Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 17	September 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Longmont mid-air collision

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

Article fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:LASTING. Midair collisions between light aircraft are tragic, but quite common events, both globally and in the US in particular, see this ref and this ref, too for recent American statistics. In this case the sole cited ref used in the article shows that it is highly unlikely there will be any lasting consequences beyond the deaths of the participants: no airworthiness directives, no changes in ATC procedures or other changes and no notable people killed (notable people are those with an existing biography article already on Wikipedia). Midair collisions between light aircraft are just not notable, just as most car accidents are not notable. Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. BilCat (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Unless there's a systematic breakdown, like ATC turned them into each other or the like, it's just an unfortunate but non-notable accident no different to the thousands of fatal car accidents every day. Canterbury Tail talk 00:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Run-of-the-mill collision between light aircraft. This kind of events happen on average four or five times a year in the US alone, if I remember correctly, which is tragic but not encyclopedically notable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually the ref I noted above tabulated 43 mid-air collisions in the US over a five year period, which is an average of 8.6 per year. So yes, a fairly common event. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill and nothing particularly outstanding compared to other events of this sort to warrant an article. KoA (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2022 (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!} 23:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2,1)-Pascal triangle

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

This variant of Pascal's triangle does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The OEIS is not a reliable source, and there is no peer-reviewed publication containing results related to the (2,1)-Pascal triangle. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the editorial process for OEIS sequences (but not the OEIS wiki, a different part of the site) is enough to make it a reliable source. All contributions there go through two levels of editorial review, by a designated team of editors, before being published. However, that's only one source, and the other references that can be found on the OEIS entry don't appear to provide enough in-depth coverage of this specific triangle to give it independent notability from other generalized Pascal triangles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Merge or redirect to Pascal's_triangle Mr.weedle (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not mentioned there, and probably shouldn't be. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something the OEIS made up one day with no apparent significance or coverage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be trivially constructed as a sum of two offset copies of Pascal's triangle. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the main revision before major destruction prior to AfD. Its coverage in the general Mathemathics field may appear low but the properties involved are extensively used in polynomial expansion proofs and teaching materials. Together with (1,2)-Pascal triangle (aka Lucas Triangle), they are the most related entries to Pascal's Triangle. Notability seems to be underestimated as most use cases appear implicit when publications need not mention the triangle when mentioning its properties, thus leading to a lack of reliable resources to be obtained in a reasonable time by amateur editors. The page (until revision revision 719312774, prior to content destruction) was originally created according to the most recent revision of Pascal's Triangle then. I consider this article no longer necessary as the "trivial" construction mentioned by LaundryPizza03 is true. This infers all contents of the article can be represented by other means without the triangle (using the sum of two binomial coefficients). A personal external backup (if not userify, since the past version is available on the Internet Archive) is considered instead as parts of the article are spread all over different parts of the field, yet not summarized in known publications. Also, the page after the massive content removal (since revision 1098693705) is no longer valuable for inclusion. Amyriad (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Devkota

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

Appears to be a youtuber with fewer than 100 Google results. Yes, he has 600k subscribers, but that does not inherently make one notable. Andre🚐 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable youtuber, no sources found. Formatting is off, title appears bolded? Very strange. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only a few Google search results, none of which is reliable and in-depth coverage of the YouTuber, the YouTuber fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2022 (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 Adobe Photoshop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop Album

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

Software not notable enough to have its own page independent of Adobe Photoshop. Found no sources that did not appear WP:PROMO, WP:ROUTINE, or WP:PRIMARY. Recommend to redirect to Adobe Photoshop and merge any content worth keeping. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Photoshop. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe Photoshop, so it is not independently notable, for the same reason as for Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop Express. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as unneeded and can be encyclopedically described at the main Photoshop article anyway. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:15, 19 September 2022 (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 Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grid (album)

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

non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the band was notable, this particular song has nothing showing up on a google search. I couldn't find anything on microsoft edge as well.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Move (Japanese band)#Discography Non notable album, the band is notable though. But still since the album has nothing showing up in a google search. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (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 Adobe Photoshop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop Express

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

Not independently notable of Adobe Photoshop. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMO, or WP:ROUTINE. Proposal to redirect and merge any worthwhile content to Photoshop's main article. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Photoshop. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe Photoshop, so it is not independently notable, for the same reason as for Adobe Photoshop Elements. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Photoshop - not independently notable to warrant a standalone article. Rustytrombone (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2022 (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 Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Calm

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

non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was originally a keep, but besides charting, I can't find anything specifically notable about this album in its own right. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2022 (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 Adobe Photoshop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop Elements

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

Article as written is in breach of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTGUIDE. Sources appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage and offer no evidence that this is notable independently of Adobe Photoshop. Recommend redirecting to Adobe Photoshop and merging any worthwhile information to there. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Photoshop. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe Photoshop, so it is not independently notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GeoffreyT2000; I also could not find any coverage separate from Photoshop in general and cannot imagine it existing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Photoshop per the other two commenters. Pahiy (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2022 (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 Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy (Move album)

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

Non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Move (Japanese band), this album failed WP:NALBUMS, and it should be considered to be redirected, their albums must create redirects as long as it goes. --2600:1700:9BF3:220:A18C:D805:4273:CCD4 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2022 (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 Adobe Premiere Pro. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Premiere Express

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

This app is not notable nor covered enough in reliable sources to feasibly support a standalone article. This should be merged into a section on the Adobe Premiere Pro page, and redirected there. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Premiere Pro. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe Premiere Pro, so it is not independently notable, for the same reason as for Adobe Premiere Elements. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2022 (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. If anyone wants to take on "rescoping" this article, contact me and I move it to Draft space. But right now, that idea seems like a good notion and not like a project anyone is willing to spend time on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polish exonyms

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

A totally pointless list. Why the heck we must know Polish names in Albania or Antarctica (or, omigod!, in Micronesia)? Not to say the list is completely non-maintainable: there are zillions of places on Earth that obviously have Polish names Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this list if pointless. The vast majority of places are going to have names in other languages. If you wanted to know the name of a place in Polish, it would be more convenient to go to Google Translate for that. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see this as part of an article why foreign cities have different names in different languages, but every name in Polish is useless.Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope to only places with significant connections to Poland. I see a value in a list of exonyms of places over which Poland formerly ruled in the past, or of locales where Little Poland diaspora communities are documented, but indiscriminate Polish names of every place in the world are not the way to go. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this, seems like a valid use of Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and the name for non-notable parking lot "Zaborowski Viewpoint and Zaborowski Parking Lot" is also given in Polish, as proof that this article is a mess. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of course, every place in the world would have a Polish exonym, and there are way too many to list. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2022 (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 Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electrock

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

Non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was originally a keep, but besides charting, I can't find anything specifically notable about this album in its own right. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Move (Japanese band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2022 (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 Adobe Premiere Pro. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Premiere Elements

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

Product doesn't appear notable independently of Adobe Premiere Pro; article is written in a rather WP:PROMO tone, with Adobe's website alone being cited for the claim that it is the "number one selling consumer video editing software" and the article is bloated by a version list of every previous version of the application. Given the WP:ROUTINE nature of the sources I found, I don't see any improvement to this article happening that would make it worth keeping as a separate page from the main Premiere Pro article. I would thusly propose merging any worthwhile content to Adobe Premiere Pro and redirecting this page there. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Premiere Pro. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe Premiere Pro, so it is not independently notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2022 (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. The consensus is that this fails CFORK Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reign of Elizabeth II

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

Recently created article unnecessarily duplicating an existing topic: Elizabeth II, an FA.DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I accepted the draft on the basis that as an article it had a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. The nominator's deletion rationale is interesting. I will remain neutral in the discussion and observe with interest 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's basically a duplicate of Elizabeth II's page. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was that the reign section could be summarised. Catholic nerd (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2022 (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/2022 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth II. Anything useful not already there can be added. Not enough new here to justify a separate article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, make a proper split from Elizabeth II per WP:Summary style. We have a tradition of splitting parts from long articles, such as Political positions of Hillary Clinton or, by contrast, Political career of Vladimir Putin. :-) Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and summarise the original page: In agreement with above I feel that due to how long the article is it would be better to have a separate article on her now finished reign and slim down the details on her page, which I was in the process of doing earlier, but was told I had to put a redirect there. We already have a redirect for Personality and image of Elizabeth II. I think like this we should slim down the reign section suitably and leave a redirect at the top. The same arguments could be applied there. Catholic nerd (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The period of her reign is the bulk of the Elizabeth II article. For WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to work those 70 years should be pretty much cut and pasted into the new article that you've created, leaving a very brief summary behind with the article being left with just her first 25 years. But what benefit is there in doing that? Most readers, as Wehwalt points out below, would come to her bio article to read the most important part of her bio. Additionally the Elizabeth II article is a Featured Article and indeed is on today's main Page. (indeed, the reason why an editor told you not to cut chunks out of the Elizabeth II article - "slim down" - was because it was just about to go on the Main Page). Clearly as an FA, with all the scrutiny that comes with that, there's no issues with it being "too long" or "needing summary style" being applied to it. (one of the FA criteria is "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." That's what this article is assessed as. Why cut up an FA? DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While "Presidency of ... " and similar articles serve a purpose, that purpose is to allow a greater focus on the events of that period of time. For example, Presidency of Richard Nixon allows a greater focus of the five years of Nixon's life he was president than the biographical article on Nixon allows space for. However, in this case, Elizabeth II was queen for most of her adult life. The section on her up to age 26 is relatively short by comparison with the rest of the article. In my view, "Reign of Elizabeth II" would not allow for greater focus and would serve no useful purpose. People tend to consult the biographical article in preference to the other, so taking detail away from that article isn't such a good idea (if they don't find information in her biographical article, are they really going to go elsewhere?) The potential for conflict and inconsistencies between the two articles is also there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but additionally the reason why "Presidency of..." works to cover the events of the period is that a President is a major political actor/instigator of those events. They are part of the reason for those events. By definition, that was not the case for Elizabeth II as a constitutional monarch in a democracy. This is illustrated in how the lead has been expanded since nomination with these edits. Very little is directly related to Elizabeth II - they are events that happen to have ocurred during the time period. Compare that to the lead, for example, of Presidency of Richard Nixon, which is about Nixon's "rule" itself. Nixon was an instigator/major actor of the events during his presidency. If this article were to be kept, either Elizabeth II article would have to be gutted to transfer the bulk of its content to this article to avoid duplication (per Wehwalt's comments on the proportion of her life being taken up by her reign) and/or this article would have to be padded out with historical events that happened to occur during her reign but frankly is unconnected to her. What's the point of doing either? DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wehwalt. The hypothetical inverse article covering her life not-as-queen would be vestigial. Why split this information out instead of keeping it together? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reign also covers events that happened during her reign, rather like we have a page for the Victorian period. Catholic nerd (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how does it benefit the reader to have much of the information about her farmed out to an article few will read? Richard Nixon gets 22 times the page views Presidency of Richard Nixon gets. Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe this might be revived when there is more of a historical gap and there can be details on historical analysis of her reign. I can see your point. Catholic nerd (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be characterising the article as being about a "historical period" rather than about the person. There's no evidence that it is treated as a general historical period in historiography in the way that "Victorian" is. There's a "post-war Britain" and we have articles already covering that. But at some point the post-war period ends: some treat it as the 1960s and some the 1970s etc. Then there are other periods. But I'm not aware of a historiographical 1952-2022 period - other than it happens to be the Queen's reign there's nothing coherently holding it together - and if there were to be, it's too early (WP:CRYSTAL) to tell. DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Wehwalt. Summarising the Reign section on Elizabeth II would just be, IMO, hiding away the entire section into an article that will be seen by fewer readers. Since, as it stands right now, most of it is exactly the same as the reign section on the main article, keeping it would essentially mean removing information from the main article just to give this one a reason to exist. GoodCrossing (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are currently few differences between the Elizabeth II page and the Reign page, I think this page has potential. Elizabeth was the head of state of many countries, of which many gained independence from the British Empire under her reign. Part of her reign includes her relationship with these countries, and there is not room on the current page to explore these aspects without making the text so long that readers give up. Beebotbaba (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a Draftify position to me. As it stands, over 90% of this article is directly copied from the Liz 2 article. I would want to see prose and sources that support an article about that stuff before passing it through the AFC process. It's also possible that an article with this information would be more specialized than the omnibus "Reign of Liz 2" article that this one is. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  New to the Wikipedia editing thing and didn't know the exact terminology. Draftify is definitely closer to what I was going for. Beebotbaba (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's essentially a copy of the main page. And, there's also the issue of Elizabeth's role as a constitutional monarch. As another user pointed out, many events happened during her reign which were not direct results of her actions. That is not the case for a president or prime minister that has executive powers. I don't see a well-defined boundary with regards to this matter when reading the lede. Additionally, the main article is not terribly long. Why move info away from the main page to a secondary page, which, as another user pointed out, will be less clicked on? Quality wise it's not a good addition to a featured article based on its current state. Keivan.f^Talk 04:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article has some good arguments to exist and could use further development to assuage the legitimate arguments against the page being separate from the main bio. The E2 article is long, and will probably only get longer as more is added after her death with retrospectives and more details about the past few years as new secondary sources come out. I also agree with the argument about "Presidency of" vs. "Reign of", substantively there is much less that can be attributed to EIIR directly. As a previous user mentioned, there may be a benefit to having more specific content about the various realms. However, this shouldn't be a "Second Elizabethan Age" article that generally covers UK politics & history; the length of the reign is much too long to fully consider much relation between the seven decades historiographically except in the monarchy itself Ha2772a (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgot to mention that perhaps part of this specific article proposal should be an additional draft of what the Elizabeth II reign section would look like if this page is approved Ha2772a (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Expand. A lot of events that are not mentioned at the Queen's bio can be added here. Peter Ormond 💬 05:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A good article on an important subject, but does need some work. Moondragon21 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree that Draftify is the best option. Should the article on the main Elizabeth II page be summarised then? I was working on a summary of it. Catholic nerd (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise it. It's a FA and you won't get consensus to do that to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content on the Queen's article is already "summarised". You just need to greatly expand this article to include all the major events that have little or no mention at the Queen's article. Peter Ormond 💬 15:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the clairification. Catholic nerd (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”to include all the major events that have little or no mention at the Queen's article”. If it’s not already in the Queen’s article then chances are the event is unconnected to the Queen. What’s the scope of this article to be then? All the major events that happened to occur between 1952 and 1922, in the UK, in the Commonwealth realms, in the World? The fundamental flaw with this article is that for a constitutional monarch without power, relevant aspects of her reign and her bio are one in the same thing. Otherwise it’s just a general history of the period and (a) we have other articles that do that (b) historians haven’t and probably won’t write histories of the “New Elizabethan Age”, aside from the likes of Robert Lacey. It’s not a real and coherent historiographic period. DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fundamentally misconceived in scope, or draftify on the understanding that there will be a Big Think about said scope with a view to a more meaningful refactoring. At present, this would be not just 3/4s of the parent article, but by far the most notable portion even pro rata. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2022 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Nations of Russia Forum

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

Fails WP:INHERITORG (the media only covers two events hosted by the organization, not the organization itself), and generally looks like advertising. HPfan4 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to rewrite the article in a non-promotional way, using more sources. (the article is also said to be advertising in Ruwiki, from where I took it for translation) PLATEL (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements made in this article since its nomination but right now, no additional support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. It is mentioned in several RS, mostly national newspapers in Slavic languages. Some additions from e.g. Pravda (Slovakia) ([1]) can be done, while some sources should be checked. I removed Политнавигатор as a non-RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2022 (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 01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Ida

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

Non-notable database stub. I can't find any significant coverage. Every Day of the Civil War: A Chronological Encyclopedia just has one sentence saying the ship was captured and burned. Also created by a sockmaster, but that in and of itself isn't reason for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That the ship existed and is listed in a database is not cause to have a Wikipedia article on the ship; it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots for Cascading Style sheets, not much for a Confederate ship. The only source I find is the one given. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (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 Ja Rule. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mpire Music Group

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

It does not add any sources that are reliable nor accurate as per WP:SOURCE or WP:MUSICBIO. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This article was dynamited about two years ago; see this diff for more information. This is probably a strong merge target to Ja Rule, but there's no reason why we'd want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ja Rule per Chubbles. ✗plicit 00:38, 25 September 2022 (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 Saint David's Day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Week

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

It's not even clear Swansea ever had a monopoly on 'week', which in any case by 2018 had shrunk to 3 days. Everything can easily be merged to St David's Day. Sparafucil (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2022 (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/2022 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St David's Day. The celebrations in Swansea are already mentioned in the St David's Day article, and coverage in sources is sparse enough that I don't think a stand-alone article is necessary (see WP:NOPAGE). I don't think any of the content really needs to be merged, although I don't have a problem with it if someone wants to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to St David's Day. The current sentence at St David's Day#Other locations for Swansea (linking to this AfD) is largely fine, but the 2018 citation should be added, although describes it as St David's Day rather than Week. Dank Jae 22:27, 23 September 2022 (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 Adobe software. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Spark Video

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

Nominating per the same rationale given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe Creative Cloud Express. This app does not appear to have any notability independent of other Adobe products, and its only sources are WP:PROMO and WP:ROUTINE descriptions of the application's existence and capabilities. Being a "top app" on the app store is hardly a claim to notability. This software fails WP:NPRODUCT and should be made a redirect to List of Adobe software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Adobe software. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe, so it is not independently notable, for the same reason as for Adobe Creative Cloud Express. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2022 (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!} 20:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – Arena of Valor

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

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to needing a WP:SIZESPLIT, especially considering the guidelines are against these articles that are primarily nothing but replications of tournament rankings and stats. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of stats and tournament records. The tournament holders should be hosting these stats, not us. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and also Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 25 September 2022 (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!} 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – Pro Evolution Soccer

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

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to needing a WP:SIZESPLIT, especially considering the guidelines are against these articles that are primarily nothing but replications of tournament rankings and stats. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of stats and tournament records. The tournament holders should be hosting these stats, not us. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 25 September 2022 (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!} 20:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – StarCraft II

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

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to needing a WP:SIZESPLIT, especially considering the guidelines are against these articles that are primarily nothing but replications of tournament rankings and stats. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of stats and tournament records. The tournament holders should be hosting these stats, not us. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 19 September 2022 (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!} 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – Hearthstone

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

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to needing a WP:SIZESPLIT, especially considering the guidelines are against these articles that are primarily nothing but replications of tournament rankings and stats. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of stats and tournament records. The tournament holders should be hosting these stats, not us. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 19 September 2022 (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!} 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esports at the 2018 Asian Games – Clash Royale

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

Does this series of separate articles really need to exist? At the moment, they do not really justify their own existence. My proposal is either condense them down and add tables back into Esports at the 2018 Asian Games. Thoughts? (Note: I am using Twinkle, so there will be six article submissions that I will then condense into one heading). TNstingray (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to needing a WP:SIZESPLIT, especially considering the guidelines are against these articles that are primarily nothing but replications of tournament rankings and stats. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of stats and tournament records. The tournament holders should be hosting these stats, not us. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 19 September 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwashing

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

Very obscure jargon/slang term. Found almost nothing regarding this other than a Twitter hashtag in a WP:BEFORE search. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Cryptocurrency, and Internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a dictionary definition. The one reference is a passing mention that the use of cryptocurrency for money laundering is known as bitwashing. A redirect to somewhere is probably in order, but this is not an encyclopedic article and the title does not call for a stand-alone article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NEO. It's a neologism with little use; of the 170k results on Google for the term most of them are for unrelated things like products for washing bits. As for the actual content of the article, it's a subject that's already covered at Cryptocurrency tumbler, and this doesn't seem likely enough of a search term to make for a useful redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, DICDEF. Could perhaps be a brief section in a money laundering article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concept may be notable but term is not and article unlikely to meet necessary requirements. Andre🚐 17:00, 25 September 2022 (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!} 06:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L3 (text speech)

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

A completely unsourced definition of what appears to be a non-notable neologism. While I have no doubt that this shorthand has, indeed, been used before by somebody, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources that actually indicates that this passes the WP:GNG. The article has been WP:PRODed a couple times, most recently by User:SimonP who gave the justification of "No content beyond dict def, no refs for a decade". However, the PROD was procedurally declined as it had already had a contested PROD over a decade back, meaning it needs to come to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Technology. Rorshacma (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find news coverage of "L3 Technologies" and something called "Widevine L3", but nothing about L3 as an initialism. According to the article, "there is no real way to identify its origins," nor does it appear that any independent sources have tried. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When even the article indicates that there's no way to verify basic things about the subject it's a problem. Article fails WP:GNG and probably falls under WP:NEO too. It's been an article since 2011; it's had 11 years to generate coverage and for my part I can find nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2022 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 MTV Millennial Awards

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

Unreferenced article of incredibly unclear utility in its current form -- as written, it literally just states that the ceremony happened and that nominees were announced, the end, but fails to actually name any of the winners or nominees. Per the parent article MTV Millennial Awards, some (but not all) of the prior iterations of this award ceremony do have their own separate articles, so I'm absolutely willing to withdraw this if somebody with Spanish language skills I don't have can actually add the content and sourcing needed to justify an article -- but if nobody can be bothered to do that, then there's not a lot of value in holding onto it in this state. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the official site seems to have a list of winners. See https://miaw.mtvla.com/ and https://miaw.mtvla.com/articles/iey0p0/conoce-a-los-ganadores-de-los-premios-mtv-miaw for the pages that should contain the information but don't. If MTV itself can't be bothered to post a list of winners or nominees of its own awards, I don't see why Wikipedia should have an article about these awards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in all the mainstream publications (reliable sources) that covered it last time: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. But it would also be reasonable to merge each of these annual editions into the main article if it's just going to be a sourced list of winners. This said, there is plenty of sourcing for this standalone topic until there is a decision to merge all the editions into one. czar 15:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as GNG-compliant coverage is likely to exist. In the worst-case scenario, a redirect to the main awards page would also work. AfD is not for complaining that the article itself is missing information. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:36, 19 September 2022 (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!} 20:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Gupta

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

Aman Gupta

This article about a non-notable businessman does not satisfy general notability or biographical notability. The article does not speak for itself and does not discuss independent significant coverage. The one reference is an interview, and is promotional. Appearance as a judge on a television show does not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, and Delhi. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG has no WP:SIGCOV. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a golfer with a same or similar name; I find nothing for this businessman. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No significant coverage. Most of the sources mentioning him are about a reality show that don't reflect his notability.Atighot (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (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 Adobe software. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Creative Cloud Express

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

In a WP:BEFORE search, have found no evidence that this suite of products is distinctly notable from other Adobe products. There are not many sources to be found that do not constitute WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. The page as written does not contain much information that is not already available on Adobe's website. I believe it would be best to redirect this page to List of Adobe software and merge any worthwhile content to there and/or other pages as appropriate. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 19:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Adobe software. While the product certainly exists, there is no coverage of it independently of Adobe, so it is not independently notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2022 (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. Those advocating Keeping this article argue that the article subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG standards of notability. The three editors calling for Deletion disagree about this fact which is very common in these athlete biography AFD discussions. I've decided to not close as No Consensus as the Keeps have numbers on their side. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errington Kelly

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmmm...I can't find any good sources, but you'd think with that many games for Peterborough there ought to be something. But there's nothing in newspaper archive or online. Will keep digging for the time being. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let IAR/COMMONSENSE prevail. He has over 140 appearances in England's professional football league in the pre-internet age. Will there be additional significant sources out there? Yes. Giant Snowman 19:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. In addition, I found [12] as well as many many more sources on Newspapers.com. In addition, he definitely has many more offline sources having had an extensive fully pro career in the 1980s. Clearly was significant figure in English Football League. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about offline sources etc but you know YouTube doesn't count. How about sharing some of those newspapers.com links so I can expand the article? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect -- per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos originating from an official news organization account -- which this is -- inherit that organization's reliability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will keep it in mind for future. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- I'm not sure how much this counts toward notability necessarily, but it is as reliable as the news outlet in this case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview, you know that doesn't count. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no restriction on sourcing stuff to interviews. More importantly, you ignore the comment was about newspapers.com. Gosh, one newspapers.com calls him the (Fourth) division's most dangerous striker (when he's on his game); which is hardly a routine comment. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you like nine times by now, sourcing to interviews is ok for non-controversial facts, but what subjects say in interviews cannot be used for notability because it is primary and non-independent. If you literally cannot understand that a person talking about himself is primary and non-independent then you should not be editing Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the use of it as a source, not notability - which is easily established with other material. Though common sense dictates that someone who the main-stream media is still interviewing a quarter-century later is notable - and while technically passing our (not) rules, it's a clear sign that there's little nominating the very well referenced article. Nfitz (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a few sources from Newspapers.com as requested on my talk page: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE is completely irrelevant here; it does not apply to people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 are you sure? Footballer articles are routinely (heh) deleted on the grounds of only having routine coverage. I've never heard anyone say it doesn't apply to people, but I could be wrong. I do feel that if this weren't the case, everyone to have ever played football at any level will be eligible for an article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarchOfTheGreyhounds, BeanieFan11 stands correct. Just follow the link he provided. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Routine' coverage does not, by definition, confer notability, as only 'significant' coverage does. Giant Snowman 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy or guideline. What is a guideline is NSPORT, which directly links to WP:ROUTINE multiple times when describing the type of coverage that is not deemed acceptable for notability determination. See, e.g., Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. And College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. And High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Additionally, hundreds of sportsperson AfDs have clearly affirmed "routine" as an accurate descriptor for the types of sources BF links above, and both he and gidonb know this, so pushing the claim that ROUTINE doesn't apply is actively disingenuous. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you're right in that it is not an essay or guideline, it makes a completely valid point: why should the policies on events apply to people? It would not make sense to apply all of the other guidelines for other different things on people, so why the guidelines for events on people? NSPORT is a big load of garbage which has made 0 sense since the great deletionist destruction of 2022. And saying that the guidelines for events should not apply to people is not at all disingenuous (especially when the text of Wikipedia:Notability (people) doesn't mention "routine" once)! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT used WP:ROUTINE to define types of coverage ineligible for notability consideration long before the 2022 RfC. And WP:NBIO does link to ROUTINE: In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability, so clearly we do have guideline-level support for the concept as applied to people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention of routine, in a note, talking about a wiki-like database = "guideline-level support" for discounting valid newspaper sources on people because, for events, it wouldn't count as SIGCOV? I think not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you interpret our guidelines as applying literally only to the specific situations used as examples; good to know. For anyone else reading this, I'll mention that the salient part of the footnote isn't "IMDb bad" but rather its characterization of certain forms of people's coverage as "WP:ROUTINE", i.e., expected to exist for most members of a sufficiently indiscriminate group and therefore not indicative of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV per sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that participants can evaluate the significance of new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV has been identified, so how many games he played has literally no bearing on meeting GNG. The newspaper clippings provided above are, as noted, interviews or otherwise routine match recaps, transactional news, and injury reports and should be disregarded the same way we would do with equivalent online coverage of someone in the internet era. Additionally, all but one are from the same hyperlocal newspaper, so even if they were significant we would only have one source contributing to GNG (the non-Peterborough Standard article is a quote-heavy announcement of a contract extension and doesn't count either). JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some sources have been found to pass WP:GNG. It is also likely that many more would exist for a player from the pre-Internet era, given the coverage found from the limited digitised sources from that era. Deleting this seems like a bias against pre-Internet era people. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a lot of thought and searching through sources, I have to say delete. The only references found here are routine and local. I'm not sure it's a given there will be anything more substantial out there. Were newspapers of the time definitely running the kind of coverage we require for GNG? For example, dispassionate profiles or lower league players? Perhaps some good sourcing exists, perhaps it doesn't. The bottom line is, no one has been able to find something that says to me he is definitely notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I wouldn't say the current sourcing passes GNG (the "Kelly's chance" seems to be the only one that covers him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content"), I'll note that ROUTINE and locality of coverage are both completely irrelevant when determining the notability of a person. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Except for, ya know, the guideline governing notability of sportspeople: Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that if you keep going, and read the text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE it says "sports scores", not in-depth articles about a match. So "routine game coverage" is box-scores ... not in-depth articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)
Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts Are you the type of editor who thinks the only news stories that can be considered "run-of-the-mill" are literally ones about bears in trees or local award-winners? Do you really just ignore every situation that isn't explicitly listed as an example in the guidelines? But even if that's the case, the text of WP:ROUTINE actually specifically names sports matches and press conferences as examples of routine events, so the applicability to NSPORT's guidance should be crystal clear without engaging in any advanced cogitation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good grief - in addition to the sources discussed above, he played in over 100 fully-professional matches. Sure, the one reference is an interview - common sense tells us that if he's still being interviewed about his career, by main-stream media, a quarter-century after his retirement, that he is of note. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough substance and sourcing in the article now to satisfy WP:BASIC, which allows us to combine multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability. In particular: 2013 article in Coventry Telegraph, 1983 article in Sports Argus (Birmingham), and 1986 article in Peterborough Standard, mid-way through his Peterborough United career and providing a balanced summary of his ups and downs at the club until that point. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has non-trivial coverage in more than one independent source so meets GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have plenty of references available. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover Mill, Indiana

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous participants pinged here to avoid multiple noticfications. –dlthewave ☎ 15:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found lots of references to Hoover Mill or Hoover's Mill in Indiana. It seems that there were several such mills, but none of the ones I found mentioned were in Wayne County. Jacona (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the lack of any real evidence that the subject actually exists per WP:V. Hut 8.5 16:54, 19 September 2022 (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 Nelson County, Virginia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawthorne Mill, Virginia

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous participants pinged here to avoid multiple noticfications. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For possible navigation, the previous bundled AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawthorne Mill, Virginia, closed "no consensus" on September 11, covering 10 places with "Mill" in name, and now separately running are:

--Doncram (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Into Nelson County, Virginia. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND, it can be listed in the county article and recreated if sources do become available at some point, but right now it appears unlikely that any can be found - happy to change my opinion though if others can find sources. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage. I do not object to a redirect to Nelson County, either. Jacona (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 18 September 2022 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pristyn Care

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

This is an article for promotional purposes and doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. RPSkokie (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. RPSkokie (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, largely press releases used as sourcing. Nothing I can find either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:TNT. The company clearly meets criteria for notability. The article itself maybe sus. DockMajestic (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Performed a simple edit to removed much of the flowery promotional language and added recent controversy. The company has sizeable operations, and a significant valuation with unicorn status, which makes it relevant in my opinion. Some of the sources may be promotional in nature, perhaps due to the different tone found in Indian media, but are reputable sources conveying largely relevant information. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I can provide an analysis is requested. In addition, "sizeable operations", "significant valuation", "unicorn status", and Amtoastintolerant's opinion do not form any part of any criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after updates by Amtoastintolerant now demonstrating that the article meets WP:GNG; another case of "puffery by omission" i.e., neutral/negative news coverage that demonstrates notability having been previously omitted. The "controversy" articles are a bit thin but through them I did find what appears to be an in depth reported piece (paywalled) that is hard if not impossible to call a press release. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, this is a company so it needs to meet WP:NCORP as well as GNG. Second, there is no in-depth information about the company in that article, it is based on interviews with people associated with the company and while it paints a picture of unnecessary surgeries, it still doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 21 September 2022 (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 Wales national cricket team. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for a Wales cricket team

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

I was about to suggest this article was renamed Wales cricket team but then I discovered the article already exists, at Wales national cricket team. There's no evidence of a coordinated campaign or organised movement calling for a Wales cricket team and all of the information here can be easily incorporated into the exisiting article (most if not all already has been). Wikipedia is not the place to launch a campaign. Sionk (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Wales. Sionk (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons above. This seems a blatant use of Wikipedia for campaigning, which I consider inappropriate for a respected and neutral source of information that Wikipedia is. BTW there is also an article Cricket in Wales where the campaign has been introduced. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of discussion about this and I am adding more citations as we speak. I have also tweaked the name of the page to "Movement" which is perhaps slightly more appropriate. Titus Gold (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't support the existence of such a 'campaign' or 'movement' in the generally understood sense of those terms. The discussion is adequately covered in the Wales national cricket team article. Llwyld (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. Could we consider renaming the page to "Establishment of a Welsh Cricket team" instead? This is a term which is used here::https://busnes.senedd.cymru/documents/s14246/Ymateb%20ir%20Ymgynghoriad%20PET4CRI%2002%20Jonathan%20Edwards%20Saesneg%20yn%20unig.pdf Titus Gold (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there sufficient sources for a standalone article on the topic. I think it adequately covered by Wales_national_cricket_team#Status_as_standalone_team. Llwyld (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, article largely already exists at Welsh national cricket team. (below) – Dank Jae 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are all of a piece with Campaign to change the WRU logo, Campaign for a Wales Olympic Team and Campaign to end the Prince of Wales title. At some point, we are going to have to face into User:Titus Gold's POV and their attempts to push their agenda on here. The clean-up required when we do will be substantial.KJP1 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest we keep this discussion to one of article necessity and with the [Five Pillars] firmly in mind. Supposition about the "agenda" behind an article's creation are not a good reason for deletion. "Cleaning up" a contributor's additions based on a dislike of their "POV" is in itself, agenda driven.

That said, if you feel those other articles mentioned support a common problem (such as editorializing) then please bring that to the discussion. Cymrogogoch (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both articles are historic (ie, there is no active Welsh cricket team and no active campaign), however while a perennial topic within Welsh cricket is unworthy of it's own article, this is a recurring discussion of a Welsh national discourse. The discussion has been subject to a national government committee in 2013, has seen public calls for a "national discussion" on the topic made by the First Minister in 2017, and has any number of sports journalist sources available (especially during recent events such as, the establishment of the Welsh Fire team, Test status being granted to Ireland, or the Ashes Tests at Cardiff).

The article needs work (As I see the creator has acknowledged in this discussion), but there is enough credible and sourced information available to make it a worthy article. Cymrogogoch (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Wales cricket team Personally feel that most of this can be covered in a single article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though perhaps a merge with Wales cricket team would be the most agreeable outcome? Titus Gold (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name to Proposed Wales cricket team. Is this agreeable? Or would a majority prefer a merger with Wales cricket team? Titus Gold (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I do not think there sufficient sources for a standalone article on the topic. I think it adequately covered by Wales_national_cricket_team#Status_as_standalone_team. I don't think creating articles on minor topics then repeatedly changing the name to make them 'stick' is a good approach. Llwyld (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wales national cricket team. Beeeggs (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Keep, Delete or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wales national cricket team, this article's creator has already largely done it. – Dank Jae 19:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (pre-mature merger already performed) - I have since reworded the content copied by another editor from this article to Wales national cricket team, so if its not obvious the content here has already been moved there, as another editor basically already did the merge too early. Just pointing that out, as the structure of the article is now slightly different, so there is no duplication of information. Dank Jae 21:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep My apologies, I forgot to notify on this talk page that I had copied all the relevant text over. Four editors seemed to agree on the merger rather than delete (including myself), but perhaps I did copy over prematurely. @DankJae has done a good job with paragraphing etc. I'll be a bit more patient waiting for more users to reply next time, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Titus Gold, seven days is largely the normal minimum per WP:MERGECLOSE. But there was no clear/unanimous consensus yet for a merge, with others (myself intitially) stating "Delete" rather than "Merge", although our comments could be interpreted as part WP:OVERLAP. The discussion was relisted for this reason. Dank Jae 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sionk, @Tony Holkham, @Llwyld, @KJP1, @Cymrogogoch. Those stating "Delete" or "Keep" above, whether there is consensus for a merge considering pre-existing articles have been stated as a reason for some, and whether the already performed merge by another editor, partly reworded and restructured, between these edits to Wales national cricket team is satisfactory or insufficient. Dank Jae 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming my Delete above - but yes, the reworded and restructured merge of some of the content covers my concerns. Llwyld (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My views on TG’s editing, here and elsewhere, haven’t changed. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wales national cricket team not enough sources/notability for a separate article, but definitely worth a section on the parent page. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2022 (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!} 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strident Publishing Company

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

I'm not seeing enough coverage to demonstrate notability here. The company is still active in Scotland but doesn't seem to have a high profile. The one reference provided in the article doesn't mention Strident, although it is about one of the books they published.

A search online and in newspapers reveals a couple of passing mentions, but nothing major. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not finding much either. There's a bit of trivial coverage in the press, but independent reliable sources don't seem to have discussed the company in any depth. Fails WP:NCORP, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Magnum

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

Novels don't seem to meet WP:A7, which is a shame. No indication of notability, does not meet WP:NBOOK. Searches such as this come back with nothing other than Amazon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Africa, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find absolutely nothing online to support this article's subject, and it fails WP:GNG. ~~I can't even find anything that indicates it's even been published.~~ It's a self published work with no indication of notability or reviews. If for some bizarre reason it's kept as an article it needs a serious rewrite from top to bottom. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — almost a G1 speedy to be honest. Barely legible description of an obscure self-published ebook. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I think this discussion can probably be closed early given we're trending towards a WP:SNOW decision. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Salad Abdi

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

Does not pass WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG; would not have been accepted under the, now deprecated, WP:NFOOTY guidelines as the Somali League is not fully professional. Only (removed) ref was to Facebook. Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, as the Google search only shows a few results, none of which are reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches such as this one show a complete lack of coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the references presented so far are Facebook entries that are not reliable. If some reliable sources can be found then I would move to draft while it is suitable for mainspace. Keith D (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2022 (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. Anyone is free to improve the article's sourcing with the sources indicated in this discussion. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It Should Be Easy

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. ("Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. [...] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.") Anything that can be said about this track can be summarized in the album article. Delete/redirect to Britney Jean. Sricsi (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's already a couple sources in there which should be decent, plus I found these three [20][21][22] (Plus this fourth which is a blog but the author has strong credentials so it may still be usable, and in fact is used on English WP a lot already). You've also got charting info for multiple countries. QuietHere (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Thatgrapejuice.net is a suitable source. As for the other ones, they don't really detail anything about the track, besides asking the question if the song could be the next single. Detailed coverage of the song is only found in album reviews. --Sricsi (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG with the sources already in the article, the sources given by QuietHere, and at least one more here. Rlendog (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a tough one. While I appreciate the time and energy QuietHere put into their comments, I have concerns about the citations's quality. Thatgrapejuice.net and Idolator are not considered reliable or appropriate sources for Wikipedia (at least in my experience). MuuMuse is generally not suitable, but I can understand the argument for the author. I do not know about Musictimes.com while Rolling Stone is obviously reliable. I am uncertain either way so I will not do a vote, but I did want to express my concerns about some of the sources proposed here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (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. More content and reliable sources verifying notability have been added to the article. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gallagher

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

Actress has appeared in some very notable TV shows and films but lacks any significant coverage. The only two sources in the article are her IMDb page and an interview. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and United States of America. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've rewritten the article and added more sources. This is probably the best one. There's a couple other ones which were geoblocked for me, one at Orlando Sentinel and this one in case they are of any use Mujinga (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The News10 article is a trivial mention, so that doesn't help. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources added by Mujinga do seem to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG, and the article's subject additionally appears to meet WP:NACTOR #1 via Cobra Kai, Queering, and Safe Harbor (I can't speak for the significance for other roles which is why I'm only mentioning these three that I looked into). - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources now in the article show the subject's notability. Based on that, the article appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Have you seen her long list of IMDb credits? Awards 12 nominations, 12 wins. 5Q5|^✉ 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent rewrite looks good. TolWol (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Childs, Arizona

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

Rail siding with no evidence of a community. The airport just to the West is Eric Marcus Municipal Airport, a former Army airfield that has no association with the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This best description is in the AZ Highways article: "Six miles out of Ajo, at the Childs way-station, we make our first stop to deliver 50 pounds of much-appreciated ice to a section gang." No evidence this was any kind of legally recognized community. Fails GEOLAND. MB 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a siding. WP:STATION is not met because there is not significant coverage. The 1972 newspaper article does state that there were children at Childs, so Childs likely had people living there (though I suppose there could have been a school with the children residing elsewhere). However, it is not a legally-recognized community and it is non-notable. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Awhile back, I worked on this article a bit but I did not find much. 01:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete It looks like the research shows this is a siding that was mislabeled as a community. The best evidence there is of anyone living there is from a joke on its name, which isn't a good sign. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find any proper source regarding the subject. Only trivial mentions. Atighot (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Automatic Transmission Fluids

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

Entirely unencyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Jay D. Easy (t) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very promotional article. Chrysler is one of the American automakers, their car fluids are all made to the same SAE standards and are interchangeable. They also aren't made by Chrysler, but by another company that slaps a label on it for whatever company is buying their product. To suggest otherwise is wrong. There is no need to differentiate by in-house transmission fluid brands; we've had another one for Toyota fluids come up in AfD. Your car won't stop working if you put Ford fluids in it, so long as the standards are the same. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions and statements about transmission fluids are not correct. Each transmission manufacturer makes their own fluid standards and they are not all the same. Some transmissions can be damaged by using an incorrect fluid. The SAE does not issue automatic transmission fluid specifications. To mark a page for deletion simply because you disagree with the content is not allowed. I was given a five day notice that the page had been marked for deletion. I need more time to make the appropriate modifications to address the encyclopedic content concern. Additionally, @ContentEditman merging the content into another page is a disservice to the general public because there are no such things as "General ATF Standards." Please restore the page and allow me some time to make modifications. Hymn62 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete There are some parts that could stand on their own, but not on a entire page. I say Merge unique parts to Automatic_transmission_fluid. As said most of the page is just a rehash of general ATF standards. ContentEditman (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per @ContentEditman: Fma12 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Rodionov

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

Non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails the bare minimum requirement of WP:SPORTBASIC, which is that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Searches of "Никита Родионов" in multiple search engines did not yield any significant coverage of this footballer so it's hard to see how WP:GNG could be met. His professional career in the second tier of Russia, the reason why the PROD was contested, lasted all of 17 minutes so it's one of the weakest claims to notability that there can be, especially since WP:NFOOTBALL is now redundant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khimo Gumatay

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

No notability outside Idol Philippines, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingJack21 is also relevant. Also, delete, per the nomination. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 15:19, 18 September 2022 (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. Withdrawn per the comment below. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Native Broadcasting (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not needed per WP:TWODABS. I have tried using WP:PROD, but the proposed deletion was objected on the talk page, so now AfD is needed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned on the talk page, there appears to be no primary topic for Northern Native Broadcasting, so the disambiguation page should be kept and moved to the base title. As WP:NOPRIMARY notes, "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but...there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw the AfD then. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2022 (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 Vocaloid 3#Oliver. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver (software)

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

Voice for a voice synthesis software. It's not clear from the sources cited - which do not appear reliable or independent - how this is notable separately from the software Vocaloid. Sandstein 11:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Software. Sandstein 11:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Vocaloid 3#Oliver, where it's mentioned, is a reasonable alternative to deletion, but I haven't been able to find any independent reliable sources that discuss it in in depth. As an aside, there are quite a few articles at Template:Vocaloid that seem to suffer from similar issues: I suppose some might be notable enough for stand-alone articles, but most would probably benefit from being blanked-and-redirected. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vocaloid 3#Oliver, but I think a better redirect title would be Oliver (vocaloid) rather than Oliver (software). SWinxy (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyubomir Aleksandrov

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

Played 18 mins of one match as a professional over a decade ago then disappeared into the amateur leagues and made a very brief semi-pro return in 2016 before disappearing again. Nothing in the article indicates notability and WP:NFOOTBALL has been deprecated. Per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. and this is not the case here. Also fails WP:GNG.

Google News had nothing even close to significant coverage regarding Aleksandrov and nor did this Bulgarian source search. The best that I can find is some mentions in a local sports news source sport-vt, which contains a few sentences that mention him but this is insufficient as it's basically about him playing in an amateur local sports fixture and we cannot build a meaningful biography from such weak coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Angelov

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

Played one minute of professional football back in 2016 but has not played at the professional level since. WP:NFOOTBALL is no longer valid and so Angelov would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article. The article is currently cited only to Soccerway and this Bulgarian search only gives me results about other people of the same name. Searches in both the English language and Bulgarian language were not successful in finding anything towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan (2013 film)

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

This article is about a minor, non-notable film. Even if it's assumed that ref 1, which I can't access, is SIGCOV, the rest are not. Ref 2 is a trivial mention in brackets, whereas ref 3 and 4 are further trivial, one being a non-SIGCOV interview and another being routine news coverage that violates WP:GNG's guidelines. Even if this website is reliable (which it's probably not), it violates that not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Ref 5 and 6 are obviously trivial; also, I should note the Medal of Honour is the English name of the film, not an award it won. WP:BEFORE search fails to find in-depth RS refs. Previous PROD by User:Donaldd23 removed by User:The Supermind. Sidenote: Given the probable lack of critical coverage, the article is almost purely a plot and cast summary, unfortunately. VickKiang 11:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing has changed since my original PROD. All sources are trivial and no in depth reviews found. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above source assessment seems correct, trivial mentions, long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I was able to access the first reference on JSTOR, and there are two sentences about the film on page 29 which uses it's plot as an example of heroic Ethiopian portrayals in film, and another brief mention on page 36 which is a sentence about where it was screened as a digital film. Even if we were to consider that significant coverage, it is the only reference with anything approaching significant coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2022 (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 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betiyaan Apni Yaa Paraaya Dhan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG, only references cite the show ending but nothing else. Was unable to find reviews but maybe I missed them or they might not be in English. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - available coverage does not meet WP:GNG, and the show's short run leaves little reason to assume that more substantial coverage exists. Input from Hindi-speaking editors who could do a more thorough source-search would be appreciated, but after 3 relists with no participation I think it's time to move on. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 18 September 2022 (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 Earl of Suffolk#Earls of Suffolk, fourth creation (1603). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Howard, 22nd Earl of Suffolk

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

Nobleman from Britain without a notability claim, fails WP:BIO. Nobles are not inherently notable, and this one does not qualify for WP:NPOL as he has never sat in the House of Lords. The sources found during my BEFORE were insufficient to establish notability: theeperage.com is unreliable per WP:RSP; the Daily Mail was deprecated; the Telegraph [23] and Wiltshire Live [24] only give passing mentions. Possible redirect target: Earl of Suffolk. Pilaz (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his peerage title, Earl of Suffolk#Earls of Suffolk, fourth creation (1603). This article consists mostly of genealogy, and the only source currently cited here is a deprecated one (thepeerage.com). If he later becomes the subject of more notable coverage in reliable sources, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect - I would agree with the argument put forward above by User:Metropolitan90. Not enough notability for an independent article, but someone who might be searched for so redirecting to the page on the peerage where he is mentioned seems a sensible way forward. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Earl of Suffolk: the article clearly does not comply with WP:N, there is nothing here except genealogy, so not much to merge, but the earldom is notable, and the present holder is part of that story. Also, individual earls do tend to attract the attention of independent sources as the years go by, even if not members of the House of Lords, where the non-Irish ones are still electors, so we might as well have some information about where they fit into the wider picture. Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Breeze

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

Can find no better sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drag queen with a similar name, nothing found for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's not a drag queen, she's the illustrator of 100+ children's books and an author as well. Easily satisfies WP:AUTHOR: Featured multiple times in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner (most in-depth is the 1992 article, "A champion for children"). One body of work is her This Little Baby series of board books for toddlers, which were reviewed in Entertainment Weekly and School Library Journal in the US, and in The Sunday Telegraph and Child Education (which listed it in its Best Books 1990 list) in the UK. Another body of work is her Pickle series of board books for babies, reviewed by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (in a widely syndicated article) and School Library Journal in the US. In addition, her collaboration with Tony Bradman on Our Baby was hailed by TES (Times Education Supplement) Magazine as a "lifeline" for parents who have toddlers and babies at the same time, in the article "And pigs might cry". Cielquiparle (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the citations provided by Cielquiparle Mujinga (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is one dissenting voice to "keep", but the fact that the subject lacks secondary source coverage is decisive here. There is a reasonable case that the subject ought to receive secondary source coverage due to its list of highly notable guests, and that the lack of secondary sourcing is due to the podcast being very new, but at this point in time the consensus is that it is too soon for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash 'n Treasure

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

Podcast doesn't seem to meet WP:NMEDIA - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NMEDIA does not refer to podcasts - these are covered under WP:WEB. I would posit that a new podcast developed during a global pandemic is going to take time to receive external, independent notice given the myriad podcasts created in the last few years and far less notice being given by the press to what is no longer a new medium. However, I would add that the notability of the guests alone should make this a more notable podcast for discussion.Wightbear — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the creator of this article, I ask that you please refer to WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TOOSOON. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Few mentions in Gizmodo Australia [25] and one on syfy, but it appears to be the same article. A few more sources would help, but I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Primary sources spam with no claim of importance. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the speedy, there's enough credible assertion with the number of notable guests its had to be enough for the lower CSD bar. Ged UK 08:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Tkachuk (footballer, born 2003)

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

Semi-pro footballer with 8 appearances in the Russian third tier and no claim to notability. No significant coverage demonstrated so looks to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG and would have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Google News had barely anything and DDG has nothing aside from Transfermarkt, his club's own website and some social media coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination. Thanks. Fifthapril (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Fails WP:GNG and haven’t found any significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Fats40boy11 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Gets Me Hot!

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. no significant, independent coverage. sources mention it in passing in context of Lord's pornographic career. articles consists merely of "plot detail" and information about legality of this and other films better situated in Lord.s main article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NFILM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial RS coverage found to support WP:NFILM. The film is little remarked beyond brief mentions associated with Traci Lord's porn career. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saimir Gjeçi

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

Article was created due to WP:NFOOTBALL (second tier of Albania is allegedly professional), which is no longer in use. I'm struggling to locate any significant coverage and so it looks to be a comprehensive WP:GNG failure. Searches in Google News, ProQuest and DDG all came back empty handed. Since all we have are databases, this fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:29, 18 September 2022 (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 Mount Sungay#Tagaytay Ridge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matang Tubig

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

Not sure if this unsourced article falls under WP:GEOLAND, but a WP:BEFORE search suggests it fails WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Mount_Sungay#Tagaytay_Ridge I can't find enough sources for a standalone article but there's enough material for a mention on the mountain where it belongs to. --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Sungay#Tagaytay Ridge, where the site is located. Not a notable tourist spot in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Sungay#Tagaytay Ridge. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment. I have no objection to Lenticel's suggestion above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:58, 24 September 2022 (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. Discussion on whether and if so, where, to merge can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origins (Judge Dredd story)

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

I redirected this based on the AfD result for another Dredd story. The redirect has been disputed, so here we are. Move for redirect or deletion based on notability having been challenged since 2020 and the aforementioned prior AfD result for "Tour of Duty." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tour of Duty" didn't have any coverage or reviews to qualify as notable. "Origins" has https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/judge-dredd-origins-a-comic-that-should-be-a-movie/?amp (and I will look for others later). Richard75 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines. Right now the article doesn't show notability (there is a weak suggestion of reception through quotes in lead, with the original source (SFX magazine #148) not linked or not digitized). We can't assume SFX magazine #148 has WP:SIGCOV, but it would be a good source to check. Richard75 found what seems like a decent source, however, so we are now halfway to being able to keep it (SIGCOV/GNG requires multiple sources, for me two will do, although WP:THREE is a higher standard some adhere to as well). Please ping me if additional sources are found, and I'll revise my vote, please also note that if this ends up as a redirect, it should be a soft one, with history preserved, not hard deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. The single ref from Den of Geek is RS on WP:VG/RS and seems to be WP:SIGCOV, despite editors agreeing in discussions that it's weakly reliable given no editorial policies... I don't know if the SFK magazine is SIGCOV, but as it only cites 1 page, I'm not really that confident. Even if so, there are two refs meeting WP:GNG, which is very, very borderline towards meeting the multiple requirement, I couldn't find more refs online. Sidenoting that the article's quality is pretty bad, as it's almost WP:ALLPLOT, sadly, but the two refs probably IMHO show there could be some selective merging and redirecting. Though, the new Guardian ref is fairly convincing, so this is probably borderline, but given the Dan of Geek ref being quite weak, IMHO I still would prefer merge. VickKiang 23:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unstated "Keep" in the comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews and mentions:
- https://amp.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/sep/12/week-in-geek-judge-dredd-sequel-should-adapt-origins
- https://bigcomicpage.com/2015/03/05/review-judge-dredd-the-mega-collection-book-4-origins/

Richard75 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow evaluation of the newly proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The found coverage can fullfill WP:WHYN, so this should be kept and improved rather than deleted. Daranios (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrankiTheBully

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

Non-notable dog/social media influencer, only unreliable sources are cited and nothing better is available from a search, meaning that this is a GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Internet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable and agree, not sourced by anything reliable. Probably should have been a CSD IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.weedle (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost an A7 since the only claim to significance is 1.4m followers on TikTok--less than 5% of the 50th most followed TikTok account (as of 14 August). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 05:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this and this are two interviews with the dog's owner, this is just quotes from the dog's owner which is barely one step removed from an interview (the same problem exists in that all of the content in the article comes from a non-independent source, the dog's owner, making anything useful in that article non-independent). There is zero independent coverage of this article's subject, thus failing WP:GNG. I don't believe there's a notability criteria specifically for animals but if things like WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE would apply within the context of the dog being used as a social media subject, the article's subject would fail those as well. The claim to fame is the number of followers which is a big number that doesn't mean anything as far as notability goes, especially when followers can and are routinely bought, making the number of followers ultimately meaningless as a metric of any kind. - Aoidh (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2022 (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. Delete, especially as two of the Keep votes have been struck out by the editors who originally made them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Youn

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

This physician does not appear to be particularly notable. Publishing journal articles is fairly common in the field. The books don't appear to have gained any significant reviews/sales to be notable. This looks to be potentially a vanity page or part of a PR campaign. MartinezMD (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one source is him "dishing on famous operations" and discussing the best instagram fillers, we know the article has problems. Trivial sources, almost appears promotional. Being Board certified is nothing spectacular, basically means he's licensed to practice medicine, I'd be worried if he wasn't. Rest of the sources are fluff pieces or have a connection to him. Might have a chance at ACADEMIC if his citation index is high enough, I suspect it isn't, based on the tone of the article and the other sources used, but I'll leave that to someone else who can confirm it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely not notable; possible undelcared paid editing in violation of wikpedia guidelines. --2600:6C50:797E:8271:3C43:F601:A34E:97FE (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - this editor has made no other edits outside of this AFD vote. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - subject has been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources. This piece here from Hour Detroit while partly an interview still contains significant independent coverage and contributes toward notability if not verification of controversial facts. There is a very significant piece here in the Seattle Times and another example of significant coverage here in the Detroit News. More significant coverage here. I believe this article covers a notable topic which has gained significant attention in multiple sources. This coverage is sustained, sourcing dates over a ten year period and is from reliable and independent sources. Hence, the article meets the general notability guideline and is eligible to be included as a stand alone article. The article content needs work, but I am not seeing any proof of paid editing or advertising. The article subject is incredibly popular online and has sustained, significant media attention. It is entirely plausible any issue with tone may come down to a fan creating the piece, but this does not warrant deletion. Editors with issue regarding tone should tag and/or improve the article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz as much as I stand by my submission from a technical spirit, I would support closing this as keep as it’s clear I’m a minority viewpoint here. Happy to concede. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep BostonMensa (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only case for notability appears to be through GNG, and the only coverage appears to be puff-piece churnalism interviews that I don't think are sufficiently reliable and independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and David Eppstein. Coverage appears to be promotional, and not independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When you take away the promotional materials, the couple of interviews and book review discussed above, there's not enough independent coverage there to meet WP:GNG, and I don't know which specialized notability guideline would apply. WP:ACADEMIC for the journals? Doesn't meet any of those criteria. Fails WP:ANYBIO as well. Coverage just isn't there to warrant an article. - Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, but in my view notability is borderline. My view on the sources that MaxnaCarta pointed out is that the first, third, and fourth might not be independent since the first one is mostly an interview, and second and fourth are similar. The third one's content doesn't appear to be independent of the subject either. I did find [26], but I'm not sure it's significant coverage. I do agree with most of MaxnaCarta's thoughts apart from the independence of the sources (and therefore whether they count towards the GNG too). However, I searched WP:TWL and found better quality sources, including [27] is useful, but doesn't count toward the GNG. ~~So does barely with the sigcov~~ [28], is useful but doesn't meet sigcov in my opinion. [29] falls just short of sigcov in my opinion (for completeness, here are others I looked at but determined that they didn't contribute toward the GNG: [30][31]). On balance, I believe that the sources are sufficient to write a policy-compliant article that provides a minimum of encyclopedic information and that the sources justify a pass of the GNG. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my reccomendation because my argument no longer holds, but I believe the rest of my comment still may be useful. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clark (director)

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

Article has hardly been edited over many years, and has been tagged for improvement for two years. There are only two references; one is dead, the other is only an award announcement. Fails WP:BIO due to not having received significant coverage in multiple published independent sources. While there is an exception for a person who has received an award or honour, the award in this case was given to the work (an episode of Doctor Who) and not to the person. Checking against WP:FILMMAKER also fails; 1, not widely cited; 2, nothing of significance cited; 3, handful of episodes, not a major role; 4, work does not appear to have attained required level of significance. H. Carver (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just nothing that based on the commonality of the name, a search is going to be very hard due to false positives. Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search under "Richard Clark Doctor Who director", "Richard Clark The Musketeers director" etc only brought up two sources that were not directory listings or Wikipedia mirrors, this which is extremely iffy but does have an editorial team, so it might be a reliable source, and this, which is just a Doctor Who fan podcast. As such, he fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning he fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO nor WP:FILMMAKER. Nassimela (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:FILMMAKER 4(c): "won significant critical attention." Besides the Ray Bradbury Award, he also won a 2012 Hugo Award for the same Dr. Who episode, which the article does not yet mention. I added the link to his talk page. These two major awards went to the director and writer, not the producers. The article is already marked as a stub. It just needs expansion. He has a lot more credits according to IMDb. 5Q5|^✉ 11:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person doesn't have to be notable in the current tense to pass WP:NOTE. Seems to be notable from 2 major awards.Mr.weedle (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe 5Q5's discovery of the Hugo Award pushes it into WP:FILMMAKER passing territory, as the Hugo Award is not a small thing, especially when you add it to the already mentioned Ray Bradbury Award, which again, is not an insignificant thing and those two combined certainly count as "significant critical attention". It is frustratingly difficult to find sources because of the common name; even adding director doesn't help, there's directors of pathology and humane societies galore on resources like Newspapers.com and even a Richard Clark, some sort of director of C. & J. Clark. Adding "Dr Who" to the end of his name just gives tons of results saying "Dr Richard Clark, who..." and it's very frustrating that I can't show notability by way of WP:GNG, but I think notability by way of WP:FILMMAKER is pretty evident. - Aoidh (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article needs work, and I will confess I am somewhat surprised at the level of coverage, particularly non-Doctor Who-related coverage, of him that can readily be found online. So I can see why people would have concerns about this article. However, he has directed episodes of several major TV series, and I think his directing the Bradbury and Hugo Award winning "The Doctor's Wife" is clear evidence of a notable contribution to popular culture. Dunarc (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugo is a MAJOR award; all winners are, by our own standards, notable. Thus, any remaining problems can be corrected through normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I feel very ambivalent about this closure as it's not clear that all participants are talking about the same location. But the consensus here is to Keep this article and improve it so that it is more clear where this town is located and there is a commitment from at least one editor to work on clarifying the confusion that seems to exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Growler, Arizona

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

Non notable railroad siding/depot mislabeled as a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see nothing here but a rail siding, the name of which got dumped into GNIS. No community. MB 04:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep literally hundreds of articles on this former mining camp/town from 1907 through the 1950s. And according to this article, the town at one point had several hundred residents. It's a slog going through a search on Newspapers.com due to a common term, "growlers", Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 That's a different (although possibly notable) location entirely. It's located within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; we're discussing a place in Yuma County. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the same place, the GNIS was simply wrong, if the article is kept I'll make the necessary changes. A lot of the older AZ places are confused in the GNIS system.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to correct the location information at the very least, so that folks know which place we're talking about? We don't need to get into a debate over it, but I would note that the coordinates in the article point to a siding labelled "Growler" on older topo maps and I did come across a few articles mentioning it as a spot on the Union Pacific between Phoenix and Yuma so it's fairly likely we're looking at two different places. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Pima County spot is the Growler Mine Area, an NRHP location which, as you can see, hasn't had an article written yet; see [32] for the submission. As soon as I get time, I'll try to write this spot up, but the rail location is just a rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Onel5969, I am finding lots of articles on newspapers.com, some of which are WP:SIGCOV. Certainly meets WP:GEOLAND, meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I distrust these hits given that the Pima County location appears to be more notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whilst there is a 'Growler' in Arizona that merits an article per WP:GEOLAND, the source that Onel found says that Growler, AZ, is 27 miles southwest of Ajo and the current subject is not notable per nom. There is no way that the article as written referrs to that since the location is clearly to its northwest and not its southwest; the NRHP thing Mangoe found supports the location of Growler to be there. I assume Dlthewave knows what they're talking about when they say that Growler existed as a railway stop on topo maps so it's not just that the GNIS got it wrong, but putting the place in Organ Pipe Nat'l monument in the article, replacing the current subject, would also be fine. Since Onel is willing to do the necessary changes, my concerns are assuaged. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. This AFD is confusing, as are other AFDs on GNIS locations where there are too confident declarations that a place "is merely a railroad siding", "no community", "I agree" etc. until that all turns out to be false, a high percentage of the time. No problem, just move on to the next AFD and say the same stuff. I just added NRHP infobox and NRHP reference, on understanding this is the "Growler Mine Area" that is listed on the National Register, and notable. The article currently states it is a populated place (currently), which is false though, because as far as i know it is a former community. WTF r u guys doing? --Doncram (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2022 (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!} 03:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Phiri

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without supplying evidence of any WP:SIRS on the subject. Please note that there is another former footballer with the same name that played in Zimbabwe during the 1970s which does appear to have multiple SIRS, but this article is about the one who played in Zambia and South Africa more recently (and for which only routine/trivial coverage exists online). Jogurney (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look around to find reliable sources and significant coverage, I can't find anything to meet WP:NOTE or WP:ATHLETE. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:29, 18 September 2022 (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!} 03:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Al Khouja

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without supplying evidence of any WP:SIRS on the subject. Jogurney (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look around to find reliable sources and significant coverage, I can't find anything to meet WP:NOTE or WP:ATHLETE. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In Arabic searches, I can only really find Wikipedia mirrors and Transfermarkt. No decent WP:RS coverage at all. There is no point in having a Wikipedia article on someone unless a substantial article can be built from available sources. It looks like we know almost nothing about this person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:29, 18 September 2022 (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 move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is, in its current state, not suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Salvadoran Primera División

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Too many unknowns. The Banner talk 16:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added further sources from RSSSF, La prensa Grafica and El grafico BKReruns (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @BKReruns:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. The article has barely any meaningful content and is not at all suitable for mainspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 19 September 2022 (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 Draftified.. Moving to Draft space like 1973 Salvadoran Primera División article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Salvadoran Primera División

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Too many unknowns. The Banner talk 16:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added to article including RSSF for the historic table, article about the death of a player during the seasons, and sources for Aguila the team winning the championship. BKReruns (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @BKReruns:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. The article has barely any meaningful content and is not at all suitable for mainspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 19 September 2022 (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!} 01:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baylisascaris shroederi

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

WP:TNT. This seems to be a hoax or breaching experiment. The creator's only Wikipedia contributions are the first two edits to this article. It is largely a copy of Baylisascaris procyonis with some words and numbers changed (but retaining sources that only mention B. procyonis).

For example: "In North America, B. procyonis infection rates in raccoons are very high, being found in around 70% of adult raccoons and 90% of juvenile raccoons."

"In central China, B. shroederi infection rates in giant pandas are very high, being found in around 95% of adult giant pandas and 90% of juvenile pandas."

I find it difficult to believe that stems from incompetence. It looks like the editor was actively trying to spread misinformation via Wikipedia.

There are two references (only cited in the lede), about Baylisascaris schroederi (correctly spelled with a 'c') as a parasite of giant pandas. This is a real parasite (if spelled properly) and a short article could be written with those sources. However, given the amount of misinformation in the initial edit, I don't think the article's history is worth preserving. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...nice catch (are you a roundworm man or how did you notice this?) The references are certainly all ghosted from the B. procyonis article. Given the misspelling of the name in the article title and the likely bad faith content, I guess this ought to be deleted, and a stub/article for B. schroederi can be created under the correct name.

NB, that taxon is annoyingly absent from any taxonomic database I checked, although clearly existant [33] -> ? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 18 September 2022 (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!} 01:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Automatic Transmission Fluid

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

Entirely unencyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Jay D. Easy (t) 01:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 01:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be an ad for Toyota fluid, but then runs down the various types in use long before Toyota sold cars in the US. Cut and paste that didn't work. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Very unencyclopedic, and more like a promotional writeup too. TH1980 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete There are some parts that could stand on their own, but not on a entire page. I say Merge unique parts to Automatic_transmission_fluid. As said most of the page is just a rehash of general ATF standards. ContentEditman (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2022 (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. Sandstein 07:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manal Cali

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, sources on the page are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed the sources for a DYKN around when it was released. While a well-written and good faith article - about the best that can be written on the subject - all of the coverage is passing mention as statistics, with the sole exception of a single comment she made in an interview. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia article on the Northants Basketball Club at all (there's Northamptonshire Titans B.C., but that's a men's club), so whatever league this was, it was very obscure. Google check doesn't seem to show anything turning up in the past two years to change this. SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Somalia women's national basketball team as alternative to deletion. The national women's team's debut at the Pan Arab Games has historic significance, and the target page would benefit from additional content from this one regarding the 2011 games and key players such as Manal Cali. For sure please cite the article from Die Zeit. Happy to help with merge if needed. If additional coverage is found, please ping me. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't establish notability, and I'm not seeing the need for a merge either, as the content of a biography isn't relevant to the broader team. If sources are available for the team, they can just be added to the team's article directly, rather than be added to another article for that in turn to be merged. Avilich (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but the reality is that once the article is deleted, we lose access to all the sources and work that was done previously, and time is wasted having to research the same territory all over again. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (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!} 01:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Andričević

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

Could only find database listings and his name in a list of players here Rusalkii (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look around to find reliable sources and significant coverage, I can't find anything to meet WP:NOTE or WP:ATHLETE. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:29, 18 September 2022 (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. Clear consensus that coverage in reliable sources is substantive enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Salerno

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steve Salerno

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

Lack of notability. Is this individual notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janers0217 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the article needs work, it would appear he has several publications and wide coverage. Seems like this is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). Mr.weedle (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE CONSIDER: I am the subject of this page, Steve Salerno. I had nothing to do with its creation. I normally wouldn’t butt in except that the circumstances are extraordinary and relevant. AFAIK this page has existed more or less in its current form, without complaint from editor or readers, since its inception. Until the past few weeks. That is when I became the subject of a campaign of targeted harassment and cancellation. This campaign accelerated over the past 24 hours in response to a tweet of mine. Threats have been made against me, people have tweeted plainly false and defamatory allegations TO THE FBI, of all places! (I have a 100% unblemished record.) On open Twitter, people encouraged vandalism of this page. Though I cannot make a case that would stand up in court, yet, I find it hard to believe that all of the sudden problems with this page are unrelated to that campaign of online harassment.

For the record, I am one of a handful of the nation’s foremost writers on the race and the “woke” phenomenon, and the listing of award and accolades here in this article barely scratches the surface. Since this page went up I have won major journalism award and been selected as “teacher of the year” at my current school, UNLV. I have another book coming out this fall.

I’m not suggesting that I deserve to be Wikipedia Man of the Year. I am asking only for fairness. I would hate to see a listing of which OTHERS thought me worthy deleted as part of cancel culture. I hope you take this into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:27:8700:C5B8:CBF4:8AC4:6295 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Indented) I'm sorry, that you've been targeted like that. Ovinus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the result of an attempt to vandalize your page or harass you. It is merely a question of whether or not you meet the standards set for notability. Janers0217 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mr. weedle. Too many self-published sources, which I've trimmed a bit, but some reliable reviews (or similar) of his book arguing against the efficacy of self-help are at [34], [35], [36]. If this AfD closes as keep/no consensus I'll clean up the article further with those sources. Ovinus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep numerous quality sources. If the individual is having problems outside of wiki, we can comment on them so long as they're sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If more quality sources were found, I might reconsider, but the article as it stands still reads like it has been put together by the subject and/or someone close to them. It is not impartial and does not show that their work meets the criteria of creating a well-known work or collective body of work. Janers0217 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. The only reliable sources I'm seeing are a book review in Publisher's Weekly and a paragraph in Scientific American, which don't amount to significant coverage. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ovinus; there are more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR #1 and #3. I am not counting the self-published articles here; this appears to be a classic case of "puffery by omission" i.e., extant neutral sources that demonstrate notability being omitted for promotional reasons. In other words, it is a cleanup issue, not a notability issue; AfD is not cleanup. A few more relevant sources: results (not all relevant but some); some more reviews by Publishers Weekly and Psychology Today. This took me all of 5 minutes to find so no doubt there is more. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above and has a major google footprint extending beyond works cited. Also a movie was made of his book which I am adding to page if that is ok Gricele ladera (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I think screwed up change I made about his movie, I came her mostly bc of waht hes going through on twitter but i think the movie reference is valid if you could correct format for me, so sorry i wont try again! 2600:8801:27:8700:2C06:5211:8003:EC27 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't his book and the subsequent about the murder of Price Daniel, Jr.? If that was the extent of his notability, wouldn’t a mention on Daniel’s page suffice? Janers0217 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the reviews, etc. that I have found seem to involve a book about the self-help movement, so that definitely isn't the extent of his notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent reliable coverage (i.e., not written by Steve himself) of this person that I could find anywhere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DEAR FOLKS, I am, again, the subject person, Steve Salerno. I didn't ask for this page to be created when it was, and I know that I have no vote here, but now that it exists, how can I allow it to become the object of a Twitter vendetta? People are saying provably ludicrous things. GOOGLE ME! Look at the references, the elite publications (the WSJ, Slate, Psychology Today), the podcasts, the top-shelf reviews of SHAM. I know it's considered gauche for the person himself to step forward, but I have the objective weight of evidence on my side. Please do not let this matter be decided by people with an ax to grind. I will not post again. Apologies but it's been hell. 2600:8801:27:8700:105B:E4FF:F4B:4A4F (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t being decided by people with an ax to grind. It’s not personal; many pages go through this process on this site. Janers0217 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is grinding an axe, we're here to discuss the reliability of sources and if there is enough substantial coverage of the subject to keep the entry. A person may have elements of their past they'd rather not see in wiki, but so long as it's sourced, we cover all views. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleaned up the article some but it needs more work to remove puffery. To answer nom's question, "Is this individual notable enough to have a Wikipedia page?" coverage does show notability. While the article still needs work, it includes wide coverage and reliable, independent sources, many of which are national publications, that clearly show the subject's notability. Meets WP:BASIC and passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks better after you and Ovinus worked on it. Janers0217 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a published author. Not only in books, but also essay articles. One of his published works, resulted in a film being made for TV. Bed of lies (1992). This page should be recognized for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srt1494 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just being published doesn't make someone notable. We are looking for reliable sources about the author and their work. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent high-level coverage of Salerno and his work:

CNN interview with Anderson Cooper (one of several): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj4Q80tNrrA

The Washinton Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2005/07/10/snake-oil/769998a2-9f8a-496b-b16c-b8df7f9b51a3/

Movie review for Bed of Lies, based on his other book: https://www.rewatchclassictv.com/products/bed-of-lies-abc-tvm-1-20-92

Article from major Texas newspaper about the writing of book and making of movie:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/75237241/fort-worth-star-telegram/

Coverage of SHAM in PW and Publishers Weekly:

https://www.randomhouse.com/crown/Sham/

American Psychiatric Assn: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08024-000 2600:8801:27:8700:F112:4E2E:3C8C:F156 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be Wall Street Journal and Pubishers Weekly. 2600:8801:27:8700:F112:4E2E:3C8C:F156 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, looks good to me but will assess properly before giving an opinion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ovinus identifies three good sources and the IP user above provided a few more, most notably a Washington Post review of his work. The article unambiguously meets notability guidelines, although it does need some cleanup. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of his books has at least received some positive reviews. Need cleanup rather than deletion. Atighot (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Service, Service and Veterans Party

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

Non-notable and extremely minor Australian political party that only contested one election, the only sources available from a search consist of the Party's registration with the AEC as well as a couple of database listings, meaning it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My initial thoughts were to keep, but on looking closely into this, I am struggling to find any significant coverage, if any on this party. WP:NONPROFIT and WP:CORP requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duality Technologies

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

Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. I tried paring down the article to neutral content but I don't think there's much left. [1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [10] are not "completely independent" of the subject. [2], [8], [9] are primary sources. [11] is written by a cofounder. [13] seems to be more about the open source software than this company. [12] is paywalled so I can't assess it.

Through Google News I found [37], which has a questionable tone; same with [38]. There's some stuff on "Duality Accelerator", which is unrelated. Couldn't find much else besides press releases. Ovinus (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. Ovinus (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, sources are scant. What's given here isn't much use, I can't find anything close to RS in a GSearch. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glassdoor reviews, a company blog, linkedin. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2022 (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.