demographics that watched and didn't watch the show... This talks about it briefly [40]. Coverage in ScreenRant, a marginally RS [41], similar coverage in Bustle, also a mid-range RS [42]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw the nom if you'll add this to the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: It meets most qualifications for notability, but it seems likely to have been tagged merely for lack of citations. I’d argue that the article instead merits reference improvements, and added detail to certain sections. TVTonightOKC (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me (Danson Tang album)

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

The majority of the sources in the article are album information sourced from music databases. These sources are not third-party. There is also one source about the album receiving an award, but it does not provide an introduction to the album. Therefore, this article does not meet the criteria of notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chinese wikipedia entry here[43] has no sources. Oblivy (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted as not being notable. Bduke (talk) 00:49, 2 November 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 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ELRA Language Resources Association

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

This is a G12 and borderline G11 with no policy compliant version, but it has been here since 2006 so I don't feel comfortable speedying it. The broader issue however is I cannot find WP:ORG compliant sourcing to stub it back to, so we're here. Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, France, and Luxembourg. Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Diannaa who raised adajacent CV concerns with the creator but also didn't delete this. Star Mississippi 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 2 November 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 Pagbilao#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talipan National High School

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

Challenged for sources since 2010. No reliable source hits in GNews and GNews Archives. Strongest cite found in GBooks was a 2021 study was conducted in that high school.

Alternatively, redirect to Pagbilao#Education. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete- No sources since 2010 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pagbilao#Education as nominator suggests. The school verifiably exists. Talipan barangay if created would be a better target. Rupples (talk) 02:22, 8 November 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 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Meakin

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

Meakin never broke into the top 100 of the world snooker rankings. Current references don't amount to significant coverage per WP:GNG and my WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover anything that would contribute to notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 November 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 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Nayak

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

Zero indication of any substantial independent coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hardly anything to suggest notability, and it seems to have a serious problem with sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 19:49, 2 November 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.