Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 05	August 07 >

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Justice Foundation

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

This organization, which existed from 2010 to 2018, is simply not notable. It fails WP:ORGSIG. There is no evidence it ever did or achieved anything other than conduct a short-lived programme of advocacy. Most of the sources are primary or self-published, with a bunch of pieces penned by Cherie Blair, who was one of the founders, several corporate website links, a companies house link (which is just a registration profile), some dead links, and a few more that fail verification. Altogether pretty dismal sourcing, and no significant coverage. Even with the sourcing being largely primary, there is still nothing to really suggest that the organization ever actually achieved or impacted anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --the two citations to The Independent along with this one from The Guardian are more than sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams: Only one of those Independent citations mentioned the subject; the second was just about Suella Braverman in relation to the recent Rwanda business in the UK. I've removed the problematic one for clarity's sake, though this is it in case you want to double check it for yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the principle here was WP:THREE then by that metric and those sources it fails. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "WP:THREE" is not a community-approved policy, guideline or even essay. That's a link to one editor's opinion in user space:
- User:RoySmith/Three best sources

Articles are not required to meet RoySmith's requirements. I'm not saying there's anything the matter with them; they're just not binding here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I do see editors using it as a rule of thumb at AfD, and when people cite three sources, it naturally comes to mind. In any case, if there are less than three good sources ... that's no great. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More a standard AfD request that someone took the time to write down than any attempt at policy. There are often lots of sources, and asking for the three best provides a handy way to get a sense for notability. (Three being sufficient for any of the notability criteria). Sometimes you need to consider more than three, and sometimes two is good enough (although that's pretty rare). To interpret what I suspect Iskandar323 means: "if those are the three best sources no the subject, that doesn't bode well for its notability". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The only in-depth sources about the subject were written at the time of its launch, which means there's almost nothing we can say about its actual activities and impact. Most of the coverage seems more about one or both of the people behind it rather than the organization, including the Independent article, which is really about Braverman. Maybe it could be expanded in the article about her or Blair (although neither is a clear redirect target over the other, hence delete rather than redirect). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It was short lived and I agree with Iskandar that there are no claims of notability. In addition to what was mentioned I was only able to find a passing mention in this book In my opinion, if no additional sources are presented, there is not enough in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources to establish its notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what material can be salvaged into the articles of the subject's cofounders. - Indefensible (talk) 03:58, 11 August 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!} 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deak Evgenikos

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with just one major role, in a relatively obscure film, Itty Bitty Titty Committee. No significant media coverage, and her career seems to have stalled. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing anything in old newspapers and references in books are in passing. No WP:SIGCOV showing up and as nom says, career seems to have ceased some time ago with no indication they became sufficiently notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raimo Olavi Toivonen

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

There seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources in the article are from the subject of the article and the article was almost entirely written by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/R.o.t (note the initials).

Searching JSTOR for "Raimo Olavi Toivonen" yields 0 results, searching for "Raimo Toivonen" yields 1 result. The one main space article that links to this is Aatto Sonninen which was written by the same blocked sockpuppeting account. Searching Google Scholar does find some papers and references to their papers, but it doesn't seem significant compared to any random researcher. Also see User_talk:R.o.t/Archives/2020/November. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject seems to think that Wikipedia is a free webhosting service. Skyerise (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to have abused self-published sources WP:BLPSPS Dotdashmeredith (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains a link to an illegal Internet Archive copy of the Intelligent Speech Analyser site. (I am Raimo Olavi Toivonen copyrights owner of Intelligent Speech Analyser site) 2001:999:588:51DD:3534:D43E:2EFA:659B (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock of indef blocked user R.o.t making trouble

Archiving is not illegal, because no one profits from it. In fact, it costs money to maintain. Archive.org also provides methods for removing pages and blocking crawlers, which you apparently have chosen not to use. This is not Wikipedia's problem and is not a valid deletion reason. Skyerise (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Skyerise, you obviously don't know copyright laws in different countries of the world. 2001:999:588:51DD:5970:C3EE:8554:2EA7 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. I do know that copyright complaints should be addressed to the violating party or to the courts. Not to Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From 1996 to 2023, the ISA website has had all bot blocks, but despite that, a few days ago the entire ISA website was copied bit by bit to the Internet Archive. I am now in negotiations to remove all copies of the 1996-2023 ISA site from 1996-2023 and to ensure that the Internet Archive does not copy from my ISA site. The Internet Archive already has several gigabytes of material under my copyright from 1996-2023. If for some reason the removal and blocking is not successful, the Finnish government will block the aforementioned robots from accessing .fi addresses. 2001:999:588:51DD:5970:C3EE:8554:2EA7 (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that has to do with Wikipedia why? Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't believe you actually are Raimo Olavi Toivonen. I think you are someone who dislikes him and is trying to embarrass him by impersonating him and making him out to be a crotchety old troll. Anyone can claim to be anyone on the Internet. I could be the President of Finland, for all you know. Skyerise (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting the management of Wikipedia.org so that they can explain to you that I am Raimo Olavi Toivonen. 2001:999:48C:75AE:FDA3:804:B9E9:8DDE (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Being R.o.t (talk · contribs) only means you are violating the block on your account. You might get your IP or IP range blocked. It's called WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Raimo Olavi Toivonen, I don't have any username on wikipedia. 2001:999:480:C6A5:9817:3CBC:3D54:52B5 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion of this page is now on my Raimo Olavi Toivonen's homepage "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html". 2001:999:480:C6A5:9817:3CBC:3D54:52B5 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, follow what happens to illegal copies of the Internet Archive in Finland. 2001:999:480:C6A5:D508:B1AE:9155:3F41 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you complain about an archive copying your website. Hypocrite. Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"23:28, 2 August 2023‎ Skyerise talk contribs‎ 15,985 bytes +25‎ →‎External links: guess grumpy doesn't know how to block web crawlers

21:48, 2 August 2023‎ Skyerise talk contribs‎ 10,110 bytes −1,778‎ →‎External links: it is simply not appropriate to host these at Wikimedia commons; I'll see what's left after copyright discovery" 2001:999:480:C6A5:A8C2:4675:C7A0:3865 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're such a troll! But you can't win the Internet! Skyerise (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by your statement "But you can't win the Internet!" 2001:999:480:C6A5:E4D1:D402:70D4:35D9 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It means the same thing as "tilting at windmills". See also WP:REICHSTAG. Skyerise (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, follow what happens to illegal copies of the Internet Archive in Finland. 2001:999:480:C6A5:D508:B1AE:9155:3F41 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 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!} 06:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adela Cojab

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. References are very poor for a WP:BLP scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Judaism, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a simple one as this scratches naotability, however, it is BLP and a student-activist. While not all student activists are NN, such BLPs should be handled with care. Given the borderline notability, it is best to delete this entry right now as WP:TOOSOON, recognizing that current near-notability does count if in the future Cojab will remain so much in the public eye. In other words, she's almost there. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 6 August 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.

I would have liked to accomodate those seeking a Merge but no one replied to my query asking for a target article to Merge this one to. But since it is a Soft Deletion, this article can be restored should you ever create that target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vinegar Syndrome releases

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

I'm the creator of this article. Following last month's deletion discussion of List of Criterion Collection releases (which ultimately resulted in that article being deleted), it seems that this article would fail an AfD just as well. Minor note: one difference between this article and the Criterion one is that all entries (at least the ones I contributed to the page) are accompanied by primary or secondary sources. However, the main guideline cited in the Criterion deletion discussion was WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I believe is independent of whether or not the material in question is supported by citations. —Matthew / (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Visual arts, and Lists. — Karnataka ^talk 20:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE just the same as the other mentioned articles which were recently deleted. As the author requests deletion, can this be a speedy? Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we miss the forest for the trees, let's consider something like List of preserved films or a similar title as a merge target for all such lists, which would meet WP:NLIST thus avoiding the catalog issue. If people think we should, we can require secondary sources for each item as part of the inclusion criteria. I'm willing to put this together based on this and the other list after a REFUND. —siro χ o 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support Siroxo's proposal and therefore !vote what he/she thinks best in order to achieve it.Merge (Sourced content) with/Redirect to List of preserved films? (NB- The secondary source requirement seems reasonable).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of preserved films once it has been created as proposed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to accommodate some of your wishes for a Merge but without an existing target article to Merge to, this article will most likely be deleted. Here's another week to get something resembling a decent llist article together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would "preserved films" be defined in this context? Seems far too broad, and maybe even arbitrary. —Matthew / (talk) 21:16, 9 August 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 Burundi women's national football team. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasra Nahimana

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

The subject has earned at least six caps for the Burundi women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:TOOSOON; next likely chance at coverage will be WAFCON qualifiers in September. Actively playing in Burundi's top flight and has appearances in CECAFA Women's Champions League, neither of which gets enough English-language coverage to pass (ie. 1 and 2 from 2021 is about it). Also complicated by regular coverage of club play being written in Bantu languages and posted to Facebook, making it borderline ungoogleable and probably irrelevant to English Wikipedia notability standards anyway. -Socccc (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Socccc: Reliable sources of any language can be used. Most of the articles I create almost exclusively use Spanish-language sources, for example. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook posts by primary sources, or even secondary or third-party sources, aren't generally considered RS. That's the point. The language difference of most of the coverage only makes those unsuitable sources even harder to find, but they're the only hints I've found of potential non-English SIGCOV. -Socccc (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there a possible redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, again, this is a player for the "WOMEN'S" team. Please do not voice an opinion in an AFD deletion discussion unless you have thoroughly read the article in question and done some source analysis. Otherwise, your "vote" is meaningless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would a redirect to Burundi women's national football team be acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and failure of WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anuvis Angulo

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the Panama women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a news profile of her from her time on the national team, and some more coverage from her time on Panama's U-17 team: [1] [2] [3]. It's a little marginal, but I think that's enough for notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:TOOSOON; a 2x national champion in Panama's top flight with Tauro FC, goalscorer in the 2021 LFF superfinals, goalscorer in the 2022 Uncaf Copa Interclubes, but also doing so off the bench in blowouts. Signed to play club football in Colombia for Atlético Nacional (women) but was delayed by visa issues (1, 2). Still quite active with national youth team experience, just not enough coverage in English Wikipedia-approved sources. -Socccc (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above not enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article mentioned above has barely 3 sentences on her, with the rest being quotes. Doesn't meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd be fine with a redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is one editor arguing to Keep this article. If there is no further support coming in the next week, would those advocating Delete object to a Redirect as the nominator suggests?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per TheCatalyst31. Has sources and ongoing carer. Article eneeds improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to prove WP:GNG & WP:NBIO. –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as has been suggested from the beginning. This will preserve history, and in our case it may well be useful in the future. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and redirecting to a navigational list makes no sense. Avilich (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Panama women's international footballers isn't a navigational list; there are a number of redlinked names on there where the only source is to a database site. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 13 August 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 List of Panama women's international footballers. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onelys Alvarado

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Panama women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find an in-depth profile of Alvarado and some more minor coverage [4] [5]. The one Panamanian newspaper in Newspapers.com has a tiny bit of coverage (e.g. [6]); it doesn't add much to notability in itself, but it does suggest that the national newspapers that aren't easily accessible are worth looking at. I'd say there's enough here to keep the article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source above is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Howdy. Would you support a redirect? JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Certainly. Giant Snowman 15:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator JTtheOG and WP:ATD. Inactive and in university per the above article and her own research, but no reason to delete completely when a redirect is possible. -Socccc (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the first source has a handful of independent sentences but that's certainly not enough to meet GNG on its own. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per TheCatalyst31. Has sources and ongoing carer. Article eneeds improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Half the participants are advocating for a Redirect but that still leaves half wanting a different resolution so I'm relisting this discussion another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amount of coverage is insufficient for notability, and the proposed redirect target seems to be a navigational list (notable individuals only), so upon redirecting the name would have to be removed anyway. Avilich (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Panama women's international footballers isn't a navigational list; there are a number of redlinked names on there where the only source is to a database site. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 13 August 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. After discounting the views of the now blocked sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NetReputation

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

Non-notable reputation management company. Fails WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR spam sites, nothing for notability. The fact that many editors are involved and can only produce such low quality sources, is further proof how non-notable this is. I'm not staying tuned. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Agree, PR page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see: WP:NOTNEWS. Update: “Tampa Bay Times”, a city newspaper, does not change my opinion. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, Kierzek Oaktree b, I suggest you take a look twice. It's a fully good-balance article. due to former suggestions I made more positive article, than it was at start, cause formerly article was based only on company criticism around Leo Molloy's case. In order to evade only criticism I found some positive & neutral recognition sources and added them. If sources not good - delete them! GL HF Paranoya23 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek:
The Tampa Bay Times is the primary major newspaper for the Tampa Bay area (population 3+ million). It's won numerous Pulitzer Prizes. It created PolitiFact.com.

WP:NCORP requires reliable sources and discusses them in detail. There is no distinction made as to size of the publication. Our Reliable sources guideline and Verifiability policy do not require this, with.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, can somebody point me to an applicable Tampa Bay Times (TBT) article that works for WP:NCORP? The only TBT article I found just gave this company a paragraph in a much longer article. If that's all the local newspaper has given them, that's telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability passed by The Wired, Tampa Bay News and NZ-based mass media NZ Herald. This page is stub, subject known as a censorship organisation. Stay, cause many editors was involved. Stay tuned in further developing. Except weak refernces the page has a few good-reliable sources according to WP:ORGCRIT. — Note to closing admin: Paranoya23 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. Paranoya23 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming you're referring to Wired (magazine). Can you link to a Wired article that covers this company? Sam Kuru (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user is now blocked as a sock of several other commenters here, so I'll answer myself. There was a significant effort to add sources to the actions of other reputation management companies, but not this one. The wired article was written well before this company was even founded. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The section “Operations” part sounds promotional, but the rest can be keep. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Leo Molloy incident to online reputation management, a section of reputation management which could itself be split off to a separate article. Article creator has done a good job finding sources about ORM in general, but most of them don't mention this company, so I've merged most of that to online reputation management. That addresses User:Kaseng55's comment about the Operations section, but what remains is routine business coverage, press releases, and one interesting incident about a NZ businessman threatening to sue them. No prejudice against recreating the article in a few years, if they do start to get WP:SIGCOV with WP:CORPDEPTH in WP:RS. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to online reputation management is not looking only good one solution because ORM will be overloaded with content size. If we put every censorship case in ORM, then it will be really overload. On my opinion, every "Streisand effect" case should has their separate placement on the Wikipedia. If u wanna connect this case to ORM - add a category. And I might be frustrated to lost the page on which I spent a lot of time. Boring company, but may on florida size they have some fame. Btw, lets keep that and leave the chance to extend content in further cases such as Molloy's. Thx Paranoya23 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not proposing to merge every controversial ORM company to ORM. I'm only saying that the single recent ORM controversy of this company doesn't warrant it having a separate article. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to closing admin someone please, appreciate. Paranoya23 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious about a lot of this and how it was created. They're not notable. Please removed from Wikipedia. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 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, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a large number WP:SIRS sources on this subject. I'm concerned a merge might be UNDUE after reading the proposed target. —siro χ o 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks eligible on WP:SIRS with 2 qualifying sources. Stub-class only, haven't chances to be upper class now. Seriy333 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This use was blocked as a sock of other editors that have commented here. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one good, solid ref in the Business Observer, a Florida business publication. Other than that I found a zillion low-quality promotional articles planted by NetReputation. There very well could be something else in all the search engine hits but I stopped after 5 pages of unusable results.

This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I still vote for Keep, cause this page looks similar to my article destinus, where fine explains about industry operations. My opinion: notability here on local-fame & Molloy's scandal, not on the money only. Enough for stub-class. Seriy333 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business Observer consist information about over $10 million revenue, no? Tired to check that. Seriy333 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts buddy --A. B.. As you granted Business Observer reliable source status in this discussion, so why you voted for deletion? "$10 million" argument is nonsence, won't even discuss it, sorry. Paranoya23 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought this would meet notability guidelines but most of the best sources talk about reputation management. Outside of press releases, we're left with the Tampa Bay list of local businesses, the Leo Molloy article, the IBT listicle and the Florida Business Observer which don't add up to WP:NCORPimo. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on Business Observer and Mirror Review. Bunch of service review sites have also written about them, such as Quick Sprout, Top Work Places. They also have a profile on Inc, which is reserved for Inc5000 honorees. Royal88888 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist. As an aside, I've never seen service review sites considered a RS as far Wikipedia standards go as they are user-generated content that rarely receive any editorial oversight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included the review sites in my response because they appear to be independent and not based on user-generated content. These sites seem to have conducted thorough and independent reviews of companies. According to WP:GNGSC, reliable, independent, and secondary sources are required, and these review sites seem to fulfill these criteria. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, such as proof of user-generated reviews, it is reasonable to consider these review sites as suitable sources for establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

According to this discussion, we have No Consensus decision currently. Seriy333 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A prematurely closed AfD ends up going to Deletion review, in theory a dispassionate discussion of the AfD's closure. In practice, it's often anything but a dispassionate discussion. That sort of drama wastes a lot of community time. Admins will relist to avoid such an outcome if possible.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Seriy333 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, I don't have a good feeling about your mirrorreview.com ref; that page looks like a pay-to-play ref. The description on the Inc pages was written by NetReputation: "We fix negative Google search results. We have created exclusive partnerships…" The 2 review sites you referenced don't remotely meet our reliable sources requirement.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we would not know that for sure. You have no evidence as such and I didnt see that site listed on WP:RSP, so that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. You also said "This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million." this kind of argument has no bearing on whether they would be notable or not. On the other hand Business Observer seems to be an excellent source and that alone would be enough for notability. Regarding the review sites, see my response further up. Royal88888 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, I concur about the Business Observer as a reliable source as I noted earlier.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "Operations" section should be removed - no one cares about their operations lol. But the rest can be keep and extended. The article valid on WP:SIRS 3 times: NZ Herald, TBN, Business Observer. It is not enough? I don't know - not famous, but similar stub-class pages still exist and let's give newbie author the chance to extend it. Masckarpone (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This use was blocked as a sock of other editors that have commented here. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a source assessment table with respect to WP:SIRS requirements. I believe I've included everything in the article and raised here. There are not any SIRS sources found yet. —siro χ o 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How HZ Herald can be dependent to the NetReputation, which they criticize? I disagree, but appreciate your work on the WP:SIRS table. Take it logically, not personally please. Regarding rest, many independent? column results incorrectly. Masckarpone (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIRS: Be completely independent of the article subject. NZ Herald depends very heavily on quotes and attributed statements an executive employee (Net Reputation executive Ryan Sherman Jnr) of the subject: Sherman Jnr said his company’s strategy in trying to preserve the online reputation of a person charged or convicted of sexual assault would not be attempting to get online media articles taken down post-conviction. “Removal would not be the approach if Mr Molloy were the suspect in this case,” Sherman Jnr said. “We would manipulate the search engine using a branding campaign with high-end digital assets to suppress the information. That being said, we like to be proactive in situations like this. Of course, it was a stretch, but there were some clues on why I had my suspicions about Mr Molloy. If you look at the blurred-out pictures, his shoulders match the individual, and his name is also spoken about in multiple blog threads regarding this case. “Apologies that my suspicions were wrong this time around. We typically contact people who are actually in trouble versus playing guessing games as we did here.” Sherman Jnr said they had approached three individuals in relation to the Waitākere District Court sex assault case and all existing Net Reputation clients are under non-disclosure agreements. “I am no professional investigator, so I will do these individuals justice and leave them unnamed as I am in discussion with them currently to help with their reputation online,” Sherman Jnr said. “We target individuals and companies across the world. Not just New Zealand.” This article cannot be considered completely independent of the subject per SIRS requirements.

Please let me know which other Independent column evaluations you do not agree with after reading through the article in question. —siro χ o 09:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardng your last comment: I haven't see in the article any COI or dependance from the subject from Source #3. Mass media usually take comments from both sides of conflict. Take it logically. No one promote here this "Ryan".

I refer you to my asking you do not take it personally - many participants above identified TBT, BO, NZ Herald as a reliable sources. Masckarpone (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in your edit to the table you disagreed with the Business Observer evaluation as well. Here's some coverage from the Business Observer articlke Being new to an industry can come with its challenges, but it’s also an opportunity to grow tremendously, Petrilli has learned....By 2017, Petrilli says the company had grown to $3.5 million, up 150%. “In the grand scheme of just being a small business, going from zero to $1.4 million — there was a lot to do there,” he says. “It’s very hectic to maintain a certain level of growth.”...“We were in a new industry so there wasn’t really a playbook,” he says....“The severity of it and what they need will vary from customer to customer based on the problem,” he says. “If you have a big reputation, like a big company or celebrity, you’re going to need more resources than the teacher who’s from Sarasota High School who maybe did something he or she wasn’t supposed to.”. The majority of the clients come to them, but Petrilli says if someone is involved in something on a national level, the company might reach out on its own. In revenue, Petrilli says his company only has two big competitors: Reputation.com, which surpassed $100 million in annual recurring revenue earlier this year in addition to a $150 million minority growth investment; and Reputation Defender, a company Pertrilli says is slightly ahead in revenue compared to NetReputation. ... “We’re on pace to be the second largest full-service reputation management agency in America,” he says, a statistic he provided based on revenue. “It’s a testament to being focused on growth as a company.” In addition, to the team and the market opportunity, another big driver for the success, Petrilli says, is reinvesting back into the organization. ... "More people than ever are online,” Petrilli says, “so more people than ever need a solution to be online.”

Again this is not "completely independent" of the subject, as required by SIRS . I've reverted the edit to the table for this reason. —siro χ o 09:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Tampa Bay Times[7]	SIRS requires complete independence This iis based on quote by founder		one-sentence paragraph, doesn't meet CORPDEPTH	✘ No
Business Observer[8]	heavily depends on founder's quotes and attributed statements			✘ No
NZ Herald	Ryan Sherman Jnr, executive employee of subject is quoted several times in peice			✘ No
Intl Business Times[9]	Closes with a promotional quote from CEO/founder	WP:IBTIMES		✘ No
Superb Crew[10]	interview with founder			✘ No
Acesswire[11]	PR wire	~	~	✘ No
Business Wire[12]	PR wire	~		✘ No
inc.com[13]	"Information provided by company."		~	✘ No
MirrorReview[14]		"The magazine also promotes enterprises that serve their clients with futuristic offerings and acute integrity"		✘ No
QuickSprout[15]		seems to have weak editorial practices, this article was credited to the owner of QuickSprout, they have no listed editorial staff		✘ No
Top Work Places[16]	voice of company, uses employee feedback too		~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment The page currently looks different than it did before. I suggested remove Operations section - I did it. Masckarpone (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts buddy. Operations section was good on my opinion just for neutraul point of view close to criticism content above. Paranoya23 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you see we have a consensus that Operations section is an offtop at least. So take it peacefully. Masckarpone (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly aligned to Mr. A.B. I'm hesitant as there is one decent regional/local source here; I just don't see a second. There's a very large amount of fake/seo/paid sources out there for this company, which I've had to remove several times; clearly there are some new accounts here with a conflict of interest. Ultimately, you're left with the one decent, in-depth source. The Inc. recognition is utterly trivial, as are the sources that cite it (the TBT peice is literally a one-sentence quote from a company rep). Press releases and puffy interviews, along with directory listings are not helpful. I was kind of holding off on this, since the NZ Herald documentation of the firm's misadventure was interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't say anything about the company other than a simple quote from the owner. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article subject is not notable. Maybe it will be in the future, but once the self-sources are eliminated, there's not enough to support an article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:, the closer should pay careful attention to the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seriy333. This discussion is full of now-blocked socks. Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to speedy delete per WP:G5, WP:G11 and/or WP:A7 per the evidence presented above. HarukaAmaranth (話) 19:27, 12 August 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 Reggie White. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Rising

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

Article is about a minor charitable program run by a relatively minor charity. Sources listed and those I've searched for all seem to be press release style articles with no discussion of scope, effect, efficacy, etc. Seems to fail WP:ORG and warrants deletion. AP1787 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as there is almost no way this article could be expanded due to the lack of available sources. Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reggie White as there is no article currently for the Reggie White Foundation. - Indefensible (talk) 14:55, 11 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HSTR LAN

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

No available source on the Internet whatsoever, despite trying to use all my Google-wizardry. Likely to be something not noteworthy at all, even if it is it can be incorporated into Internet in Turkey article. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 19:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Turkey. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 19:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article unless an editor can find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I would not merge it into Internet in Turkey unless it can be referenced by reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks sources hence would not merge it to Internet in Turkey.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 12 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Comedy Shorts

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

Unreferenced article about a television series, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:TVSHOW. The only notability claim being attempted at all is that it existed, and the only "source" is the self-published website of the channel that aired it -- and while a WP:BEFORE search turned up a handful of glancing namechecks of the fact that this existed, I found absolutely no substantive coverage about the series to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article unless an editor can find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purposefully underpromoted (and badly scheduled; last hour of primetime on Sunday nights?!) CanCon show in every sense of the word. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:01, 12 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodsmen

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

Unreferenced article about a series of short films, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. The only notability claim even really being attempted here at all is that it existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of media coverage about it to get it over WP:GNG -- but literally the only "source" here is the self-published website of the television channel that purportedly aired these, and absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage in media independent of the topic has proven locatable at all on a WP:BEFORE search. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from actually having to have had any media coverage. (Also probably conflict of interest, as it was first created by a virtual WP:SPA whose only other Wikipedia edits also pertained to the work of this series' creators.) Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article unless an editor can find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Barlow

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

Individual has not met notability guidelines, with no solid demonstrations of notability provided even after months of having an active page. Relevant reporting seems to be extremely limited to the fallout of the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trials, and most of that reporting is in tabloids and celeb gossip rags. Pretty much anything else that turns up about the article subject is her own writing or social media pages. Best case scenario, it may be possible to merge what brief information there is into the related articles. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Scotland, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page has had a notability tag for over a year now and yet nobody has been able to add anything relevant to justify her having her own Wikipedia page. A search online provides little of note aside from a mention in the Johnny Depp trial and some coverage of a Twitter storm about posts she made. Nothing to suggest that she is notable in the wider sense or that there is any real prospect of anything being added to redeem the stub article. Little Professor (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She was in the news a while ago, when she made some posts online, someone called her a silly name ("Eve Fartlow"), a bunch of people were stupid on Twitter; she wrote an op-ed for Tablet describing this as a "social media pogrom"("The Social Media Pogrom - Tablet Magazine".); this op-ed was covered (and harshly criticized) in The Nation (Lavin, Talia (June 3, 2021). "A Fart Joke Is Not a Pogrom" – via www.thenation.com.), and apparently some even more asinine Twitter drama unfolded, somehow involving Seth Rogen, which is described in greater detail on some goofy and extremely angry gossip site I found online ("The Legend of "Eve Fartlow" | Blue Check University".). I don't know. Maybe all of this stuff amounts to significant coverage. But all of this stuff seem to focus on a very stupid and very embarrassing episode in the life of someone who is otherwise not very notable. Whether or not her response to being called "Eve Fartlow" was reasonable or undignified is -- I mean, let's be real here -- this is literally elementary school nonsense for the sake of gawking lol. jp×g 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No compelling claim to notability. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Equine-man (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator and others above that the individual does not appear to have the sort of notability that would justify an article. The coverage out there all seems to be of incidents that are trivial. Dunarc (talk) 20:47, 13 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Digamber Singh

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

The author of this article, Jeavinparklee, has a Conflict of interest. Firstly, his initial edit from his account on Vishvendra Singh has been reverted for "inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content".

Context: Vishvendra Singh joined the congress in 2008 over conflict with his party colleague Digamber Singh.

This user has made a lot of unsourced additions in-between properly cited additions to Digamber Singh in the last 7 days. And has created Dr. Digamber Singh Pro Kabaddi Tournament which has been moved to draft now. He has also created Dr. Digamber Singh ‘Samadhi’.

Secondly, This account has been only used to promote Digamber Singh and his family members till now. After a brief search, Shailesh Digamber Singh was previously created on 10 March 2023 and moved to draft on 11 March 2023‎ by an admin, Refer - Draft:Shailesh Digamber Singh. Now it looks like Jeavinparklee can be a sock of Af1grazel or Kirat sinh (Sock account already banned). All three accounts mentioned above have only been used to promote Digamber Singh and his family till now.

Thirdly, Shailesh Digamber Singh fails WP:N. There is no significant coverage of him. A simple Google search result shows not even a single reliable source discussing him except for trivial mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Out of the 6 sources cited in the article, only 2 of them are reliable, one discusses his loss against Vishvendra Singh and the other one is a trivial mention. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Politics. Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. However, first, I want to point out that the likely COI is not relevant here whatsoever; the notability is what matters. If he were notable, WP:ATD would suggest we fix the POV issues rather than deleting.

But he's not notable, because he doesn't have SIGCOV in multiple sources. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Dainik Bhaskar	Yes.	It is unclear whether or not this newspaper is reliable enough for the English wiki.	Brief mention that he is running (not sufficient according to WP:NPOL.	✘ No
Hindustan Times	Yes.	Legit news organization.	Passing mention in an article about his dad.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @IAmHuitzilopochtli, I mentioned the COI just to convey that he/she may be WP:PAID to do this. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a son of known and notable leader doesn’t makes the subject notable themselves. The subject doesn’t passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. —— “Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)”[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 12 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Uralsk

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

Isn't it a hoax? Embellishment? The article was created in the spirit of the author: there are fewer Kazakhs, more opponents, but the Kazakhs still win and even do not suffer any special losses. Kazman322 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve read a number of accounts of the fighting around Uralsk in 1919 since seeing this AfD nomination and I can’t find one that agrees with the account in this article. It looks to me like an unreliable piecing together of snippets to make something that doesn’t correspond with the actual course of events. Mccapra (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (or Delete) - I don't read Russian and, since the cites are images, translation tools are not helpful. I will stay neutral until someone who read the sources natively can tell if they are RS or even related to the topic. My suspicion is that they are neither, hence my lean toward deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was clearly created to inflate the Alash-Orda role in this part of the Russian Civil War. The cited article by Skrobov doesn't mention the Kazakhs at all, and by this well-researched account the actual battle for Uralsk was a siege from May to July fought between the Reds and Whites, not an event that took place in April as the article claims. The docs.historyinrussia source is a telegram by Mikhail Frunze reporting that Red troops are quickly retreating towards Uralsk on 17 April, which also doesn't mention the Kazakhs at all. Amanzholova is correctly copied in the article, in repeating the information that the forces called up by Alash-Orda dispersed in the face of the Red advance, except for the important information that the Red detachment from Buzuluk was defeated by the Whites, not the Alash-Orda troops. Given the misuse of sources by article create, all of his edits should be considered suspect. Kges1901 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 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 Pugachev's Rebellion. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abylai Khan's invasion of Novo-Ishim Line

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

Significance of the event? Kazman322 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to Pugachev's Rebellion. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pugachev's Rebellion. Not significant for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pugachev's Rebellion per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for the Study of Individual Differences

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

This academic society does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, or any other notability guideline. Indeed, I have not been able to find any WP:SECONDARY coverage that discusses it in any depth. Coverage appears to be limited to glancing mentions in marginal sources like these: [17][18]. A "relies excessively on references to primary sources" tag has been present on the page since 2008, with no attempt to address the issue since then. My attention was drawn to this article by recent apparent COI editing. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Ohri

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

I just finished removing all the dumb award lists, self-coverage, press releases, and general cruft from this article and after doing it, I realized I was left with almost nothing as far as WP:RS goes for SigCov.

I suggest looking at the version before I canned almost everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Ohri&oldid=1167447417

The other side of this coin is I did find some coverage which appeared to be independent and significant.

He's been interviewed by Bloomberg and CNBC business - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOw73CoE6bU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLQ3_JNrDT0

There's a LOT of press release reposts, meaningless lists, paid-for coverage, coverage by entites he's associated with, etc etc etc. Every time I think I've found something that's a real coverage, it's paid for, unverified, or non-independent. Really struggling to find anything to meet GNG apart from these two short news segments.

Every source that discusses him, even if independent-seeming just gushes over his various successes and provides no actual substance. Take a look at this source for example:

https://gulfnews.com/business/tourism/the-only-school-i-could-get-into-was-the-school-of-hard-knocks-1.647972#

Is this independent? Reliable? Significant? Maybe? If this meets the bar, then he has dozens of sources to meet GNG. If it doesn't (which I don't think it does), he might just be non-notable. The presence of an SPA who's spent the last few years ass-blasting irrelevant content into the article doesn't help.

BrigadierG (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional and poorly referenced article, unless an editor can find significant coverage in several independent reliable sources. After the cleanup, the only two references are written by Forbes "contributors" and are therefore not reliable. See WP:FORBESCON. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to see here, another one of these "entrepreneur" articles we see in AfD. PR sourcing, puffy language. Nothing for notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, as it only contains two references, neither of which appears to be reliable.Kind regards --Âvîrâm7^(talk) 09:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that before the cleanup, he had 60 sources linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Ohri&oldid=1167447417

I removed those that I felt were not good sources (mostly primary or crummy awards). BrigadierG (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted. It is rewritten. Deepak Ohri is well-known entrepreneur with a long career in the hospitality industry. The references are independent and include: BBC, ABC News, Robb Report, Forbes, Bloomberg, Harvard Business Publishing. - DSan22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSan22 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted. It is rewritten. Deepak Ohri is well-known entrepreneur with a long career in the hospitality industry. The references are independent and include: BBC, ABC News, Robb Report, Forbes, Bloomberg, Harvard Business Publishing. --DSan22 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)DSan22[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page should stay.

The page had in-depth coverage, but another user modified it and deleted most of the content. Currently, the page has content with references from various independent sources. The page was created several years ago and was never questioned. All is documented. --DSan22 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 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 and redirect‎ to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi season 2). TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fukra Insaan

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

This seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. Most of the news coverage I can find of Fukra Insaan is centered around Bigg Boss OTT and nothing else. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi TV series) - Agreed, I can't find any other information or sources about him BrigadierG (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Delhi. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi season 2): No notability in his own right. BangJan1999 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball redirect: as above. User4edits (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently got deleted via afd, Check. So delete and salt. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, as already been determined to be non-notable and previously deleted via community consensus. Maybe a WP:SALTing of each would be necessary. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 13 August 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 Hypnotize (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vicinity of Obscenity

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously nominated for deletion sixteen years ago, when it was redirected to the article Hypnotize (album). There are only four sources, none of which independently discuss the song or assert any kind of notability outside of the album it appears on. I was willing to take a look at the article to see if it had improved in the years since the original discussion, and clearly it hasn't done so by much. Seems like a no-brainer redirect, but I want to open up discussion so that others can have input. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. — Karnataka ^talk 16:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hypnotize (album): A no-brainer indeed. Of the sources in the article currently, one is WP:REDDIT and one is just a listing on iTunes which absolutely doesn't convey notability. The Ultimate Guitar piece, though assembled by a writer, is based on user votes and may skirt the USERG line (I'm not actually sure if that applies here but it's still questionable methinks). And the CMJ review only mentions the song briefly. I managed to find other brief mentions in reviews ([19][20][21][22]), but even altogether I don't see enough to make this worth keeping. I think the CMJ and Tankian AMA quotes are worth keeping and they aren't already in the album article, so if anyone wants to vote merge then I'm in support of that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:41, 6 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Chapman

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The basis for creation here was that she was recently announced as her party's candidate in an upcoming provincial legislature by-election -- but the notability test at that level is holding a seat in the legislature, not just running for one, and as yet unelected candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. But the only other attempted notability claim here is that she has served on the municipal council of a midsized city that is not in the rarefied tier of internationally prominent global cities, which is also not "inherently" notable either — even incumbent city councillors in most cities get articles only if they can mount a credible claim that their time on city council was a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors, but that hasn't been shown here at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after by-election day if she wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough to already earn her a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete WP:NPOL requires state or municipal-level electoral wins. This is only local level. BrigadierG (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR also need to be considered despite the article's focus on only her political campaigning. Google Scholar results do not show enough citations for WP:PROF. I did find one authored book, The Struggle for Mexico: State Corporatism and Popular Opposition (2012) and one co-edited volume (The Global Citizenship Nexus: Critical Studies). But I didn't find any reviews, and in any case only one authored book is not usually enough for WP:AUTHOR, so I don't see a pass there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking WP:NAUTHOR was my first thought too, but there's no reviews for either of her books (One passing mention from her own university newsletter). No translations for either of them so no other languages to check. And fails WP:NPROF and WP:NPOL per above. :3 F4U (they /it) 17:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL Provincial riding and its candidates are notable. Provincial riding is being widely watched due to its previous bellwether characteristic and emerging shift of voting patterns. Douzevelos (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Douzevelos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia's notability criteria determine what is or isn't notable, and Wikipedia's notability criteria do not grant people articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL Enough coverage in municipal news and media channels. WikiMeMaybe (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) — WikiMeMaybe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Municipal news and media channels aren't sufficient. The notability bar in a provincial election is winning the election and thereby holding the seat, and people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the merely expected amount of local campaign coverage during the election is not sufficient to make one candidate more special than other candidates who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL does not apply to this subject, as the subject was not elected to an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." So, the question becomes, does the subject meet WP:GNG. In this case, I see nothing beyond some routine coverage and nothing that suggests the subject was any more notable than other, similarly-situated city councillors. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins the by-election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for her upcoming provincial candidacy. Being a member of a minor city's council isn't notable. Kitchener is a mid-sized Ontario city, much smaller than Toronto. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not inherently notable since the coverage they receive is generally routine - anyone decent in the race would get coverage, and this is clearly created in furtherance of her campaign. Fails WP:10YT. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 11 August 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.

Kingdom of North Sudan

The result was ‎ redirect per WP:BOLD revert by Beyond My Ken. (non-admin closure) JMWt (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

unencyclopedic content, no references, no claims to notability on the page. Previously a redirect. JMWt (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - The nominator nails it: not a single reference. In fact, I'm gong to restore it to a redirect, as WP:V is quite clear that unreferenced material can be removed at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those wishing to see the article version that was nominated should go here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is a simple solution which I should have thought of. Maybe I should withdraw the AfD? JMWt (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is unopposed, and no one opposed a deletion the previous AfD attempt as well. Feel free to close it as redirect - my stance would have been to redirect as well like it was before. — Karnataka ^talk 16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Egypt, and Sudan. — Karnataka ^talk 16:43, 6 August 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Legends of Chima Online

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

The article is entirely unsourced, and I am quite sure that the article topic is non-notable. In English, I could only find one RS discussing the game in a significant manner besides standard release information. Checking the linked other-language versions of the page, there don't seem to be any non-English RS with significant coverage of the game either. QuietCicada (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Thank you both for finding those sources. :) QuietCicada (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Toys, and Internet. — Karnataka ^talk 16:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It got a review from GameZebo and a feature in Game Informer. It also got a review from Common Sense Media and an announcement from PCGamesN that nevertheless has some basic analysis. The first two are obviously the strongest, but based on the combined sourcing I think it squeaks past the notability line. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, there seems to be a fairly in-depth postmortem article on the failure of the game in this magazine: [23]. Other announcement-type articles are covered in outlets such as Polygon: [24]. There seems to be enough sources to establish notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references listed above. The nomination has apparently been withdrawn as well. - Indefensible (talk) 15:31, 11 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples and mosques in Uppala

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

Uppala is a small town in the Indian state of Kerala. Not even a single mosque/temple in the list has a Wikipedia article. Not a single source is cited. I would suggest a merge with List of Hindu temples in Kerala and List of mosques in Kerala but I don't think any content can be salvaged to merge. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:06, 6 August 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 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, Hinduism, and Lists. — Karnataka ^talk 16:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. This topic doesn't need a whole list dedicated to non-notable places of worship. Ajf773 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL WP:NOTDATA. No information provided by this list of non-notable entities Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. If people want to redirect it can be discussed on the talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Teschmacher

AfDs for this article:

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

The character, originated in the first Superman film, doesn't seem notable. The article consists of the plot only, and there is no reliable source. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with the nom here; not finding much about this subject to pass GNG and warrant a standalone article. An Afd in 2007 appears to have agreed with that assessment as well. Appears to be a case of WP:FAN. User:Let'srun 15:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. — Karnataka ^talk 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The character seems like a potential search target, so perhaps redirecting to the first Superman film might be a good shot? If there's a character list she slots into, that might be worth a try as well. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/redirect. She appears to have a SIGCOV level treatment im this journal article. Shorter but usable stuff in this master thesis. Very borderline notability, given that GNG requires multiple SIGCOV treaments, and what I see is one SIGCOV treatment and several mentions in passing (also some weak media coverage like this and this, and this, the latter is better than average). I am disappointed that the nom did not discuss the first source (failure of BEFORE, given that it is easily seen on the first page of Gscholar resaults and seems OA). If this is kept, please tag with {{sources exist}} if not improved (I've tagged it with notability for now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Piotrus' source finds. I was surprised to see so much, but then... a 45-year old blockbuster is going to eventually draw RS commentary on every named character, more or less. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found by Piotrus. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 10 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Lab

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

Notability. This page appears to be an advertisement/blog for Neural Lab, it lacks any sources that refer to Neural Lab. I could not find any reputable source that mentions this software. The talk page is filled with accounts that appear to be sockpuppets created for the sole purpose of promoting the software. Chemeez (talk) 14:45, 6 August 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 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, Computing, Internet, and Software. — Karnataka ^talk 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. As the nominator says, the books listed in the reference section don't appear to actually mention this software, unsurprising, since it seems the books were published before the software was released. - MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as article about a subject failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Note that Talk:Neural Lab has a few users commenting that they used this software, but these users never made any other edits at all. It's impossible to say conclusively, but a bunch of users making a single edit each looks a lot like socks. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:51, 12 August 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!} 02:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bin Khalid Al Nahyan

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

Redirect challenged. The coverage is mostly PR-based, and it still fails to meet WP:GNG. Mercenf (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Bilateral relations, Royalty and nobility, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. First 2 sources are primary, the others don't meet WP:SIGCOV as merely routine reporting of what an ambassador does. This one, I'm not sure, is it reliable? LibStar (talk) 09:18, 7 August 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. Consensus that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to assert notability. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality height

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

The one source listed might not be reliable (not sure if it's self-published/user-generated) and seems biased (relying on machine translation for determining that though); I personally couldn't find any other reliable sources about this place (all the ones I could find were user-generated). I don't believe this is notable enough for an article, based on my research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Military, and Russia. — Karnataka ^talk 14:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does exist. There are sources [25][26][27]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it doesn't exist, just that it might not be notable enough for an article. I can't look over those sources right now so I don't know whether the first two would be reliable enough sources or not, but for sure the third one wouldn't be counted as a source since it's user-generated. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in multiple news sources and generates recurring coverage as the site of numerous ceremonies commemorating Victory Day every year, for example [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Also plenty of mentions in Google Books testifying to long-term significance as a war memorial. Sources are not required to be neutral, and we have articles on war memorials in the US in towns of similar size (for example Confederate War Memorial (Cape Girardeau, Missouri)) - Belaya Kalitva has a population of 40k. Kges1901 (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough sources per above. - Indefensible (talk) 15:22, 13 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikidia

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing doesn't show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NWEB, just like the last two times this was deleted at AFD. I also just removed some apparently false claims that this site is hosted by or otherwise supported by the Wikimedia foundation from the article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and France. — Karnataka ^talk 14:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of these sources establish notability, with the primary concern being strict independence under WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note If it is deleted, please make sure to remove incoming links from m:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 12 August 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SmartEiffel

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

No sources that establish notability. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is notability?

Why is notability the criteria? May I not delete you, as you are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.82.251 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notability on Wikipedia is in-depth coverage in at least two independent sources. Sources affiliated with the product or project do not count toward establishing notability. Skyerise (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is because the project clearly meets the criteria of notability. Anyone who understands the topic addressed in the article would agree. It is easy to establish, by examining any of the links which had been presented in the page at time of your spurious and harmful deletion request. Here is a quote from the README included in the source code of the project. since the very first public release in September 1995, SmartEiffel has been used worldwide by increasingly numerous individuals and Universities. Are you insisting that this is incorrect? Or that it is not sufficient to meet the criteria you require?

That is not an independent source. We want coverage in books, academic journals, or reviews. Skyerise (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. — Karnataka ^talk 14:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. — Karnataka ^talk 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - sufficient sources have been found detailing significant implementation features, though the IP editor has so far ignored them while trying to source to blogspot. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 6 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Sidhi Vinayagar Temple

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

Totally unsourced. Just looks like an advert for the temple - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and United Kingdom. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any news sources and historical significance for this place. — Karnataka ^talk 14:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, though it would be very helpful if someone could look it up in other languages. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article unless an editor can find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 7 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Attic

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

Appears to be a non-notable firm. Sourced to an interview; USGS page doesn't appear to mention it. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This source fails also. Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Minnesota. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tripurari Swami

AfDs for this article:

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

I am having doubts this person meets WP:NBIO (WP:NAUTHOR?). I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV coverage of his life, just some mentions in passing, and many sources don't look very reliable. AfD from 2010 had arguments that some of his works have been reviewed by reliable sources (assuming Yoga Journal is reliable...), but WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe some of his works are notable if they have been reviewed and meet WP:NBOOK, but that doesn't mean the author is notable too. On a side note, if this is kept, we need to deal with promotional language ("Over the years that followed, Prabhupada showered Tripurari with affection and repeatedly expressed his appreciation for Tripurari's selfless service and ability to inspire others", etc.). Fixing neutrality issues is a surmountable problem, but can we deal with the likely lack of notability (SIGCOV)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for this individual, nothing notable found in RS that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 12 August 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!} 06:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vidohovë

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

A leftover POV fork sub-article of a deleted POV fork article created by the same sock. The article doesn't have any reliable sources and I don't see any purpose of it remaining on Wikipedia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Albania, and Greece. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I also recall Constantine – who searched for reliable sources on the topic and nominated the aforementioned POV fork for deletion – describing this as a minor "episode" of Operation Pyrsos, during the final phase of the Greek Civil War. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 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 and redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claude J. Kelly III

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

Public defenders are not inherently notable, and there is not enough to suggest he passes WP:GNG. Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, where his WP:BLP1E is listed, makes sense. Let'srun (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Let'srun (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not enough coverage in reliable independent sources. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability not shown in article. A search found no wide coverage to back up notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC.AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect per nominator as article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 12 August 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 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid-E-Akhtarunissa Begum

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

The sources provided are the mosque's own website and facebook page, and an article about the community kitchen at the mosque AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:26, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 30 July 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 11:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and I didn't find any appropriate sources to substantiate notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 6 August 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 Kobra and the Lotus. Maybe some of the content of this article could be Merged to the band's article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kobra Paige

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, shes not notable outside of her band. i'm suggesting a redirect to Kobra and the Lotus --FMSky (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paige has worked with Metal All Stars and Kamelot. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a fulltime member, only as a one time touring guest vocalist --FMSky (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The article has many details about the musician aside from K&TL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kobra and the Lotus. Notability is largely inherited from the band. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Kobra Paige was the direct signing to UMG, founder of KATL, is a free lance performing artist for projects not limited to: We Are Fury, Kamelot, Red Cain, Metal AllStars, voice for Israel Video Game character 'Gitta', and is releasing a Kobra Paige record this year titled under her name. 2001:56A:7B65:C00:E400:287D:5339:97FF (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kobra and the Lotus. Not finding any evidence of notability outside of the band. –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 11 August 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 considering particularly that the additional references have satisfied all editors who evaluated them. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhyeon station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. Significa liberdade, perhaps these could have been a mass nomination, as they are all clearly mass created, with the same sources. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @JML1148 -- Is there a way to retroactively bundle them? Significa liberdade (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade: Not that I know of. It would be possible to withdraw all of the nominations and create a bundle, however as there are now !votes, especially some with more than one type of !vote, it would be impractical to do it now. It's not too much of an issue, just a question I had. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JML1148: Well, now I know. :) Significa liberdade (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ALL to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redireсt~~ Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of the three references present in the current version of the article as well as of the corresponding Korean article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new references added are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:16, 7 August 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 considering particularly that the additional references have satisfied all editors who evaluated them. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung City Hall station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the line article. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ALL to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs added by Eastmain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cites added by Eastmain. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redireсt~~ Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the Korean article. More can probably be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that the new references added are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. JaventheAldericky (talk) 14:17, 7 August 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) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siu station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ALL to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redireсt~~ Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes three references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of meeting WP:GNG. It would help to add details from the Korean version of the article. JaventheAldericky (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 7 August 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 considering particularly that the additional references have satisfied all editors who evaluated them. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seonbu station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." Different Wikipedians have tried updating the article over the years, but it has also been moved back to a redirect. The current edition has been live for just over a week. However, the article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect ALL to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redireсt~~ Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. See the references in the article. Someone with better language skills and local knowledge could probably add more. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 7 August 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) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmi station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article has been live since 2022 and does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling the AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect ALL to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this particular one taking into account the aforementioned Wonjong station AfD case.Suitskvarts (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding Korean article. Someone with better language skills and local knowledge could probably find more. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references added by Eastmain establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:52, 10 August 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 considering particularly that the additional references have satisfied all editors who evaluated them. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung Neunggok station

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article has been live since 2022 and does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect>>Seohae Line. Djflem (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect. All railway stations that verifiably (a) exist, (b) previously existed, or (c) are under construction should be blue links, if they are not individually notable then they should be merged and/or redirected to the most suitable article (usually the one about the line or system they belong to). No determination of notability should me made without having at least searched for sources contemporary to the station written in the local language. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This !vote applies equally to all the AfDs linked above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonjong station, so I don't think we can redirect all of these. Not a bundled nom, each should be treated separately for now, as consensus is not homogenous between nominations. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redireсt~~ Keep per edits since nomination. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I suspect that someone fluent in Korean and familiar with the area served by the recently-opened subway line could find more good references for each of the stations. I don't have the fluency or the local knowledge, so all I can do is refer to the corresponding article in the Korean Wikipedia and Google searches. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that the new references added into the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. JaventheAldericky (talk) 14:19, 7 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seth L. Harrison

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

Currently sourced to the website of the subject's own company. I am unable to find any coverage in reliable independent sources. Taavi (talk!) 10:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Taavi (talk!) 10:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any sources to meet the thresholds of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. This is just a passing mention without analysis, and this was written by himself, if I'm interpreting things correctly. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independent in-depth sources available, slim changes of passing WP:BASIC. NotAGenious (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've made a quick attempt to come up with substantive secondary sources and am not finding them. This[35] is just beyond "passing mention" but not by much and it doesn't support the article content. Oblivy (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. None of the sources I found are valid per GNG and certainly not the Wikipedia source which is presently the only one cited in the article. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/1902407#xj4y7vzkg)			Passing mention, basically, nothing significant here.	✘ No
Various Company websites	He is a part of these companies			✘ No
Crunchbase and LinkedIn	Primary sources			✘ No
Wikipedia (only source presently in article)		WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 03:16, 9 August 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 List of Dune characters#Introduced in Dune Messiah (1969). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanima Atreides

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

Neither the article, nor my BEFORE, suggest that this character is notable. We have a plot summary and information on which books/other media she appears in, and that's it. No reception, no analysis, next to nothing in GScholar even for counting hits. Redirect to List of Dune characters or perhaps the Children of Dune (the book she is central to), per WP:ATD/SOFTDELETE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom – there is no indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG. I'm not sure what content could be merged over, either. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dune characters#Introduced in Dune Messiah (1969). There does not appear to be enough SIGCOV about this character to warrant an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per QuicoleJR, this character was already on my list for my ongoing merges into that list.— TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QuicoleJR. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV without more reliable reception. A redirect would be fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag: The sources demonstrate notability and yes the article needs some more real world perspectives but that can be fixed. At the very least it could be merged to List of Dune characters#Introduced in Dune Messiah (1969). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)
Comment This AFD is still open and this article is being discussed. Do not Redirect or Merge this article while discussion is still ongoing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Anyone can do a merge (copy and paste content) regardless of the outcome here. AfD cannot prevent people from reusing content (but if you meant, don't blank/redirect the article under discussion, I of course agree). The article discussed here should stay as it is until this discussion is closed, but if TAnthony wants to copy its content to some list, he can do it anytime he wishes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Liz was referring to this BLAR. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, this can wait a few more days. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have limited my comment to "Redirect"only. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD) advises against both redirecting (point 3) and merging/copying (point 5). Point 5 is less relevant here because there is only one delete recommendation and it is okay with a redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 13 August 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 12:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Hürlimann

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

The subject has earned six caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:10, 30 July 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 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have mentioned, there's nothing here to establish notability under WP:GNG, and no sport SNGs apply (anymore). Actualcpscm (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Michelle Duncan

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

Lacks sustained coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and California. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - another beauty pageant contestant/winner who fails WP:GNG. Even the coverage in local papers (that I could find) is not WP:SIGCOV. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP1E Being one contestant among 50-plus others, and winning a swimsuit award, does not meet notability. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. Here is a source assessment table of the (only) source I could find:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Miss California website	No. She participated in this competition.		Passing mention of her among all the other winners.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 02:45, 9 August 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!} 03:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lola the Vamp

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Of the current sources, only 1 has a reasonable amount of significant coverage, with the other being written by the subject. I could not find anything else to note this subject, originally created by an SPI with no other edits, being notable in any meaningful way. Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Dance, and Australia. Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*keep I'm taking note Salted and then canned meat product (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article needs a major rewrite, but there appears to be sustained coverage available, in addition to brief secondary content at p. 120 of Burlesque and the New Bump-n-grind (2004); another book appears to mention her (p. 95, 2018); and there is in-depth coverage of her performance in The Happy Stripper: Pleasures and Politics of the New Burlesque (2007); there also are some GScholar results I have not yet accessed. Wikipedia Library sources include:

Wikipedia Library sources

"The lady is a vamp" Zamiatin, Lara. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]. 11 June 2004: 49. ProQuest 354173083 - includes "For the past year, the old-school fetish princess Lola the Vamp, aka Meghann Montgomery, has been teasing the punters at Brisbane venues [...] Montgomery and her saucy friends [...] wowed the Big Day Out crowd on the Gold Coast. [...] According to Montgomery, who's writing a PhD on burlesque dancing [...] Montgomery goes further, suggesting the burlesque revival is a feminist statement, but one that transcends old-school feminism [...]"
"Burlesque rocks on" By: Jason Nahrung, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane), NOV 18, 2004 ProQuest 354127692 - reporting an upcoming performance of a rock band with burlesque performers - "The modern burlesque performance of Lola, who has taken her sensuous act overseas as well as to the Big Day Out, will make an intriguing addition."
"Naked truth" By: Patrick Watson, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane), NOV 26, 2004 - this is an announcement of an upcoming arts festival, but includes a focus on her, e.g. "DESPITE her Goth name, Lola the Vamp was a clown, mime, physical theatre performer, actor and belly dancer before discovering burlesque dancing two years ago", mentions her PhD, what her performance will include, and includes some interview.
"Vamps take the Valley" Langford, Rachael. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]. 18 May 2006: 59. ProQuest 354057200 - includes "Students of Lola the Vamp's new six-week burlesque course will sauce it up for a graduation show [...] It is rumoured that the 26-year-old herself will perform as she prepares for her turn in the Miss Exotic World Pageant in Las Vegas later this month, the world's biggest burlesque dance reunion and competition"; some interview; and "Lola helped lead burlesque's revival in Australia" with context
"The lady is a vamp" MX, JUN 13, 2007 - "Lola The Vamp is Australia's highest profile showgirl and the fastest rising star of International burlesque. [...] According to The Scotsman, "Lola's strips have real tease," and there ain't much arguing that one!" - this is part of the intro to an interview
"Vamp it up with cheeky moves" - FALVEY, ByBROOKE. Westside News; Milton, Qld. [Milton, Qld]. 04 July 2007: 25. - ProQuest 822389464 - a brief review of her class - e.g. "For a handful of women, Lola opens up a new world; one filled with sexy moves and cheeky laughter. Which is why I now credit her with being the woman who taught me how to bump and grind."
"Cabaret: the critical guide" - Bragge, Lily, The Age; Melbourne, Vic. [Melbourne, Vic]. 19 July 2008: 4. ProQuest 364049151 - a paragraph that includes "With sophisticated props such as Venetian masks and duelling parasols, a highly developed aesthetic and sly wit, burlesque showgirl Lola the Vamp (pictured) is an expert at seduction."
"Dancers strip away inhibitions" - Purdon, Fiona. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]. 19 Aug 2009: 58. ProQuest 353731255 - includes some interview and an overview of her career and education, and e.g. "She has now performed around the world, including in Edinburgh, and is a regular in Paris. After several appearances at Teas-O-Rama last year, she became the first Australian to be a headline act"
"Lola the showgirl has it all" Gold Coast Bulletin, The, May 20, 2011 - a brief report about her participation in the 2011 Miss Burlesque Australia competition, with interview
"Global burlesque stars shine" - Kane, Young, The Mercury; Hobart Town, Tas. [Hobart Town, Tas]. 06 June 2013: 7. ProQuest 1364877890 - "Lola The Vamp is a former Penthouse Pet"
"Lola to flaunt her frills" - Nugent, Victoria. Townsville Bulletin; Townsville, Qld. [Townsville, Qld]. 18 Apr 2015: 5. ProQuest 1673965688 - "Lola the Vamp, also known as Lola Montgomery (pictured), will hold a series of workshops next weekend, hosted by Townsville dance company QueenB Burlesque." - also includes the "holds the world's first PhD in burlesque" claim, but I think a better source is needed.

Beccaynr (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, based on the sustained coverage in reliable sources with independent and secondary content identified above, and further sources that may be available in e.g. GScholar (that are not written by her), which can help further develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am persuaded that the subject meets notability guidelines by the sourcing found by Beccaynr. CT55555(talk) 07:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccaynr and per WP:HEY-- I have added 4 RSs and there are bound to be more. Meets GNG. Cabrils (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the sources found by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 10 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 6

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.