Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 2

    Add links
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    < December 01 December 03 >

    Purge server cache

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

    The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Krasheninnikovy residential house[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Krasheninnikovy residential house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    The article has very few sources to establish notability (WP:NBUILDING) so I looked it up in English. There are very few results besides the Wikipedia page. I also checked the Russian Wikipedia page but it seems the English article is just a translation of the Russian article. A Russian google search also gives very few actual sources- livejournal and random newspages. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Shwe Ko[edit]

    Shwe Ko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    I can only find trivial coverage like Ghana Soccernet in online searches. I can't find any sources that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC while searching in Burmese script or otherwise. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for not satisfying WP:LISTN or other generally accepted criteria for keeping a list article. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy[edit]

    List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    WP:LISTCRUFT Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Keep. There are many other lists like it here Template:Video game lists by platform. I had originally modified that template to link to this newly-created list, but that got reverted which makes this list seem more isolated and short of context than it should. This list has more detail, especially per game, than some others on the template. And it's just started. Obviously there were many more games than this that Tandy released. There's room to grow. "Be Bold" in helping it to grow instead of joining a delete pile-on mob. Carney333 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Don’t attack other editors. Consensus based on policies and guidelines is not a “mob”, and Appeal to pity is not an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      OK, sorry.
      But look, lists exist. They're not inherently worthy of deletion. Wikipedia: Advantages of a List. Carney333 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete Listcruft, fails LISTN. This editor initially added redlinked lists to {{Video game lists by platform}} which I reverted as non-notable entries and unnecessary sub-divisions (This tiny platform, having 5-6 separate sublists?). Later they created this one, and when I noticed it was already here at AFD. Presumably they plan to create the rest, which I hope they don't so we can avoid AFDing each. We're also synthesizing multiple topics together. Why a list of both Color Computer 1 and 2? Why only those games from Tandy directly? -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      "Why a list of both Color Computer 1 & 2"?
      The two machines are nearly identical for most practical purposes. The key distinction in Color Computers is between the 1 & 2 on one hand, versus the 3 on the other. There are, to my knowledge, no games that are compatible only with the CoCo 2 that are not also compatible with the CoCo 1, providing a sufficient amount of RAM and/or Extended Color BASIC is present. By contrast, no RAM or operating system upgrade can make a CoCo1 or 2 able to run CoCo 3-only software.
      Why only those games from Tandy directly?
      It makes sense to have separate lists for Tandy and non-Tandy games for two reasons.
      1. A major identifier for all Tandy and Radio Shack products is the product's Radio Shack Catalog Number. A change in Cat. No. would signify sometimes subtle changes and updates in products with the same name. But a combined list of Tandy and non-Tandy games would result in large blanks and wasted space because the non-Tandy games would not have a Catalog Number.
      2. Unlike most other platform owners and providers, Tandy attempted to monopolize the CoCo software and hardware accessory market, refusing to sell non-Tandy products in its stores. A significant portion of Color Computer owners likely were never aware of non-Tandy sources of games and other software, because RadioShack stores would not sell them, nor sell magazines like The Rainbow (magazine) that reviewed and advertised those products. The divide between those who were and were not aware was a key fissure in the CoCo community. This distinction between Tandy and third-party products is therefore arguably at least a significant as the distinctions made in other platforms listed here, such as games that use various accessories, or were sold in different areas.
      Carney333 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I believe this explanation from the creator further illustrates the listcruft/NOTCATALOGUE issue. If we're doing this because of catalogue numbers literally. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Obviously I am not attempting to create a catalog. Please don't react in knee-jerk fashion to that word and mistakenly assume that it is relevant to the rule you mentioned. Carney333 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The thing to understand about the TRS-80 scene is that Catalog Numbers are routinely used in contexts other than catalog listings. Software and hardware discussions routinely cite them. So please don't react to the word "catalog" in this context as if this video game list is a "catalog". Carney333 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      As for the platform being "tiny" - it was significant. The platform was not the juggernaut that the Commodore 64 was, but no other platform was. Your perception of its size may be distorted by the small size of this initial list of Tandy games which is by no means comprehensive, reflecting only the very first catalog Radio Shack put out. The list was in infant form. Carney333 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - it's an unsourced list of a bunch of names with no context or content about them as there's no wiki-links or sourceable prose to describe them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      What do you mean "unsourced"? There are sources provided. Carney333 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Most video game lists here don't link to a source for or article about every game. See List of PlayStation minis for example. Carney333 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Carney333: See WP:WHATABOUTX, you are free to nominate the PS minis list for AfD if you have objections to its existence, but here is not the place to address them, as that page is that page and this page is this page. WeWorkGuest (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      instead of pouncing on an infant list to strangle it in its crib, and gatekeeping with jargon, how about actually doing something constructive and helping to improve the list. The Color Computer is notable, there are many lists of video games by platform which constitutes precedent to not just knee-jerk kill this one Carney333 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Most info on your list is not sourced, and what is sourced, likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source. All info is supposed to be sourced per WP:V, and pointing out violations at other articles doesn't help defend violations at your article. This is not a "knee jerk" reaction, just a very basic observations. I don't recommend anyone create articles on Wikipedia until they understand our basic guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just about every issue on Wikipedia can be argued on one hand or the other with Wikipedia's own endless rabbit-hole of often-contradictory principles. Thus, how about being reasonable, and taking into account extensive, long-standing de facto precedent? Carney333 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      "Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter." - WP:UCS
      Tandy Corporation was a major corporation. The TRS-80 platform was a notable one in the 1980s, in both the Color Computer and Model I lineages. Lists exist in Wikipedia and are not inherently deserving of deletion as such. Wikipedia: Advantages of a List A link to a Tandy publication documenting these titles arguably suffices to justify their inclusion in the list. To the extent that is not the case and this list needs to be improved with citations (as I have already done with the list of non-Tandy games), feel free to advocate for such citations, or add them yourself, rather than simply seeking to kill the entire article based on criteria not applied to many other longstanding similar ones. Carney333 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The problem here is that you don't seem open to even trying to understand how your list is different from other lists you keep referring to. Wikipedia is a great place. But if you're not willing to slow down and learn how the website works, you're just going to burn yourself out. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I understand the view that the two lists I made break new ground in separating first-party and third-party games. However, that's perhaps not as true as it might seem at first blush. Look again at Template:Video game lists by platform and you'll see that the Microsoft Windows section separates out games provided via the Games on Demand service and the Windows Live platform. The 3DS list separates out games provided via the Nintendo Network and the Virtual Console. And so forth
      Even if my separation of first and third party lists IS somehow new and groundbreaking I think I made a reasonable case for doing that that's just as valid as the case for various other list separations, such as those that focus only an a particular accessory or geographic location and compatibility level.
      Finally, even if the separation is unwarranted, surely a CoCo 1/2 games list is not in and of itself worthy of deletion. So how about this for a suggestion: are you oka with deleting both lists but replacing them with a single similar combined list of CoCo 1 and 2 games regardless of publisher? Carney333 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. CPORfan (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)Reply[reply]
      Scroll down the page and look at the links sourcing the games. Carney333 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE WeWorkGuest (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I invite you to look at this template and see the many game lists there, some of which have less information per game than this very early beginning list does. Some only just a list of names.
      Template:Video game lists by platform Carney333 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      You are very obviously Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I responded in substantive fashion to arguably uncivil comment ("a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk") by pointing out that there were indeed sources for the games. In response to that you accuse me of "bludgeoning"?
      To me that seems like
      • (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap") - Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility
      How about assuming good faith?
      Is there anything other than simply agreeing with your opinion that you'd accept? How about instead of two lists separated by first vs third party we just have one list of CoCo 1/2 games regardless of publisher? Is that a compromise that's acceptable to you? Carney333 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Weak keep, the page has been substantially updated and expanded since my initial RfD vote and comment above (roughly tripled/quadrupled in total byte size from what I recall when I last checked). A quick skim of the references section appears to include additional variety of authors. With that said, I haven’t dove into the sources themselves and reference-examining isn’t my forte, but would hope that at a minimum, others can examine them before pulling the plug on this page. WeWorkGuest (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @WeWorkGuest It appears to be the sourcing is there supporting that various games are clones of games from other platforms, rather than to satisfy all the rest of the details or meet WP:LISTN. The majority are sourced to a fan site. -- ferret (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Ferret: ok thanks for checking, how many of the sources are independent and reliable enough? (I’d assume that fan sites don’t count for such purposes, please confirm). WeWorkGuest (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @WeWorkGuest The bulk are to the same fan site I just removed: Special:Diff/1125819299. Definitely not reliable. Self published fan site. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Most of the rest appear to be ok from a publication view, but they are about individual games, rather than "Color Computer Games as a Set" -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Delete WP:NOTDATA, this is useless to the general reader. Dronebogus (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - no indication that this group of games has been discussed in significant detail as a group Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment A second AFD for the co-list is now open, as the advice and consensus of this AFD apparently was not heeded: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Color Computer 1 and 2 games from third parties. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If I recall correctly, both lists were started before any attempt was made to list either one for deletion. Carney333 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      You recall wrong. You started the second one after this AFD was well underway. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      OK I stand corrected. Anyway no final or binding decision had been made yet, had it? The question was still being discussed.
      In any case, on the overall issue, what do you think of in effect merging the lists, having a single page of CoCo 1/2 games regardless of whether they are first or third party? Is that a compromise that you could support? Carney333 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I support the aforementioned list-merging proposal (current page titles can simply be converted to section headers) WeWorkGuest (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep and update or Transwiki. The trash-80 was an important milestone platform 40 years ago, even if it didn't last, and this is a reasonable historical set of software to list... even if it doesn't necessarily fit on Wikipedia in this presentation. It would be a shame to delete this rather than finding an alternative format or platform in which to cover this. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Jclemens Actually is seems this is already at, at least partially or perhaps entirely?, at List of software for the TRS-80. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Sahari Bagha[edit]

    Sahari Bagha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    All sources are database sites. The reasons for deletion are the same as for Sitaramula Kalyanam Chuthamu Raarandi. No reliable sources/reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Malia Pyles[edit]

    Malia Pyles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Also does not pass WP:NACTOR. Could be WP:TOOSOON. AmirŞah 00:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    First few sources from Deadline and 1883 are what come up as the first few hits in Google, beyond that there isn't much to be found. Sourcing is ok, not the greatest. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep: This actress has been in multiple notable roles in the past and present (thus satisfying WP:NACTOR). I have linked news articles from well-known sources, including Teen Vogue, Cosmopolitan, and Marie Claire, that discuss her current and past work. She has appeared in numerous photoshoots, including one with Teen Vogue. The article is still very new, so any assistance in adding information on this actress would be most appreciated! User:Mjmatousek (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Edit) It is also worth noting that this actress already has Wikipedia articles in French and Russian, both of which were created in 2021. Mjmatousek (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The French article has very poor sourcing, that's not really helping the case here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting, would like to see more feedback from experienced editors.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Delete all sources and what turns up in a Gsearch are interviews. Mostly primary sourcing, with little written about her that isn't an interview. Likely TOOSOON, not quite at GNG yet. Her IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes profiles are basically empty, so there has been little to no critical notice of her. Oaktree b (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    SS Gifu Maru[edit]

    SS Gifu Maru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Non-notable ship. Its only claim to significance is that it was sunk by a U.S. submarine during WW2. The author added sources after I tagged it for notability, but none of them give significant coverage. The source where the photos came from only says "This ship is possibly Gifu Maru". There are no sources here that are reliable, independent, and give significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Goodday, I hope I'm doing this right as I'm basing this on the instructions that were left on my talk page. I indeed added more sources to my article because I believed that the problem relied on the low amount of sources I provided, but now I've been informed that they weren't up to par with the quality that wikipedia is looking for. So I wondered if there was any way the article could be saved from deletion. Would you perhaps have any suggestions for me? And in case the issue can't be solved, then I can not bring any objections to the page's deletion. No matter how sad that will be. Thank you in advance for the reply, and for leaving me a notice on my talk page about the page's situation. Have a good day. Indylover2010 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2022 (CET)

    • Keep - article has been expanded and give structure, which should be enough to overcome concerns raised when nominating for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I regrettably can't agree. You've added two citations to Lloyd's Register. While they verifiably show this ship existed, they do not make a difference as far as significant coverage is concerned. I do not see a GNG pass here still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Keep passes WP:GNG we have RS and it does not matter how many ships were sunk, if they are notable they get an article in the encyclopedia. The project is made better with the inclusion of this article. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Passes GNG how, exactly? None of the reliable, independent, secondary sources give significant coverage. Lloyd's register is a database and only gives barebones information, and cannot be considered significant coverage. laststandonzombieisland.com is SPS, and esssentially everything else is brief mentions of the sinking as a small part of Seawolf's career. DANFS gives all of seven words to the Gifu Maru. "The project is made better with the inclusion of this article" is your personal opinion, and not based in any sort of guideline or policy. This reeks of a drive-by vote with no attention to the actual state of sourcing in the article, which I checked thoroughly before nominating. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Novomatic. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Admiral (gambling)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Admiral (gambling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The previous AFD was affected by sockpuppets, so I think it is worth reconsidering this article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment. Admiral is a brand, not a company, so the correct standard to apply is WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Given that WP:NCORP states it applies to "organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services", I suggest it would apply to this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Notability arguments aside, this is more like a BLP where the LP probably really doesn't want to have a WP article. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Merge to Novomatic. Reviewing the company's history, they have used the Admiral brand from the very beginning, for a range of businesses in many countries, including slot machines, casinos & slot parlors, hotels, online gaming & betting. Seems to me that the story of Admiral the brand is entwined and inseparable from the story of Novomatic the company. Toohool (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Toohool: Thanks for the research. Makes sense now why they claim to have 1,500 Admiral outlets worldwide (including 60 casinos), in addition to the 233 adult gaming centres (AGCs) in the UK.
      Incidentally, Novomatic's "Admiral Casino" brand probably has nothing to do with the historic "Admiral Casino" in the US, which turns out to have a large volume of secondary coverage that could help with expanding a current Wikipedia article called SS Admiral (1907). So if the content is merged from Admiral (gambling) to Novomatic, I would propose:
      • Create hat notes to distinguish between Admiral, the gambling venues owned by Novomatic, versus the historical US casino operating on the SS Admiral, on the pages for Novomatic and SS Admiral (1907), respectively
      That said, I think we still need to discuss whether there is justification to reframe this content (focusing on the UK gambling operations), thereby making it officially about one of the UK subsidiaries (and thus squarely in WP:NCORP territory), and rename it to either:
      • Luxury Leisure
      • Luxury Leisure Talarius
      • Greentube Alderney
      One other side note is that I believe the page Admiral (gambling) was originally created with an emphasis on the online gambling site called AdmiralCasino.co.uk. A lot of that was based on media coverage that originated from company and partner press releases; it may have satisfied the notability guidelines at the time the article was created, but doesn't now. So IMO, it doesn't make sense to have an article dedicated to the online UK casino only. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Cielquiparle: In general, I think it makes sense for a subsidiary to be covered as a section of the parent company's article, and to be spun out only if there's so much noteworthy information to cover that it overshadows the rest of the article, or if there's a lot of info that's not directly relevant to the article (such as the history of the subsidiary before it was acquired).
    So in this case I would envision the Novomatic article as having a section about Greentube, which is Novomatic's online division, and includes the Admiral online casino in the UK, as well as online casinos under other brands and in different countries. And a section about their casinos/gaming centers, with a subsection about the UK, which would cover the brick-and-mortar Admiral gaming centers, including the history of the Luxury Leisure and Talurius acquisitions.
    These could be spun out as separate articles on Luxury Leisure and Greentube if the content warrants it in the future. (There's already Quicksilver (company), which can cover the history of Talurius.) But I doubt there would be that much content to add. A lot of the current content in the Admiral article is excessive detail that should really be trimmed, like the parts about applications for individual locations (though the effort to add sources to the article to establish notability is appreciated).
    As for the SS Admiral, I do think that Admiral Casino should be a redirect to Novomatic, and a hatnote could be warranted for President Casino Laclede's Landing (the article specifically about the boat's time as a casino). Toohool (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Merge to Novomatic as per the above logic. I also agree a redirect from Admiral Casino also makes sense. HighKing++ 12:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Merge to Novomatic makes sense per the helpful context from Toohool above. Please ping me if help is needed with the merge, as I think it's just a minor subset of information that needs to be merged. In searching for additional sources, the "strongest" sources for Luxury Leisure were the articles on the various controversies surrounding their planning applications, which is interesting, but isn't really sufficient on its own; we would still need additional coverage about the company itself to satisfy WP:NCORP. There actually was a lot more coverage than I expected about Greentube Alderney, but once you sort through all the press release-driven "stuff", there isn't that much left. I appreciate Edwardx's comment in the last AfD discussion that it seems important to preserve information about gambling companies, which are notoriously opaque, but I think we might be able to achieve that by (slightly) expanding the information about Admiral Casino UK on the page for Novomatic. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Adam Zhu[edit]

    Adam Zhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    No indication of established notability Amigao (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Telly Awards winners 2020". Telly Awards.
    2. ^ "Adam Zhu accepts an award at the 68th Los Angeles Area Emmys, July 23, 2016, at the Saban Media Center, North Hollywood, California". Television Academy.
    3. ^ "Telly Awards winners list 2018". Telly Awards.

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Comment The Telly Awards are also up for deletion, so we can't use them for notability here.
    Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Keep. He got a Emny Awards, that sounds notable enough and passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep While the number of reliable sources is small, the Emmy Award is quite a major achievement that makes this subject notable. WP:ANYBIO states "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", which in this case happened. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Draftify. And anticipating a move back to main space in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Dion Cooper[edit]

    Dion Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    There's not enough in-depth coverage to show that this person passes WP:GNG. As per WP:REALITYSINGER, this could be redirected if a suitable target appears. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Sorry but I can't follow your reaction. You seem to be unhappy with the references. The reason is unclear to me. Maybe write it in Dutch on my talk page? gidonb (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are lots of individual news events that a bunch of different sources write about at once, but for which we don't have an article about the topic. Because all those articles say basically the same thing; there is not much to write about. Like in this article, all the SIGCOV sources support just one sentence. So for this reason, per the first point of WP:WHYN, this topic should be merged into another article (in this case, all relevant info is already in Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022). There's also WP:BLP1E which explicitly states this about people notable for one event, although I'm not sure if it applies here. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact that the existing WP:SIGCOV references could be better put to use is no reason to delete the article. Only to fix it. So WP:WHYN #1 does not apply.
    If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to delete, and it isn't, then "other stuff does not exist" is no reason to delete either. Articles are kept on merits or deleted on lack of merits. This article has the merits of WP:SIGCOV.
    BLP1E does not apply at all, as Dion Cooper is known for multiple performances. For sure, the first big appearance (a popular talent show) did NOT (!) pull Dion over the WP:N line. Some folks then err to discount an event entirely to force BLP1E on a BLPBLP2E, as undue as it would be. One shouldn't. Everything counts and we weigh the totality of people's careers, as covered in WP:RS. gidonb (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What I mean is that those references could not be better put to use. They purely discuss the announcement.
    But you're right that it probably does not meet BLP1E as Cooper is not a low-profile individual, but he certainly does meet point 1 of BLP1E. Sure he's done multiple performances, but those are barely covered in independent reliable sources, so he is not notable for that. His sole reason for notability would be the announcement of his participation in Eurovision. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has become highly repetitive. It all has been refuted before. Do not put responses under someone's well established opinion, just for the sake arguing. It's your only "contribution" to the discussion here. The difference that we make is in the article space so repetitive and refuted arguments help neither of us at productivity. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What, where does that suddenly come from? You said that the references could be put to better use, I disagreed, so I replied. The reason I replied only to you is because you are the only one here who wanted to keep the article, and I have nothing to say really about what other people said, so I didn't reply to them. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It started incomprehensibly and now has become a yes-no argument. That's not the purpose of discussions. I often do not agree with someone entirely. It's not a reason to keep arguing under their opinion, without bringing anything new to the table. gidonb (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Back to my point. The amount and quality of coverage are sufficient for WP:GNG. Others want to draftify for a while, then move back to the article space. This takes up some resources but attaining more quality is by itself a worthy goal! The bottom-line will be the same. gidonb (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Draftify. Likely to be notable in the short term future, but not there yet. Grk1011 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Move to draft space. Not yet notable but this will likely change in the future as we approach Eurovision 2023. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Draftify. I'd say to move this to the drafts. It'll be notable soon; but it does need some work. Nascar9919 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think I have already made my opinion clear above, but I guess I'll state it again in bold then. Draftify/delete ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Sitaramula Kalyanam Chuthamu Raarandi[edit]

    Sitaramula Kalyanam Chuthamu Raarandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG. Reference 1 is a minor announcement on production details, only five sentences and nowhere near WP:SIGCOV. ref 2 is an announcement column, only with six sentences of coverage. Ref 3 is a non-SIGCOV image gallery, ref 4 is another single paragraph announcement, ref 5 is a routine press release stating that production started while listing cast and production details, ref 6 contains a synopsis (plot-only descriptions are non-SIGCOV) along with user ratings and minor non-SIGCOV videos. Ref 7 is also non-SIGCOV, being only two very short paragraphs routinely listing the cast along with a single sentence describing it was well-received by the audience (not critics) in a questionably WP:RS source with little editorial policies. Other refs are unreliable databases (Amazon, IMDB). Therefore, all of these refs are too short to be SIGCOV, and also fall under directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability, my WP:BEFORE search did not find more sources counting towards GNG, NFILM criteria are also failed. VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    List of Lamput episodes[edit]

    List of Lamput episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Poorly sourced and does not meet WP:NLIST. Any referenced content can be included in Lamput. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep There is general consensus for verifiable episode lists for most shows, even if the episodes are not independently notable. There are enough episodes to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Weak keep it's common practice to spin off a list of episodes once there are a few seasons so that the main article remains of reasonable length. All such articles are typically poorly referenced but it's not like it's controversial information either and WP:V is most concerned about material challenged or likely to be challenged. In the present case, though, the main article is fairly short, so merging back the list into Lamput is doable. My preference is to keep the standalone list. Pichpich (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    PlanetCrap[edit]

    PlanetCrap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    A message board/discussion forum which seems to be a non-notable website. Apparently a few developers posted on it before, and it had a decently sized userbase, but I can't really find any reputable sources that directly quoted them. Most of the results I find are defunct gossip sites, or mentions on Reddit/Twitter/etc. The overall tone of the article, the fact that no other Wikipedia page (except talk pages) links to it, the lack of any reliable sources (only 1 out of the 12 sources is considered reliable, Rock Paper Shotgun, and that article is only because of a joke that the interviewee made), and even the description of "it had always remained slightly less reputable than its peers" is also of concern. Xanarki (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MUD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    MUD client[edit]

    MUD client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Twice-challenged merge. I have no real opinion on the matter, but would like to see discussion (as the challenger also requested). Ovinus (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep. The "twice-challenged merge" is in the form of an edit-war where there is zero discussion on the talk page. I see no reason to delete an article on a demonstrably notable topic, and I see no reason to merge it without any discussion having taken place in the sight of involved editors. Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Might I mention that this is a replay of the "MUD trees" discussion wherein the nominator had no actual rationale for deletion? @Ovinus why have you nominated this article? Elizium23 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I nominated the article because it is arguable that the content belongs in MUD or elsewhere. I'm not sure why it's "obviously notable". In any case, it's better to have a wider discussion then, as you say, a slow edit war. Ovinus (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Considering the MUD trees AFD also resulted in Merge, this isn't the slam dunk argument you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep. I've observed a few users effectively delete MUD articles through merging, and doing so poorly, resulting in the removal of dozens of sources and orphaning of several articles in this last attempt. I oppose merging as the article is easy to expand with content that would fall outside of the scope of the MUD article, MUD clients are still actively developed, and the article contains sufficient sources to be notable and stand on itsoftware thats own. Peetrstahl (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Redirect to MUD#Gameplay, which already covers the concept. The sources in this article do not describe MUD clients as an independently notable concept from MUDs themselves, and there isn't any overabundance of coverage to warrant a summary style split from the main article. The refs are passing mentions of specific clients used to justify a comparison table, but when the primary sources are removed and what's left is reviewed, there is not nearly enough content to justify a standalone article. This was already explained in the article's edit summary history.
    Redirection is not deletion and redirection doesn't require discussion in advance, especially when it's uncontroversial. It's a valid (and preferred) alternative to deletion for in instance such as this when there isn't enough content for a dedicated article yet the term itself would be a useful redirect. Nothing is preventing you from merging anything you want to the main article or to a separate MUD-focused wiki. Nothing prevented you from starting a discussion about this topic in the last year. But if you don't have additional sources to add and discuss, then there is no discussion worth having. czar 06:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Remove WP:OR and merge/redirect to MUD per Czar. The tables, as far as I can tell, are completely original research or interpretation not directly found in sources. There appears to be some sourced history that would be good to merge. People have clearly spent a lot of time compiling this totally unsourced repository of information (which does not mean it should be kept as a result), so maybe there's a MUD wiki that would appreciate it. But it's not the appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, even if sourced, and I have a hard time believing there are reliable sources that would cover this either. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep but remove WP:OR and comparison tables As a coder/contributor to two MUD clients currently and in the past I will declare WP:COI. I note that in a prior attempt to clean up things a separate Comparison_of_MUD_clients article (where that links to now seems a bit weird!) was deleted in 2018 and merged into this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MUD_client&direction=next&oldid=833038034) which is the origin of all those tables. It is my opinion that whilst MUDs and MUD Servers can be covered together there would still be enough material in the resulting article to justify a separate one from MUD for Clients and for that matter from the Telnet one in its article's second meaning as "the software that implements the client part of the protocol". SlySven (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I already tried this last year. If you remove the tables, nothing of substance remains. It's simply a tangle of primary sources and passing mentions. czar 02:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just trying to work out how to see what the August 2022 of Linux_Format says about the client I code for. It is clear that it was included in that month's cover disc https://linuxformat.com/archives?issue=291 and from what I recall it would have a short article about it in there. SlySven (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yeah, someone showed me a image capture of the page 87 of that magazine and it has seven paragraphs talking about Mudlet which starts, and I quote the first paragraph:
      "You can't really call yourself a gaming connoisseur if you haven't played a multiplayer text-based game. Fondly referred to as a MUD, standing for multi-user dungeons, these games had elements of role-playing and interactive fiction, all delivered through a text-based interface." SlySven (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Merge to MUD Andre🚐 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Merge to MUD. I agree the tables are not appropriate for Wikipedia and once removed there is not much that warrants a separate article. I think the history section as seen in last year's version that Czarl links to above is worth keeping and improving. There is more content there than in the current MUD#Gameplay section (arguably that article should have separate sections for Clients and Gameplay). -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Prestone Lakolo[edit]

    Prestone Lakolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article about footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. All of the online coverage is trivial - things like match reports or a press release on being pre-selected or named to a national team squad. This was the best I could find - simply says he is one of a few "well known" names in the squad's midfield - and it is nowhere close to being WP:SIGCOV. Article is a re-creation of one that was previously deleted via PROD. Jogurney (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of notability. I get more hits for 'Herman Lakolo' than 'Preston Lakolo' but cannot find anything of significance. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comments I see plenty of hits for "Prestone Lakolo", however I don't see any interviews, reviews, I see squad inclusions and bits and pieces here and there in English and in French. This guy's article says he played 14 times for Congo, soccerway only says 7. So where are the extra games from? Soccerway also says he won the Ligue 1 eight times, the Caf Confederation Cup once. Surely there are better sources? Is anyone able to analyse other media from the country? I for one don't feel this article has been done justice. Govvy (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NFT says that he has 14 FIFA-recognised caps. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I'm sympathetic to the idea that Lakolo might be considered an important footballing figure in the Congo because he played for the domestic champions and has been part of the national team, I searched and found nothing that indicates his career has been covered in depth at all. We can't just presume that such sources exist unless you want to make a WP:IAR argument. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jogurney: It's a tough one really, from what I understand, the media-press in Congo isn't the best and finding sources, that could be really tough. I wouldn't be surprised if this was deleted. It be a shame really in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I too am finding a lot of hits - a surprising number - but nothing in depth. This is part of the problem of throwing clear standards like NFOOTBALL out the window, and instead applying criteria that are going to BIAS against English-speaking and European (mostly white) men. But as consensus was to ignore WP:BIAS issues, then that's where we go. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Steve Rassin[edit]

    Steve Rassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article about an actor that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Only source present is from IMBd which is very much not an WP:RS and is user-generated mostly. It's been unsourced since 2006. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Delete - no significant coverage found in Google or Newspapers.com. Notability not proved. Source is not credible. Rublamb (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete I find him listed as voice actor on sites ... that list voice actors, like this, but that's all. Lamona (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete. No sources, and no notability by web search. --Suitskvarts (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ZenFi Networks[edit]

    ZenFi Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Coverage is routine business news for this startup. Spam target. Created by a UPE. scope_creepTalk 19:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This is a UPE/WP:SPA who has made zero effective edits to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Editor is a WP:SPA who has made no other effective edits to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Editor has just stated he is an employee of ZenFi Networks. scope_creepTalk 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete: Industry press coverage describing the scope of a business acquisition is insufficient to demonstrate notability for either company. That said, in this case, the current BAI Communications article has an Australia focus and should probably be extended to cover their US acquisitions such as this one and Transit Wireless. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete Couldn't find valuable reliable sources in the article or on the internet in a quick search. And most of the sources read like press releases, which does not prove notability. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Amdoor[edit]

    Amdoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    No indication of importance as "historical" village, references do not support claims. Kazamzam (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • probable keep One problem is that the coordinates in the article had the latitude and longitude swapped. Using the correct coordinates, there is a village at this location which appears to be named Amdoor. We have typically kept such villages if they can be documented at all; the "references", however, are completely useless as they stand. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I get that but those references are useless and if it’s a “historical” village and no one is actually living there… what’s gained in keeping it? The creator has been on a tear of this type of (disruptive) editing with few or no sources and I don’t think it should be tacitly endorsed by keeping junk articles like this one. A lot have already been reverted and the fact that this is an article creation for a place that might maybe kinda exist doesn’t carry much weight. Also I believe they also started an Amdoor draft (am on mobile, will link it later) so now it’s double dead weight. There’s a balance between inclusionist and deletionist but I think this is definitely the later unless major changes are had. Kazamzam (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, we have generally kept towns and villages that aren't there anymore, but in this case I think they meant "historic" because there's is a village there, and indications are that it's called "Amdoor". The issue here seems to be references and verification. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sigh. Most likely you are right. My crusade will struggle along. Kazamzam (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the draft of Amdoor that the editor has created which is pretty much an exact copy of the article as it stands. @Hey man im josh has already draftified another of their articles and I think this fits the bill as well. We can close the AfD if there is consensus to move it to draft space which I think might be more encouraging for the editor as they are clearly keen to keep working on this and other topics. Kazamzam (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Draftify, I think, could be a good option for the article and other ones like this. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Chosen (TV series)#Season 2 (2021). czar 17:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The Chosen (season 2)[edit]

    The Chosen (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Most of this article is simply repeated information and re-appropriated content from the main article (The Chosen (TV series)) and would not qualify for a split per MOS:TVSPLIT, and splitting never went through discussion. Further, copied content was not properly attributed per WP:COPYWITHIN as is required ([1] compared with [2]). Unlike the Season 1 article (also proposed AfD), this was not repaired and it points out the fact that the article as it stands is simply redundant. There is not enough content for this to justify an article separate from the already existing main article. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • De-merge and trim the plot summaries from the main series article and leave them here. Season 3's first episodes have been released, and if this information is to be maintained, per-season articles need to be done sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Also, MOS arguments are never valid in a deletion discussion: MOS documents how we typically present things, so if you want to reference it in a merge discussion, great, but AfD suggests that articles be deleted so an argument based on how information should be presented is a de facto admission that the content is encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      NOTE: The MOS point is not a stylistic one. It happens to be where the TV Project documents its guideline on when individual season articles are warranted, and how the project approaches individual seasons. We don't make season articles for notable shows just because a season exists; we make them because an individual season without the episode table has enough notability as a season to stand on its own apart from the show article, which is both WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT per WP:BEFORE. Most shows do not warrant an article for each individual season as the information already exists in the show article (as it does here). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Redirect to season 1's heading in the main article. I agree that the article doesn't warrant its own separate page from the main series, but I don't agree that this should be deleted outright as it could be a useful redirect. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Delete and Redirect article to the main page to seasons 2 heading. I think it’s pretty clear it should be nominated for deletion. The articles don’t meet any criteria to the MOS, as of now approval for a separate article is no. Wolfquack (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Chosen (TV series)#Season 1 (2019). czar 17:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The Chosen (season 1)[edit]

    The Chosen (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Most of this article is simply repeated information and copied content from the main article (The Chosen (TV series)). It would not qualify for a split per MOS:TVSPLIT, and splitting never went through discussion. Copied content was not properly attributed per WP:COPYWITHIN as is required ([3] compared with [4]). The attribution issue was repaired ([5]), although the editor reverted the copied content comment during the AfC process ([6]), emphasizing the fact that the article as it stands is simply redundant. There is not enough content for this to justify an article separate from the already existing main article. It is marginally only "C" class (more likely "Start" class) and is unlikely to progress beyond that. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • De-merge and trim the plot summaries from the main series article and leave them here. Season 3's first episodes have been released, and if this information is to be maintained, per-season articles need to be done sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Redirect to season 1's heading in the main article. I agree that the article doesn't warrant its own separate page from the main series, but I don't agree that this should be deleted outright as it could be a useful redirect. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comment: To be clear, the MOS point is not a stylistic one. It happens to be where the TV Project documents its guideline on when individual season articles are warranted, and how the project approaches individual seasons. We don't make season articles for notable shows just because a season exists; we make them because an individual season without the episode table has enough notability as a season to stand on its own apart from the show article. Most shows do not warrant an article for each individual season as the information already exists in the show article (as it does here, verbatim). Per the guideline from the project: There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content. This should not have been split from the original article. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete and Redirect to main page like Paper Luigi suggests above, as this appears to be the most rational choice. Not trashing on Jclemens but de-merging doesn’t look like a resolution IMO. Wolfquack (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn: Article has been improved and more sources has been added since nomination. (non-admin closure) Jamiebuba (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Ross Newton[edit]

    Ross Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article about an actor that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Only source present is from IMBd which is very much not WP:RS and is user-generated mostly. It's been unsourced since 2006. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Evan Evans Brewery[edit]

    Evan Evans Brewery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    This is a newish brewery in Wales. The only notable coverage is winner of 2013 "best organic beer". The awards were the notable "International Brewing Industry Award" but brewers pay to enter, and in 2013 it appears only this company paid to enter in the organic beer category, so is that really notable? No secondary treatment of it that I could find (although it gets mentioned as a going concern in some brewery guides). There is more press coverage of the founder than of the brewery, and even that is scant. Page apparently created by a now blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Delete A small private brewery, which makes this effectivly a brochure advertisement. Coverage is all generatef from the company. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 12:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete One of four sources is a court report about the former owner, one is companycheck, which just proves the company exists, one is routine business coverage, one is the announcement of an award they won with apparently zero competition. Not finding anything in google. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northern Tasmanian Football Association (formed 1996). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Meander Valley Suns[edit]

    Meander Valley Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    AFD as PROD is contested. The team is not notable enough, it didn't pass WP:NSPORTS. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Paula Grant-Berry[edit]

    Paula Grant-Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    I do not think being a member of the memorial's drafting committee is a claim to notability and her other roles are of an active businesswoman, nothing to indicate biographic notability unfortunately. Star Mississippi 14:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Abby Francis[edit]

    Abby Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article about an actress that doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Only source present is from IMBd which is very much not WP:RS and is user-generated mostly. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    List of retroactive continuities[edit]

    List of retroactive continuities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Lots of reasons, primarily that the article has no inline citations (I know the source could be deemed to be the works themselves, but that a piece of work is externally inconsistent with other works in the series surely needs backing up) Also it's mostly a collection of trivia, a short list of notable retcons in the retcon article is more than sufficient. JeffUK (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - This is currently just an example farm (an extremely poor one, at that, since there are many examples that are not, in fact, retcons), that borders on just being pure WP:TRIVIA. There are no reliable sources included that establish why any of this particular grouping are actually notable examples of the phenomenon, which is pretty much essential for a topic on such a common literary device. On top of that, a separate "List of examples" spinout is really not needed in this case, because the actual Retroactive continuity article is already largely just a list of examples. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - per Rorshacma. Even notability and sourcing issues aside, as mentioned above, most of the parent article itself consists of a (bloated and generally poor or unsourced) list of examples, so it could also be seen as an unnecessary split. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete, indiscriminate list. Even fully sourced (which it currently is not, and many of the sources are of dubious reliability), this list has no possible inclusion criteria that would separate the so-called "notable" retcons from the potentially infinite space of inconsequential continuity errors that nerds love to catalog. The fact of the matter is that fiction is not science and fictional worlds do not obey fundamental laws of the (real) universe that impose logical consistency. Writers are human and make human mistakes, or simply change their minds about how something works in a sequel! We do not actually need a list to catalog every time a writer has made a mistake or changed their mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete This is way too broad per WP:SALAT (anything even approaching exhaustive would be terribly WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and the issues that have been raised about sourcing/WP:OR are also pretty serious. Put simply, this topic does not lend itself to a list article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. CPORfan (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)Reply[reply]
    • Delete this list is WP:IINFO and WP:OR. The right way to cover this is at retroactive continuity in prose. Jontesta (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Weak delete or (preferred) merge/redirect to Retroactive continuity. I mean, the list fails LISTN and WP:IPC BUT the main article is very poor and mostly unreferenced, while the list here does have references. Perhaps a few sources from here would be of use in the main article. I'd strongly suggest softdeletion by redirecting at least rather than hard, and leaving a note about possible sources on the Talk:Retroactive continuity. Maybe one day someone will want to dig through both of these messes and see if something is of use; the concept of "Retroactive continuity" is of course notable, it's just that our execution is terrible (and argument could be made for WP:TNTing the main article too but, sigh, there are few usable sentneces here and there, maybe a few sources too...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and probably WP:JUSTPLOT. Also it seems to attract a lot of poorly sourced and useless additions plus confusion over what a retcon actually is. "You don't really know the darkness until you become the the dark ness" (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was convert to disambiguation page. czar 17:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Barkada[edit]

    Barkada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Violates WP:DICDEF, sources are two dictionaries. (Note: I PRODed the article, which was endorsed by User:Onel5969 but declined by User:Explicit due to a previous PROD. Explicit, thanks again for your suggestion and apologies for my mistake.) VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    * a song in the album Gulong Itlog Gulong

    * an album by the American hip hop band Blue Scholars

    * a 1958 film by the Filipino film studio, LVN Pictures

    See also: wiktionary entry --Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    United States of Central Asia[edit]

    United States of Central Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    "United States of Central Asia" seems to be a concept invented by the article creator to write about various efforts and events wrt to the former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, and cooperation between them. While such an article may be interesting, it shouldn't be written from a POV of a non-existent "united states" moniker. E.g. the lead, "United States of Central Asia was the part of Central Asia administered by the Soviet Union between 1918 and 1991, when the Central Asian republics declared independence." gives the impression that this is something real, either during the Soviet Union or afterwards, which is clearly false. I'm not sure whether it is best deleted as a POV WP:COATRACK, or instead retitled and rewritten, but it can't stay as it is. Fram (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    William Martens[edit]

    William Martens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Multiple issues for a BLP with very little notability and almost no citations Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 09:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and Computing. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 09:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete I'm not finding anything about him in the usual sources. I do run into some mentions of him and the A.P.P.L.E group, but not substantial and not in reliable sources. It would also be good if the A.P.P.L.E article would have additional sources. We do tend to lose this early computer history. Lamona (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Metropolitan School Of Business Management[edit]

    Metropolitan School Of Business Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    After receiving a spam email offering me a four day "Special Executive MBA" I was very surprised to find a Wikipedia article on this "school". Article was created by a blocked sock abusing user and the prod tag was removed by another blocked sock-puppeteer. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG. Only sources are primary sources or PR puff pieces. Amazed it's lasted this long. Glen (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[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! 06:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Delete - in addition to very dubious claims to notability on the page which do not appear to be backed up by any RS I can find, there also seems to be significant areas of misinformation. Specifically the claim that the qualifications are awarded by the OTHM does not seem to be based on anything as the subject is not in the database of centres and the link to the NCC is broken 1. I can't see any evidence for the claim that their qualifications lead to degrees or masters qualifications from top UK universities. The address on the WP page appears to be a service office 1 which might be understandable if they weren't claiming to be an educational establishment. I just checked the UK gov site and they are not listed as being able to award degrees and in another database is not listed as being a sponsoring body, so cannot recruit foreign students and support their visa applications. I therefore think that their website is at best misleading and having a WP page may well be giving them unwarranted credibility where that is not deserved. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Nintendo Pictures[edit]

    Nintendo Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Another long time resident of the NPP queue. Several reviewers have judged the topic to be non notable and redirected it, but other editors revert these changes and suggests AfD as a resolution, so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Dina Ellis Rochkind[edit]

    Dina Ellis Rochkind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article on financial lobbyist with a promotional tone. Nearly all the references are either from her employer's website, trade publications or hiring blurbs from the financial industry, or wire articles on cryptocurrency where interview quotes from her are used briefly. I did searches of reliable, independent sources and found no coverage of her. William Graham talk 04:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    St. Paul's Church, Koodal[edit]

    St. Paul's Church, Koodal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    The article fails GNG and CONG. I did some research and the only thing I could find is this and this which shows that it is a real place but no indication that its notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Enfants & Developpement[edit]

    Enfants & Developpement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Unreferenced for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Kimball, Arizona[edit]

    Kimball, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Way too common a name to make for effective searching, but it appears to be just a farm, possibly at some point a 4th class post office. Doesn't seem to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Water to Thrive[edit]

    Water to Thrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Article relies mostly on primary sources. No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Sanjay Bhattacharya[edit]

    Sanjay Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. I could not find significant coverage, there is more coverage for an artist of the same name. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Delete agree with above, sources are all passing mentions of a gov't functionary, nothing at length about the individual. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by a user in violation of a previous block, and the article has no substantial edits by others. Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Paran Murmu[edit]

    Paran Murmu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Paran Murmu

    This article has no secondary sources and no mention of significant coverage. It also has no footnotes to support verifiability of a biography of a living person. It does not contain enough information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Borsari's Corner, Melbourne[edit]

    Borsari's Corner, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG via WP:GEOROAD - no evidence of fulfilling "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". Only sources found in WP:BEFORE include a website promoting Melbourne, a Facebook group, and a blog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Keep. According to this record from the University of South Australia, it has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Melbourne (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521842344) but its not viewable on google. There is this page also from the University of Melbourne. This lengthy page is from what is described as a "what's on blog" but is on the official Melbourne government site so can probably be accepted as reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. There is also this, and finally, it has a poem written about it in a published anthology. SpinningSpark 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Off Menu with Ed Gamble and James Acaster. For editors who discussed WP:NLIST, opinion is that this list doesn't meet those guidelines. I have chosen to change this article into a redirect rather than deleting the article in case there is an RFC that provides guidance on whether or not the project should have lists of podcast episodes. I hope that an RFC asking this question is initiated by interested editors so that the guidelines are clearer.

    Please do not revert this redirection. If this becomes a problem, I anticipate a future, 2nd AFD where the decision is deletion. Focus on the RFC instead. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply