Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The "keep" !voters have presented a reasonable (if borderline WP:IAR) argument that having some mention of the primary auto-related meaning of "downshift" at the Downshift article will benefit readers more than having it redirect to the lifestyle article, as a literal application of disambiguation guidelines would require. Thus I have given roughly equal weight per !vote to both sides, and so the numerical majority holds. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downshift[edit]

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

This was recently created as the outcome of this RFD, however this is not a valid dab page. The first entry is a WP:DICDEF and the linked article doesn't say more than the dab page. The link in the second entry does not mention these fiction characters at all, so it doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION. That leave just Downshifting (lifestyle) which should move to Downshifting, with this title redirecting there. MB 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, you could have just asked for the RfD to be reopened instead of revisiting the same issue in a new AfD? – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with everyone else in the recently closed RfD that this term is better disambiguated. The dab page has at least two valid entries. One of them is Downshifting (lifestyle) (whose title is the result of a 2017 RM). The second one is for the shift of transmission into a lower gear. This is valid as well: it is significant enough for participants in the linked RM to believe it to have been the primary topic. But regardless, Wikipedia is expected to provide definitions of common technical terms (that's the whole purpose of a big corner of the encyclopedia!). The fact that this definition will be short does in no way mean that we should stop providing navigation for this term. Also, I don't see a primary topic here, at least with respect to usage: Downshift and Downshifting used to redirect to Manual transmission: in October they were visited 123 times, and in this period, the hatnote link to the lifestyle article was followed 62 times). I'm less certain about the third dab entry. There used to be a separate article about it at Downshift (Transformers), but it got redirect to an article that itself eventually got redirected to Transformers: Energon, which has a mention (and nothing more than a mention) of this character. – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure why I was notified of this on my talkpage but not AjaxSmack who wrote most of it (and I have now notified on talk page). Courtesy ping to Sable232 who also partook in the RfD discussion, and TartarTorte who closed it. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I supported the proposed disambiguation page since it was better than the status qua (significantly so) due to the lack of discussion about downshifting at the old redirect target. But reading what the nom has said, I tend to agree. Even with the recent addition, this article consists of a dictionary definition with a link to an article that uses the term just once and is in no way describing what it is, a character who has a redirect that should be deleted, and isn't even mentioned at the suggested article, and a term which might as well move back to the parent, non-disambugated title. And then in the see also we have a redirect to an article where that term isn't mentioned. This page is certainly of highly questionable utility for aiding searches (which is what disambiguation pages are meant to be for). A7V2 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't really love how the page isn't completely within the rules of a DAB, but I think there still is the issue of someone wanting to find information about downshifting that isn't related to the lifestyle if this is deleted and Downshifting (lifestyle) were moved here. It might be best to change the entry from propulsion transmission to engine braking as that is more conceptually related to downshifting, but there still isn't a ton of information about it here. Fundamentally the issue seems to be that the concept of downshifting with relation to cars is one that probably fits somewhere in an encyclopedia, but is not included in wikipedia in a way that can be appropriately dabified. This is a bit of a WP:IAR argument, but it just seems like the way to direct people best where they want to go. TartarTorte 14:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It doesn't fit the norm of a dab page, but it seems the most helpful solution for a reader searching the term. According to the article that existed at this title years ago for the Transformers characters, two come from the comic book series and one from a cartoon as a minor character, so there doesn't seem to be a single good place to link that entry to. --Sable232 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I don't see anything in the dab guidelines precluding this dab page. MOS:DABMENTION was quoted above, but it only rules out the fictional character, not the other two entries. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first entry fails MOS:DABMENTION as well. There is no article on Downshifting, and the linked article does not discuss it either. That article is about transmissions, and it assumes the reader already knows what (up)shifting and downshifting mean. There are several other articles that mention downshifting in the same way Double clutching (technique), Direct-shift gearbox, Heel-and-toe shifting, Motorcycle transmission, Engine braking, but none that provide real explanation. Linking to any of these is no better or worse. Note that shifting does not get you anywhere that talks about operating a transmission; there is no reason why downshifting must. MB 03:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target article may (or may not) need to explicitly define (rather than just use) that term, but the dab page entry itself provides that definition and the article provides enough context for readers to learn about the mechanics of it. MOS:DABMENTION says If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. I reckon that the main reason we disagree here is because you see this entry as not providing value to the reader, and I'd venture to guess that's because you assume that it represents an everyday meaning of the word that readers will all be familiar with. – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is also frequency downshifting which is a notable topic but we don't have an article on it yet ... SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sympathetic to the points made by the nominator, however, this page wasn't created by some random contributor. Its existence is due to the outcome of another process which was closed as disambiguate and that's a !vote which is neither counted nor refuted sufficiently in this process. That there is an opportunity to add Frequency downshifting in the future gives this da page more ground upon which to stand in the future. It is entirely possible somebody will write a downshift article as well. Wikipedia has only had twenty years to cover most subjects. BusterD (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirine Khoury-Haq[edit]

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

Doesn’t meet notability guidelines GusChago (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GusChago (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to provide more than a drive-by rationale. Article subject is CEO of a major UK company, employing over over 65,000 people, and with good coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lebanon, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear notability claim as the first female CEO in the 159-year history of The Co-operative, and one of only a handful of women CEOs of FTSE 100 and equivalent firms in the United Kingdom. We do need to exercise care in evaluating sources, given that (like many big-company CEOs) she gives a lot of interviews, but the December 2022 article in The Grocer presents several paragraphs of background on Khoury-Haq plus some hard-hitting observations about her business decisions (in addition to quoting her directly and indirectly, which we have to discount); the Financial Times article in August 2022 when she was confirmed as permanent CEO offers a couple more facts about Khoury-Haq compared to what was in the Co-op's own press release, suggesting that they did a bit of their own research; and while the Mirror generally needs to be treated with scepticism, the March 2022 article actually offers some factual information and details about her which isn't noted elsewhere (in addition to the interview part about racism she and her family have experienced). There is also the rather impressive November 2022 article in The Sunday Times, but in terms of actual information included about Khoury-Haq herself, it's not that much beyond confirming she's the first female Co-op CEO since 1863, and the personal story about cutting back on her daughters' Christmas presents this year. (The Evening Standard article is a straight Q&A interview, so it definitely doesn't count.) At the moment we still have to stitch together the pieces in order to make the case for notability in the Wikipedia sense, but at the very least, it satisfies WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Elliott (film editor)[edit]

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

Sourcing is almost entirely based on websites that just list his credits; any more in-depth articles focus on a band he was in, which doesn't confer notability to him. Worth noting that the main author, 1sjjmhbt0 (talk · contribs), is an apparent SPA; given that the subject's website prominently promotes his Wikipedia article, a COI wouldn't shock me (1sjjmhbt0, I hope I'm wrong; your feedback on this would be much appreciated). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked File:Hugh Elliott2.jpg, and the author says "Hugh Elliott" but links to 1sjjmhbt0. Seems like a pretty clear COI to me; 1sjjmhbt0 (Hugh), if you cannot explain this behavior, WP:COIN would be the next step. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging - def needs updating. I built this way back and haven't given a close look since, but it has apparently stood the test of time (11 yrs?). Inspired by what I viewed as valid notoriety deserving of a wiki. "The band" created music that helped advance jazz. Publications like Boston Globe and Jazz Times don't review just any CD - they not only reviewed but applauded. Also, reaching #1 on the college music charts is highly significant. Some of these ref links directly cite Hugh Elliott, but need to be updated - they have since changed, modernized to require logins, etc. This seems the primary issue. Ref 1 is the actual Emmy Nomination release, which can be reffed on Emmy's official site. The nom is additionally corroborated by IMDB, data one is not able to self-submit; cannot fake. This seems to validate edit/production accomplishment(s), Deadliest Catch and Discovery. Which then, it seems, further validates full body of IMDB page/credits. To avoid rights issues, the pic is self-owned; safe from rights violations. In that personal site links to wiki... not seeing how this justifies concern. Again, will work to update cited refs asap. Further advice welcome. 76.86.24.62 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for additional advice, I would suggest WP:N for a discussion of notability requirements (including what significant coverage means) and WP:IMDB for why IMDb is discouraged. Also, if you are Hugh or are related to Hugh personally, I strongly urge you to read through WP:COI (especially WP:DISCLOSE and WP:SELFPROMOTE) before making edits. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, Hugh here. I recommend you go ahead and blast it - do what's best for wiki. In my world there's just not the time or resources to place care on this right now. Thanks for working hard to keep wiki clean.

Hugh 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—agree with nominator that there appear to be no readily available web articles or newspaper articles which focus on Elliott as their topic. Even the Bio page for Elliott on the Jazz Punks site contains no information, though if there was info we wouldn't want it as its too closely related to the subject. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laser star model of quasars[edit]

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

A very WP:FRINGE topic of minor historical interest at best; basically nobody other than Varshni ever published on this (in the 70s and 80s), and it's been quite reasonably ignored by the rest of the field. The article has no good secondary sources (they're all dead links), only papers by Varshni. It was originally created by a now banned user (User:Plautus satire) who pushed a lot of pseudoscience before getting banned for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. Parejkoj (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—maybe include the theory as a 'failed' or 'contraindicated' historical theory in Quasar in the "Modern observations (1970s onward)" section (could rename the section to "1970s onward")? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too fringe and irrelevant even for a mention at quasar. Maybe Y. P. Varshni can mention it. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete discredited theory that never received wide interest. As far as I can tell by searching on NASA ADS, the only astronomers who ever wrote about it were Varshni, S.Banerji and G.C. Bhar, in six papers published in the late 70s to early 80s. Most of the external links are to Varshni's own websites. Fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:FRINGE topic not shared by others. NMasiha (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a fringe topic, and not a notable one by any standard. Aldebarium (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pretty obscure topic and hypothesis. I checked the talk page and a comment from a professor there just pushed the reasoning that they know Y.P. Varshni and is well-respected. Absolutely no problems if he is such one, but theories should stand by reason and adherence to facts, not just on the persona of who proposed it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons above. Oh, SkyFlubbler, can I talk to you on Discord? I REALLY need to vent some things about the list of largest galaxies, especially about one particularly infamous, somewhat large and controversial galaxy... The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rare Earths Elements and Strategic Metals[edit]

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

Small company with no notability, almost completely written with sources from the company itself and in advertising style. Google almost doesn't know the company with exactly 15 (!) hits for the original German name [1] and 19 für the English [2], some of which come from Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Some of the (few) independent sources used to write the article don't even mention the company (e.g. [3] and therefore the article basically just presents the views of the company itself, while the role of one rare independent example (a short study for the German Bundestag) is not only presented twice, but also grossly exaggerated. (It only uses the company to explain some rather trivial information which could also have been found in the Wikipedia). Please also note that there is the possibility for paid contend, as the company declared: "Companies are included in the world's largest encyclopedia if they either generate more than 100 million euros in annual sales or if they simply deserve to be mentioned. We are therefore very pleased to be included in this group. In the following months, the entry in Wikipedia, which is currently only available in German, will also be translated into other languages. Furthermore, additional categories and links to the individual rare earths, base metals and secondary metals are created." [4] That's exactly what happened in the German Wikipedia, where about 25 paragraphs with clearly advertising content have been added in ever rare earth article and some others, where there was even less connection to that company. Therefore there has been a unanimously consensus (everyone except the author) to delete that entry, which has been done today, see [5]. Andol (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The delete request is a transfer of the deletion action in the German to the English Wikipedia.

The aspect of "advertising" has already been dealt with here and accepted as settled after appropriate revision.

The "small company", which does not need any advertising or promotion (only a few entries in google), gets its importance from worldwide active subscribers, who access its paid database 4,500 to 5,000 times a day. ISE consequently achieves little public attention and thus a presentation relies on self-disclosure. Statements from a website can of course be based on information and are not automatically "advertising".

The pleased reaction of the company ISE to the article in the German Wikipedia was not the result of a demand by the author - that there should be links to and from other articles is required by the WP (No orphan). The company will quickly realize that it is not allowed to do translations into other languages itself. As an author, I was interested in getting to know the working methods, formal rules and customs of the English Wikipedia with the entry of ISE.
The mentioned source [3] (NZZ) has the purpose to describe the transit trade in Switzerland and not to name ISE. This should be understandable from the context.
The eightfold mention of ISE as a source for mostly comprehensive contributions or quotations in the report of the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Deutschen Bundestags is not a trifle, but a high-profile publication that values the exclusive expertise of the institute and was produced to inform the parliament and federal institutions about the international commodity situation on REE and lithium. [Report of the Bundestag WD 5 - 3000 - 003/2022 on the resource rare earths: Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestags 03-2022 Retrieved September 01, 2022.] There is hardly any better evidence of unique relevance, which also allows the German WP regulations to omit the 100 million Euro turnover limit for companies.
Innovative is also the contribution of the ISE to a quite probable stability in the world trade (as a further criterion of this turnover exemption), by means of the daily determination and publication of the current prices of thousands of substances as well as the offer of a purity certification for serious transactions. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)— GerhardSchuhmacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google news, Zero hits on Wikipedia library, Zero hits in Google books. Seems not notable. The long and comment that lacks a vote and doesn't refer to a single policy or guidance is not convincing. CT55555(talk) 04:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep claiming that the company is very important. Because of the database and the role in the market and such thing. However, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Nothing in the article (or the internet) makes that claim plausible. Where does it even come from? It has to be from the company itself, as there are no independent sources writing something like that. That's not how Wikipedia entrys are written. We cannot just take the company's self-promotion that it's incredibly important, because it says so. We need independent sources. But in the entry there are almost no independent sources, almost everything comes from the company itself. It's just ISE, ISE, ISE, and if you take that out, there would be next to nothing left. Which is clear, given the fact that Google knows next to nothing about that company. That's why the entry has been deleted in the German Wikipedia minutes after becoming eligible, with a clear consensus (everyone with the exemption of you). And please don't claim the short piece from the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages makes the company notable, because that is "a high-profile publication". It's far from that. That organization gets thousands of request every year and then writes short pieces of information. It's not a key study or exhaustive or lengthy report commissioned by the parliament, its a short compilation of some basic information to inform one or a few members of parliament. Being mentioned in such a short piece doesn't make a company notable, especially since the information the report took from the company was quite trivial and could have been easily taken from the Wikipedia, too. Andol (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andol's data is unreliable. Thus, the article in the German Wikipedia was not deleted immediately, but after 7 days of discussion. The Scientific Services (see German WP "Wissenschaftliche Dienste") receive thousands of requests from parliaments worldwide, employ 64 people and award three media prizes. The dilemma here lies elsewhere: First, representations of a website are not automatically "advertising". I have only checked and taken over information for customers, which must and are absolutely serious with the high costs for the subscriptions. To deliver prices for 5,000 substances daily is an extraordinary achievement. Insight into this area should be convincing: ( https://ise-metal-quotes.com/ ) Secondly, Wikipedia's relevance criteria, which demand neutral newspaper articles with mention of names, are the problem. (Two years ago still as e. V. the institute would have been taken in the de-WP without circumstances). There are a number of articles that use price information (also over time) from ISE, but do not mention the source institute. Journalists are not obliged to do this! But "uniqueness" is also a valid reason for WP - if you accept that they don't lie and have 4-5,000 hits daily. I myself am a new author of en-WP, but with my expertise on these commodities so crucial today and the increasing reflection on the situation, it would not remain with this article. Based on the ISE sources, one could update many Wikipedia articles. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do yourself a favour and familiarise yourself with the relevant guidelines: WP:GNG. Once you do so, you will see that nothing in your long comments here is relevant. You would need to show us that independent reliable sources have written about the organisation in significant detail. It seems like they have not. And it doesn't matter how important you think they are, it matters how much they made the news, or academic literature, or books. CT55555(talk) 02:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article got eligible to be deleted after 7 days, as usual, yes. And it was deleted 21 minutes after midnight, which is "minutes after becoming eligible", isn't it? So which data from me isn't reliable? There was also at least one contributor that criticized me for not pushing for a speedy deletion, while there was absolutely no one of more than half a dozen editors who saw even a tiny bit of notability. the point is: There is almost no sources that even describes the company. The whole article is based on inside data from or strong opinions on that company. But that's not how articles can be written. You can claim the company is extremely important, as you do, but it just doesn't matter, because we need independent sources to conform that, not your word or your opinion, that you think so. If you delete every piece of information that isn't proven by independent sources, the whole article shrinks to a few words. And unfortunately that is NO exaggeration. Andol (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ISE sources are published by the company themselves; we need non-trivial sourcing in references unconnected to the entity being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources found are PR material published as such. Perhaps being an "informal network of xxxx" as the article suggests is the reason why we can't find RS, who knows. It's a delete, as it's not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The matter stands with regular rules against the association, which became an AG ("public limited company") only because of the cooperating storage company two years ago. I still see the work of ISE as valuable - price trends over decades are also documented there. (US/China crisis). And the "self-presentation" seemed to me like a professional instruction manual. But the information based on it could be removed, the article "minimized". With the history of development "according to its own information", a sentence on the structure and the preservation of the "reception". I received information that there is still a newspaper interview with the CEO, perhaps with frame data. When I receive the article, I'll enter a minimized version for viewing here on Saturday. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out the relevant sections from NCORP below. The sourcing fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You mention stuff such as the company providing a valuable service but that is simply your opinion and no Independent commentator has researched his company and come to the same conclusion. Have any industry analysts researched and published a report on the company? This often happen with publically quoted companies but I am unable to locate any reports at all. You also say that you've received information about an interview with the CEO - just beware that there's a good chance that if the article does not contain any "Independent Content" and simply relies on the CEO or the company for the information with no independent analysis/research/etc, then that article likely fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply, not just GNG as some !voters have pointed to above. To meet our guidelines for inclusion, we require in-depth and significant content from independent source. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* source must meet the criteria for establishing notability - so the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant, nor can we combine a little bit from source one with a little bit from source two and say "that'll do". Most importantly for this topic organisation, we need sources containing "Independent Content". which must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Between CORPDEPTH and ORGIND, these sources fail. We've got regurgitated company PR/information or official publications of information (which was provided by the company). Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2021 Altındağ attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Emirhan Yalçın[edit]

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

Not notable murder. Can't find news sources that can establish it's notability. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Syria. Skynxnex (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2021 Altındağ attack per WP:BIO1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge seems like a fine alternative, I don't see much sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Hai Chota Sa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was seemingly closed as "no consensus" earlier today, which is questionable when the weight of argument was in favour of deletion. None the less, the viability and determined notability of this subject has not been decided upon.

There was just a single additional reference added during the last afd, while none of the current references meet WP:SIGCOV. We cannot use database entries or one-word mentions on an article about a different subject to assert notability. Likewise, actors who may be notable for their work outside of this show do not make this show notable merely by their participation.

Anyone wishing to !vote keep should read the previous afd and demonstrate with evidence why this is a notable show. This evidence was not offered during the last afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Go to WP:DRV or see WP:RENOM. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really did consider DRV, but that to me is really an avenue if you staunchly disagree with the closure and believe it's conclusively wrong. While I did disagree, not to the point of challenging a relister and a closer with what seemed a balanced discussion. RENOM is an essay and I am aware of the guidance of a delay and the reasons offered. If there is another expression, like your own, to take to DRV instead then that'll be something to consider. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would vote delete, but per WP:RENOM (yes it's an essay), If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. Bungle, I agree with your insightful analysis per the previous AfD, but given that AfD is just recently closed discussion here would likely lead to the same result. If it is the case that this AfD can proceed, no worries, but if it's procedurally closed my advice is wait for two months preferably. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first AFD just closed last week. And we are back here 7 days later?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DRV probably would have been a better option for this. I stand by my delete reasoning in the original AFD, the sources here are weak at best and nothing really in depth. There has been no improvement since the AFD was started either. Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I still disagree with the article's deletion. The serial does have reliable sources to remian published. Lillyput4455 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. You failed in the last afd to respond to my request as to which sources are WP:SIGCOV, WP:SECONDARY and WP:RELIABLE and you fail to say so now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Kumar (Telugu actor)[edit]

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

Not done any significant role in the listed films. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Sourcing is available in English that establish Ashok Kumar (the TV actor) is at least tangentially notable. Among the best of these is the article from The Hindu published in 2012. Another few sources can be found through Google searches, but I encourage using modifying terms that distinguish our Ashok Kumar from the decedent Ashok Kumar, another actor who passed in 2001. Current article contains deficiencies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Hindu source. DareshMohan (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will check it later, as it's quite confusing. There are multiple Ashok Kumar, Telugu Actor. So please don't get confused. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP with virtually no sourcing. A working actor with credits. Notability of this subject is not asserted or proved by applied sourcing. One of the links appears to be a business card with phone numbers. The only significant coverage is routine industry news from The Hindu and that's almost entirely an interview. It is possible RSs exist on this seasoned TV actor but my reasonable BEFORE doesn't find anything which is better than what is already applied. This is a BLP; we can't just treat a IMDB listing as a model for biography, as it seems to be in this case. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shikho[edit]

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

Non notable online educational platform. Promotional article. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of sources are interview, press release and about an actor who joined as brand campaign. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP.

Also this article most likely paid editing. This photo was published in this interview-type news. Article creator also uploaded same photo here on commons with high quality. I am not sure how they got it if they don't have any connnetion. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources seem to be PR-type announcements, funding and acquisitions and such. Potential copyvio image, article appears promotional. Many red flags here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; promo piece with likely COI/UPE issues. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just declined an AIV report on the article creator as insufficiently warned and recommended for now that we just let this play out. So, in the interests of that, I agree with other delete !voters that a lot of the sourcing for this seems more like wire-service puffery than anything that really establishes notability, and there are large stretches without any sourcing. Further, much of it is peacockery.
All these things together suggest to me that this is not an article about a notable subject that was just written as promo, it is an article about a presently non-notable company. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not paid editing. why you are thinking this way brother? Manojmondolbd (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this photo was taken on shikho office when Shikho officially acquires Bohubrihi Manojmondolbd (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article is thoroughly promotional and almost bordering (but probably not eligible for) WP:G11. It completely fails WP:NCORP per the existing references and refs my WP:BEFORE search found, which are a collection of non-WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices on acquisitions, investments, and other routine announcements. VickKiang (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable promotional article. NMasiha (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Levine[edit]

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

This topic does not pass WP:N requirements. Most of the references are old and to sources that wouldn't typically be notable. The few more notable sources are not focused on the subject, but only reference her in passing. Even the books sales cited are low. It seems more like a vanity profile than a newsworthy article. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Alabama, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find sources, various social media platforms and an obituary for her (I think) parent. Unsure if she'd meet AUTHOR but I can't find reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this person doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. It's also concerning that this is a seemingly promotional biography of a living person. The cited low book sales are just odd. QuintinK (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by an SPA, and a fair amount of the content is not supported by the references given. I can't find the publisher but it does appear that the book was at least initially self-published. The book is found in some libraries (~150 in WorldCat) but the few reviews are in rather marginal publications. I did find a PRWire press release, but nothing independent. (Has anyone NOT referred to their book as a "best seller"?) Lamona (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özal Group[edit]

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

Not a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Drake[edit]

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

I can't see much that is particularly notable here; the military rank is not the highest and from what I read elsewhere, George III knighted quite a lot of people. Open to the possibility that I'm missing something important. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and England. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his name is common enough that you get hits on all kinds of stuff. Nothing about this soldier from the 1790s. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothin' notable here. Found some sources, though they are unreliable. Sarrail (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a reliable source can be found that he was knighted. Clearly a knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1, but we need proof that he actually had one (I have no idea whether the listed print source mentions it or not). George III knighted quite a lot of people is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC no source provided that confirms his knighthood. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GBC International Bank[edit]

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

A Google search shows that it has a Fitch rating but the article does not show it is a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For something supposed to be an international bank, gets 5 gnews hits and most of those are small mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Liquiçá Church massacre. Viable ATD. Star Mississippi 19:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Clark (police officer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP, no sources online (only wikipedia mirrors), only source is from a blog that has not been updated since 2016. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could imagine this person being notable due to their work investigating human rights abuses in East Timor. However, no online secondary sources seem to establish that at this time. QuintinK (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see this article expanded, but sources are very difficult to come by. Redirecting this to Liquiçá Church massacre will save what history is there so far and make possible future article expansion much easier. Jacona (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was an apparent bad-faith nomination with no policy basis given for deletion. (non-admin closure) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Shepherd Rams football team[edit]

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

An article about a Division II team with no appearance in the championship game? This team/year doesn't come close to needing it's own article and should be redirected to Shepherd Rams at the very least. Adwyludga (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This team made it to the PSAC Football Championship Game, and made it to the Division II semifinals. With several sources in the article, I don't understand the rationale for this being brought to AfD. Disclaimer, I am the article creator. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- to any closer, see this edit from the nominator... opening this AfD was their first edit, also. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 18:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per SPF121188's rational, this team's season was clearly notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete. The content shouldn't be deleted given the coverage. However, I increasingly think the best way to deal with Division II programs is to create conference/season articles, in this case 2022 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season. Compare 2022 Gulf South Conference football season, 2022 Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, and 2022 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference football season. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep with no prejudice against merging later. I agree with Cbl, a conference season article might be the way to go but until it exists we should keep this one, having passed WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopscotch (company)[edit]

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

Non notable company, lacks reliable & independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article on a company. Searches find PR-driven coverage (appointments, fundraising, results "Hopscotch turns profitable with current annualized GMV of Rs 650 cr" (20/1/22) [6]), but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a short interview-based piece about the company in YourStory on 18 January 2022 (blacklisted site so cannot share link here) but I don't see that as sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough information on the company yet out the article, perhaps WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:CORP. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Bose[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:NFILMMAKER, references are either passing mentions, or regurgitated PR material - churnalism. Appears to be WP:FANCRUFT, and is WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Overall WP:GNG failure. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The PR material came from a sandbox draft which was already made. The materials without citations has been removed and cleaned. The director is popular in Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.248.68.68 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shshshsh, can you provide any reason for your opinion? Otherwise, it's likely to be dismissed by a discussion closer. One word votes aren't contributing to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I think it's well sourced, with reliable sources which establish the subject's notability pr both WP:GNG. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shshshsh, thank you for the additional feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nikolija (singer). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (Nikolija album)[edit]

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

Of the sources that aren't just Apple Music links, there's #9 which is an interview with no secondary source material; #10 which is a tabloid reporting on an Instagram post teasing the album without any substantial information on it; #11 and #13 are about her appearance on a TV show (At least I think that's what it is) which hardly say anything about the album or its songs; and #14 and #15 are about singles from the album but without saying anything about the album itself that isn't a quote from the artist in the latter. #12 shows that one of the singles charted, though not particularly impressively. Worth keeping in mind the part of WP:GNG that says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," relevant here as aside from the charting, the rest of those sources are all from two websites which are both at least questionably reliable. Couldn't find anything else in my search. Album does not appear to have any articles in other languages. Redirect to Nikolija (singer). QuietHere (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. QuietHere (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: #11 is about Nikolija recording a song/music video together with Amna Alajbegović who is the winner of what I'm guessing is a TV series called IDJShow. #13 is about Nikolija performing at a music festival called Music Week. I got really mixed up there. It's still the case that neither make significant mention of the album though so my point still stands. QuietHere (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nikolija (singer). I do not see evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, although there is a language barrier at play here. I would say a redirect to the main artist's page would be preferrable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any source about him in a search. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have watched this page for years. Even with fans trying hard to build it up (with unreferenced claims that are quickly removed by other editors), it has always failed WP:GNG. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing solid seems to be out there. You Tube & Twitter do not cut any mustard. WP notability guidelines have never made any sense to me; I'm not sure that the book might not be considered notable, sine there are reviews. Even if it sank without a trave. Wa aleikum as Salaam!TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for notability a couple of days before it was proposed for deletion. I did a search at that point and could not find sources to meet WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Might pass AUTHOR Wisconsin Muslim Journal [7] seems semi-RS, Publisher's Weekly [8] and a Kirkus Review [9] Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And a brief mention in Quill and Quire, which is an Ontario, Canada literary publication [10] Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Oaktree b's sources/WP:NAUTHOR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to add on previous delete comments other than to say a few book reviews does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. See WP:NBOOK for the more appropriate notability criteria. Books reviews may add to a book's notability, but not necessarily to the author without showing how and why the book is significant. The Lord of the Rings is significant, but Bored of the Rings is notable but not significant. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With recommendation for clean-up per discussion below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baresa, Eritrea[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable town. Possibly a ghost town or a hoax as the location the coordinates take me to is just a random piece of African land by a river with no signs of any sort of civilization. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Mmm. Well something has gone wrong here - I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything near the given coordinates based on the satellite images. On the other hand, our colleagues at wiki Masry have a more extensive page including photos of the train, so it seems that they think there is something there. Might be helpful to find someone who can read their page to assist. JMWt (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those images when I googled it which confused me since the coordinates don't show anything and looking up the town on Google Maps goes to the exact same location. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking back through my photos that I took in 2008, there's a station there (see Google satellite view here) but not much else. There were some rough shacks at the station. The only citable information I can find is in Eritrean Narrow Gauge An Amazing Reinstatement by Don Mitchell (Middleton Press 2008, ISBN 978-1-906008-38-3), photo 1.38 which describes Baresa as "a busy place where local activity is manifest." So all I can say is that there is something there, so it's not a hoax, but it's hardly a town either. Perhaps calling it a settlement would be better if the article is kept. I'm not going to !vote either way. — Voice of Clam 18:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a "busy place" according to the reference given above. With the other refs, I think it now meets NPLACE. With thanks to User:Voice of Clam. JMWt (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I still see would be the coords. The place they go doesn't indicate there's anything there and there's nothing around other than a railroad it appears. I'm unable to view the ref but everything else I'm finding is just a name drop. If more sources can be found and the coordinates corrected than that's fine. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me to be an issue of clean-up. We are discussing here whether the subject of the page is notable. JMWt (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup statistics[edit]

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

Also these articles:

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics and WT:FOOTY#2022 FIFA World Cup statistics. These articles are fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS. Notable items such as goalscorers and attendances are already in the main pages of these events, and they are not large enough to cause a WP:SPLIT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all after ensuring any important data are in the parent tournament articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per recent AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS (to boot, mostly unsourced and indiscriminate) and the AfD for the 2022 World Cup. ^Complex/_Rational 23:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with Lee Vilenski. Anything relevant that is not already included in the parent articles can comfortably be merged into them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The statistics are not notable. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lau[edit]

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

both sources are non-independent interviews with dennis. no mentions found in reliable sources. lettherebedarklight 晚安 14:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, China, and Malaysia. lettherebedarklight 晚安 14:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a photographer with the same name that several hits in Gnewspapers, nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lumumba Sayers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 79th in the world middleweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Subject has also never appeared in a Sherdog top 10 ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Colorado. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet WP:NMMA and also lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassern S. Goto[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP with the following rationalle.

This page has had a notability tag on it for over a decade, has been prodded twice and multiple people on the talk page have questioned whether this author is actually notable, so I think it's about time it was brought to AFD so a discussion can be had. This author is best known for writing some really poorly received Warhammer 40,000 video game tie in novels, which made them the subject of much derision and mockery on sites like 4chan. What I don't see here is any evidence that this has translated into any kind of coverage that would confer wikipedia notability.
The author does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NAUTHOR and furthermore does not appear to have attracted any kind of coverage that would suggest they pass WP:NBASIC. Doing a bit of searching around turns up a fair few results from Warhammer 40,000 fan sites, forums and wikis, but that is hardly the kind of coverage that demonstrates notability or that would be required to write a BLP. The article as it stands has no citations, and the only external links are to games workshop companies and databases.

Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Science fiction and fantasy. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and/or redirect I did all the usual searches and found nothing CT55555(talk) 14:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels. No evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't find any critical reviews of his books, but this is perhaps understandable as the books are rather a niche product. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've figured out he is best known as "C S Goto" http://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.com/2012/06/warrior-brood-book-review.html CT55555(talk) 18:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did his writing inspire a video game? https://www.tomshw.it/culturapop/warhammer-40000-games-workshop/ CT55555(talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555@Oaktree b (I'm the IP editor who wrote the nom statement) No, you have that connection back to front. Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War was a highly successful series of real time strategy games set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, Goto was hired to adapt the story from the video games into a series of books. The books ignored and changed the story, setting and characters, which lead to a lot of backlash from parts of the Warhammer community. As I said in the nom statement there's a fair amount of coverage of him on Warhammer 40,000 wikis, reddit, 4chan, blogs, fansites and the like, but as far as I can tell this doesn't seem to have resulted in any coverage that would make the person notable from a wikipedia standpoint, and that kind of of sourcing shouldn't be anywhere near a BLP. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 see https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war/credits for the people who wrote the story for the actual video game. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems notable in very unreliable sources, lol, https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/dbdv7b/just_how_bad_is_it_with_cs_goto_and_the_multi/ CT55555(talk) 18:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good sleuthing, but those don't really help us. Reddit is about as unreliable as they come, the blogspot is a blog. Unsure about the video game link, might be more in Italian media? Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 18:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge or Redirect to the Warhammer 40k article might be a good alternative? Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or a redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems better. I agree. Scoring out my delete for now. CT55555(talk) 23:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels, where his contributions are listed. The book Technik und Gender does confirm his authorship of Dawn of War and the discrepancies between that and the role-playing game. Nothing to establish notability, but it is a secondary source, so I think we should take this alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels. CT55555 thanks for finding the correct name for the person. I see there is already a redirect (2007) from C. S. Goto also. The person is somewhat notable, but does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. Bruxton (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels: The only sources that I could find are horribly unreliable. It should also be considered that C. S. Goto is a living person, so the standards for verifiability are higher than they would be for a deceased individual. Goto's article cannot be allowed to persist if better sources are not found. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels, as ATD. Does not meet either GNG or NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While it needs references and improvement, the subject is notable. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Coverage does not support that a standalone article is warranted. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of St Kilda Football Club players#1900s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy McGuinness (footballer)[edit]

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

no decent sources - doesn't pass gng or nsport Wotanluzo (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to my simple understanding of the overall Wiki-policy in relation to Australian Rules footballers, any individual who has played at least one VFL or VFA match is "notable". Also, he is "notable" for the additional reason that he was a former VFL footballer who died in action in World War I (List of Victorian Football League players who died in active service). Lindsay658 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindsay658 Your understanding is wrong as the inclusion criteria is coverage based, not participation based. Per WP:NSPORTS, all athletes must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of St Kilda Football Club players#1900s. Agree with OP after personal search for online and digitized news references. The old WP:NAFL that Lindsay658 mentioned no longer exists per WP:NSPORTS2022. Redirect instead of delete to keep consistent with similar AfDs for low-game VFL players, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Kemp. Aspirex (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my 'redirect' opinion in spite of the increase in reference count since first comment; new references are all WP:ROUTINE, comprising sports databases, newspaper listings of matriculation results, and army reference lists. No WP:SIGCOV. Aspirex (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now has quite a few cited resources. Lindsay658 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of St Kilda Football Club players#1900s. It does not appear that he that significant for a separate article. --Bduke (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have blocked nominator as a sock. No opinion on whether the subject meets notability criteria. Sro23 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and it doesn't appear that a 3rd relist would help Star Mississippi 19:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Balial[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, United States of America, and New York. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lest it is relevant, prior to the creation of the article, the subject was mentioned the following way in the following Wikipedia article:

"Nandini Balial (Ganguly), a young prolific writer in LA is the great granddaughter of Late Monmaya Debi."

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Happy_Valley_Tea_Estate Kgayle (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following non-Wikipedia article (with a Bengali reference in its initial line) either quotes the (English language) Happy Valley Tea Estate Wikipedia article or is quoted by it:

"Annapurna Devi was related to the Ganguly family of Khandwa; her maternal uncle was Kunjalal Bihari, father of the famous cine Gangulys. Nandini Balial (Ganguly), a young prolific writer in LA is the great granddaughter of Late Monmaya Debi."

https://www.brainwayholidays.com/TeaEstate.aspx Kgayle (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lest relevant, the subject of the Wikipedia article under discussion is mentioned in the following way here:

"Nandini Balial, a young prolific writer in LA is the remarkable granddaughter of Late Monmaya Debi."

https://www.hellotravel.com/india/happy-valley-tea-estate Kgayle (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Davison, reporting for CBC News online on Nov 13, 2022 4:00 AM, quotes the subject's professional review first among several quoted:

"After weeks of anticipation, along with longstanding controversy over mixing royal fact and fiction, Season 5 of The Crown started streaming onto viewers' screens this week and landed to decidedly mixed reviews.

Still, some themes seemed to emerge, including a sense that this season may lack some of the lustre of previous seasons of the award-winning Netflix drama that offers a fictionalized version of real-life events that unfolded in the House of Windsor during Queen Elizabeth's reign.

"Season 5 is replete with terrific performances, especially from actors in recurring roles, but it's no longer enough," Nandini Balial wrote on RogerEbert.com. "Writer and creator Peter Morgan's vision, like the monarchy circa 1990, is showing signs of strain."

"I can forgive The Crown for jazzing up the facts — but not for being so horribly clunky," ran the headline over an opinion column from The Guardian's former royal correspondent, Stephen Bates.

The Telegraph gave Season 5 two stars out of five, and noted that "Peter Morgan's Netflix drama began as a love letter to the late Queen. These days, he's wielding his poison pen."

On this side of the Atlantic, the New York Times found "Season 5 doesn't have the life, the hard snap, of The Crown at its best."

Others were more impressed. "The palace intrigue of The Crown will hold you spellbound," Good Morning America headlined its review, and said the latest season is "more audacious and addictive than ever."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/royal-visit-remembrance-crown-1.6649264 Kgayle (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources linked in the article help to establish notability. More than half of the sources are blog posts, another has a passing mention in an article about a school, and one to a website where they leave reviews for TV shows. Person is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.

Does this one source help?

Clark, Roy Peter (2021). Murder your darlings and other gentle writing advice from Aristotle to Zinsser. New York: Little, Brown and Company. p. 122. ISBN 9780316481878. Kgayle (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

kgayle (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (kgayle is a new teacher as of August 2022 at the high school where the subject graduated in May 2008; otherwise, the contributor has absolutely no affiliation with the subject and has never met or corresponded with her ever in any way.)

Kgayle (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source, a reliable one, substantiating the notability of the subject?

Clark, Roy Peter (2021). Murder your darlings and other gentle writing advice from Aristotle to Zinsser. New York: Little, Brown and Company. p. 122. ISBN 9780316481878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgayle (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This writer strikes me as only barely notable; almost all online references to her are within her own articles. However, we have a large number of brief writer biographies from the significant publications she's written for ([11], [12], [13], [14]). However, these sources and those already discussed only enable her to barely skirt the notability standards due to the likely non-independent character of the sources I've linked and the offline character of those mentioned by Kgayle. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are either passing mentions or examples of her work. Fails NBIO by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R718 (South Africa)[edit]

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

Failed Verification; neither GPS nor the document we cite in every South African Road Article (i.e. South African Route Description & Destination Analysis) proves that this "Route Number" is in use in South Africa. GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur that this fails verification - the road is not listed in the official RDDA document, does not appear on any of the major mapping platforms, and looking on Google Streetview the road isn't signed as such. I can't find any source to support it. - htonl (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 01:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/delete I couldn’t find any sources, so would lean towards a delete, but the “hole” in the route numbering scheme is weird, and the description of the road would put it in the described area if it did exist.Park3r (talk)
Delete Per nom. fails verification. NMasiha (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Letter in popular culture[edit]

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

This is a mostly unreferenced list of all media mentioning The Scarlet Letter, violating WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, WP:IPC, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:OR, as well as likely some other policies or best practices. Note that this was split off from the main article, where there is an unreferenced tiny section The_Scarlet_Letter#Adaptations_and_influence. Undeniably, the topic (adatpation and influences of TSL) is an important one, but this is not how to go about writing what should be a reliably referenced prose section, no a kitchen-and-sink OR collection of trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another indiscriminate fancruft list, WP:TNT applies. Maybe merge notable adaptations back to the main article. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Don't see the need for an unsourced independent article from The Scarlet Letter. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, this article is an indiscriminate collection of mostly uncited nonsense. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Very Light Merge - I do think the actual notable adaptations (i.e., the blue linked films/plays) should be mentioned on the main article of the book. However, as they are also listed at Scarlet Letter (disambiguation), if the consensus is to delete, this could still pretty easily be done, even if this list is not preserved. Of course, without question, all of the copious amounts of trivial "it was mentioned in this thing" examples should not be merged in any way. Rorshacma (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The_Scarlet_Letter_in_popular_culture#Film to The_Scarlet_Letter#Adaptations_and_influence. Dream Focus 01:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Could be a reliable sourced section at the main article if someone finds those sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 and G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanus Bezuindenhout[edit]

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

Hoax? Completely unverifiable, both at "Bezuindenhout" (a name which doesn't exist) and "Bezuidenhout". The lone source is from 1912, so predates the works it supposedly references, and doesn't contain Bezui(n)denhout anyway. No other source could be found which even mentions this artist. Fram (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Belgium. Fram (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything. Literally nothing. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book cited in the article does not show up on Google Books, although I can find one vague reference to it being published in 1912, but no evidence that this book references Albanus Bezuindenhout. Notwithstanding that, I can find nothing on Google or Google Scholar mentioning Albanus Bezuindenhout so at the very least this seems to fail GNG, if not a hoax. WJ94 (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The book can be found on Google Books once you have figured out the actual name of the author, here. Fram (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness!! I see albanus article is being nominated for deletion. I am belgian and my friend told me about this and told me to make a article. I thought it was strange nothing on google showed. But he told me this book was the source, and i never read the book so i didnt know any better!! please delete the article ASAP! I did not mean to make a hoax. I think my "friend" may be a troll or vandal. Delete this article "Albanus Bezuindenhout" and please dont put me in any wiki-troubles. Im new to the site. Tooting! carrot 123dicey (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we not G7 this given the explanation above? G3 hoax? Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No sources at all, blatant hoax, article creator says as much above and requests deletion. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Le Mercier[edit]

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

primary sourced only - no notability Wotanluzo (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has been associated with some notable bands, but does not inherit notability from that association. No independent reliable sources provided in the article, and I cannot find any that would meet GNG. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, but since he's been associated with two acts there's not an obvious choice of target. WJ94 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find his bio on a wordpress site, that's about all. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kate Bush#1958–1974: Early life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Bush[edit]

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

No real notability independent of his sister. Wotanluzo (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kate Bush#1958–1974: Early life - no notability independently of his sister. There's also nothing in the article worth merging into Kate Bush. The sources in the article do not provide significant coverage, and the only mentions of Paddy Bush I can find online are passing mentions in articles about his sister. WJ94 (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be reasonably redirected to Kate Bush - Paddy is well enough known for his work on her albums to be a search term in connection with her, and he's mentioned several times in Kate's article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have blocked the nominator as a sockpuppet. No opinion whether the subject is independently notable or not. Sro23 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stollery[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade - doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR Wotanluzo (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still appears to be active in the theatre scene in Australia, but I don't see substantial coverage beyond confirmation he's in xyz production. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snow Keep. The National Library of Australia has Biographical cuttings on Christopher Stollery, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals which by is self should be enough for an immediate keep. AusStage has a very long list of theatre productions he has appeared in including Notable productions of Hamlet where he played Hamlet (Healy, Ken (11 April 1993), "Play on power or lack of it - Stage", Sun Herald and Romeo and Juliet where a commentator stated "most outstanding are Christopher Stollery as the swaggering Capulet thug, Tybalt" (Healy, Ken (3 May 1993), "Breathing new life into love and death", The Sunday Age). Another commentator was not as enthusiastic about his role in Macbeth, “Christopher Stollery produces plenty of sound and fury, but little else, as Macduff.” (Radic, Leonard (24 May 1994), "Shakespeare gets lost in space", The Age). A NewsBank search brings up hundreds of hits including Sadlier, Kevin (12 August 1990), "A career that's taking off", Sun Herald where he is the primary focus. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Duffbeerforme that point to a pass of WP:NACTOR so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't read all the references shown above, but I think it highly likely that the cumulative volume of reviews meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what's presented above, seems to have had a notable stage career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stetz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:NBIO. Ref 1 is unreliable, per its about us page it aims to help an expanding community of yoga enthusiasts, but little editorial policies, subject-matter-expertise, or WP:USEBYOTHERS to indicate that it's WP:RS. Ref 2 is an interview that is likely non-independent and non-secondary, ref 3 is written by Kim herself, ref 4 is a non-RS Blogger blog mentioning Kim once, ref 5 is a non-SIGCOV news announcement quoting Kim's experience in a gas leak, ref 6 is a trivial mention; all of the refs I found per WP:BEFORE, e.g., 1, 2, appear to be trivial and non-SIGCOV. Kim's roles are also minor or in non-notable shows/films/shorts, failing NACTOR. VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, badly formatted article. No sources that show she's near GNG.
Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Health and fitness, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:PROMO - I also found a December 2021 press release, and notability does not appear to be supported by independent and reliable sources per WP:BASIC or other notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a well trimmed article, fails notability. NMasiha (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nude Tour[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. The only sources available on the article are fansites for the musician. From recent events, it seems to be a back-and-forth on the article needing to be kept or redirected, when it has already been told that it has to be redirected due to the policy of WP:NTOUR. There are other sources, yes, but they are not enough that would follow that policy as most of them discuss only that the tour happened but do not take in the examples on artistic approach, relationship with audience or financial success. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as per WP:GNG:

https://variety.com/2016/music/global/princes-1990-nude-tour-remembered-by-italian-music-impresario-as-unforgettable-one-man-show-1201758894/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/powerful-objects-collections-smithsonian-museum-180960126/
"Nothing compared to the last time; Prince tour." Sunday Times [London, England], 24 June 1990. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A117286661/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=542aa57a. Accessed 20 Dec. 2022. (newspaper article has several sentences, more than a trivial mention)
Draper, J. (2016). Prince: Life and Times: Revised and Updated Edition. United Kingdom: Chartwell Books. (six mentions)
Clerc, B. (2022). Prince: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. United Kingdom: Octopus. (seven mentions)

I could go on and mention more books, but I think this is enough to make the point. CT55555(talk) 06:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have already added some more content and sources to the article. I think we can get this article to clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR before the AfD closes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a good example of an article that actually needed improvement rather than a deletion discussion based on supposed non-notability. Kudos to the editors above who added solid sources. This particular tour got real media coverage in its day, and is described in reliable histories of Prince's career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This tour is one of Prince's most notable tours during his career, I've been the main editor of the page for about a couple of months now trying to clean it up. Thank you for the two editors who have gave their creditable sources other than my attempt to draw "creditable" sources from what I could find so far. It should definitely stay along with Prince's tours that are talked about during his career. Another notable tour of his that has since been deleted off the Wikipedia page is the Lovesexy Tour. WhereverUGo87 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovesexy Tour article could be revived (un-redirected) if there are sources similar in quality to those found here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great and that would also need to be done for Prince's One Nite Alone... Tour which is also tour in Prince's tour WhereverUGo87 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the sources given above, seems notable. It was a while ago, but has sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This tour was one of the major highlights of Prince's music career and just needs the in-depth, secondary sourcing, some of which has already been added, about the tour available to be reflected on the Wikipedia article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" voters failed to analyze the sources indicated in this discussion. On the other hand, there's no consensus to delete the article either. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Philip Shenale[edit]

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

Created originally by a sock puppet, there is no evidence of passing WP:NCREATIVE, I can find no in-depth significant coverage of him in any sources and notability cannot be established by osmosis/working with notable people. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief mentions of various musical compositions he's made but nothing about him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who is to blame for all this mess so please listen to me before you remove the page. I had tried to add some edits a couple days ago. The edits have been removed. I am not talking about that right now. I respect those reasons and that's why I haven't tried to edit anything else. I am a different person to the one who originally created the first article and you are naming him/her a "sock puppet" probably because you think that I am a "sock puppet". We are 2 different persons.

John Phillip Shenale has a music career expanding over many decades with colaborations from well know musicals such as footloose, little shop of horors up to the soundtrack of sons of anarchy which was not only succesful for its plot as a TV series but for its soundtrack as well. (He is a prominent member of the band called The Forest Rangers which is behind all those succesful covers along with the actress/singer Katey Sagal)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0791501/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124373/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

https://whatculture.com/tv/sons-of-anarchy-10-best-forest-rangers-songs

His work has been associated with 22 Grammy nominations throughout the years.

He has been a major collaborator for decades with the singer/composer Tori Amos who mentions his work in her music often in her interviews. eg from a recent interview

https://glidemagazine.com/266058/tori-amos-delivers-lithest-set-of-songs-in-decades-via-candid-ocean-to-oceanalbum-review/

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/tori-amos-gets-into-holiday-spirit-for-midwinter-graces-267346/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/night-hunters-tori-amos-classical-131157639.html

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/tori_amos-strange_little_girl

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/tori-amos-performs-with-string-quartet-in-manhattan-248480/

https://glidemagazine.com/19577/john-philip-shenale-in-conversation-part-i/

https://glidemagazine.com/19595/john-philip-shenale-in-conversation-part-ii/

He has worked for numerous gold and platinum albums in US such as everything and eternal flame by bangles, bathhouse betty with bette middler, belind/belinda carlisle, footlose (8 times platinum), streets of fire etc (there are many more gold and platinum albums, I can't put the full list here)

generally reliable sources https://www.allmusic.com/artist/john-philip-shenale-mn0000815023/credits

https://www.discogs.com/artist/267205-John-Philip-Shenale

I could provide you with more links to interviews and web sites but I think someone can get the picture from the things mentioned above.

I mentioned all the above in good faith, hoping that there is a will to do what's right and that you wanted some help because you think that Ratfae (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I posted the previous texr before completing the sentence by accident)

... JPS doesn't meet the notability criteria.

(his name is often typed wrong even in wikipedia eg it was typed wrongfully here at the Forrest rangers page (I didn't write that either) and I had to correct it so that it can connecti with his page. This may be the main reason why a lot of credits and refferences don't show up with a simple google search.)

Thank you for all your time and patience reading this. Ratfae (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that being "associated with 22 Grammy nominations" is not a notability criteria and IMDb and interviews are not reliable independent sources as you have been told before. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will search more your criteria on reliable independent sources and I will post the ones that meet that criteria here.

I mentioned those because I have seen those many times as references at numerous web pages.

I could name the grammy nominations 1 by 1 with links from the nominations but it wasn't my point to fload the page here. If you want that, I can search for an official grammy list of nominations throughout the years even though most of those albums already exist on wikipedia pages. Ratfae (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPS is a band member of The Forest Rangers The Forest Rangers (band) I have no connection with the person who created the page. I corrected JPS' name in order to connect it with his wiki page and added links for the wiki pages of their albums which already existed.

I will add some more references here since I noticed that they are needed.

The band crowdfunded the debut album

‘Sons of Anarchy’ Band The Forest Rangers Crowdfunding Debut Album

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/sons-of-anarchy-forest-rangers-crowdfunding-debut-6221883/

(JPS wrongly named PS)

Land Ho (Album)

https://www.discogs.com/master/992469-The-Forest-Rangers-Land-Ho

https://www.discogs.com/release/7218037-The-Forest-Rangers-Land-Ho

(the credit for JPS is wrongly stated as PS)

https://www.billboard.com/music/rock/sons-of-anarchy-land-ho-bob-thiele-jr-the-forest-rangers-album-premiere-6620143/

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/bob_thiele_forest_rangers-trying_to_belive_ft_alison_mossheart_video

Sons of Anarchy Soundtrack

The Forest Rangers - Theme Song https://archive.org/details/tvtunes_4206

The Forest Rangers - Ending - Theme Song https://archive.org/details/tvtunes_4207

Songs of anarchy – sons of anarchy Season 1-4

https://rateyourmusic.com/search?searchterm=songs%20of%20anarchy&searchtype=

https://www.allmusic.com/album/songs-of-anarchy-music-from-sons-of-anarchy-seasons-1-4-original-tv-soundtrack--mw0002266604/credits

(JPS is wrongly mentioned as PS)

https://archive.org/details/cd_songs-of-anarchy-music-from-sons-of-anarch_various-artists-alison-mosshart-the-fores

Vol 2 https://www.allmusic.com/album/sons-of-anarchy-songs-of-anarchy-vol-2-mw0002447659/credits

https://archive.org/details/cd_songs-of-anarchy-volume-2_various-artists-alison-mosshart-audra-mae

Vol 3 https://www.discogs.com/master/1597478-Various-Sons-Of-Anarchy-Songs-Of-Anarchy-Vol-3

https://archive.org/details/cd_songs-of-anarchy-vol.-3-music-from-sons-of_various-artists

Vol 4 https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the_forest_rangers

https://www.allmusic.com/album/sons-of-anarchy-songs-of-anarchy-vol-4-original-tv-soundtrack--mw0002801535/credits

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/sons-of-anarchy-final-season-new-songs-exclusive-6243999/

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/sons-of-anarchy-to-end-with-big-musical-bang-giant-sync-for-final-season-6229041/

https://archive.org/details/cd_songs-of-anarchy-vol.-4_various-artists-amos-lee-the-forest-range

“Come join the murder” The White Buffalo and The Forest Rangers

https://www.billboard.com/pro/sons-of-anarchy-white-buffalo-come-join-the-murder/

Curtis Stigers & The Forest Rangers – Travelin' Band

https://www.discogs.com/release/15000075-Curtis-Stigers-The-Forest-Rangers-Travelin-Band

“The Forrest Rangers” band changed the name to “The Reluctant Apostles” for some time before going back to “The Forrest Rangers”

https://popculture.com/lifestyle/news/sons-of-anarchy-kurt-sutter-shares-music-video-featuring-katey-s/

(JPS is wrongly named as PS)

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/tn-wknd-et-0122-katey-sagal-20170121-story.html

https://usrockermusic.com/2019/03/14/katey-sagal-and-the-reluctant-apostles-to-bring-anarchy-to-the-mint-may-1-and-may-2/

http://www.theycallmedaymz.com/tag/katey-sagal-and-the-reluctant-apostles/

I tried to do a research bases on the reliable scources that are proposed for parts of JPS' work

here comes a list with some links

Tori Amos

The light Princess by Tori Amos at National Theatre, London, UK

orchestrations John Philip Shenale

https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/sites/default/files/lightprincess_backgroundpack_final.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/10319881/Behind-the-scenes-of-The-Light-Princess-a-musical-by-Tori-Amos.html

https://theartsdesk.com/theatre/light-princess-national-theatre

https://playbill.com/article/tori-amos-and-samuel-adamsons-the-light-princess-opens-at-londons-national-theatre-oct-9-com-210341

Gold Dust https://americansongwriter.com/tori-amos-gold-dust/

https://consequence.net/2012/06/tori-amos-announces-new-album-gold-dust/

Tori Amos Gets Into Holiday Spirit For ‘Midwinter Graces’ https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/tori-amos-gets-into-holiday-spirit-for-midwinter-graces-267346

https://consequence.net/2009/09/tori-amos-details-holiday-album-midwinter-graces/

Tori Amos Night of Hunters https://recordcollectormag.com/reviews/album/night-of-hunters

Mentioned in interviews for his work with other artists

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/tori-amos-performs-with-string-quartet-in-manhattan-248480/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sons-of-anarchy-take-on-i-see-through-you-song-premiere-101212/

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/music-production/x-marks-the-spot-for-audio-pros

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/profiles/michael-marquart-rejuvenated

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/thinking-big-with-a-bad-think

https://thequietus.com/articles/10228-tori-amos-we-held-gold-dust-in-our-hands

https://www.toriamosdiscography.info/promotional-music_other_category.html

http://www.polarimagazine.com/musicreviews/tori-amos-gold-dust-review/

https://imposemagazine.com/bytes/kris-kelly-we-flew

https://recordcollectormag.com/articles/sympathy-for-the-deville

https://www.frontview-magazine.be/en/news/addie-brik-announces-new-album-that-dog-dont-hunt-out-25-november

https://palettemusic.com/project/tim-weisberg-time-traveler/

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/161635

Girls on Film: An Interview with Tori Amos https://americansongwriter.com/girls-on-film-an-interview-with-tori-amos

https://toriamos.com/story/

Some links for his work on films

soundtracks

footloose

Holding out for a hero

https://musicbrainz.org/release/d5c2920d-5dc5-4229-affa-35881ac3b09b

little shop of horrors

https://musicbrainz.org/release/d5c2920d-5dc5-4229-affa-35881ac3b09b

Return of the living dead

https://www.allmusic.com/album/return-of-the-living-dead-3-mw0001007530

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Coming Out of Their Shells https://archive.org/details/tmnt-cooos

Sympathy for the DeVille https://recordcollectormag.com/articles/sympathy-for-the-deville

Thank you for your patience and I apologize for the long list.

(There are way more references I tried to keep both lists as short as possible. I can offer more links based on the list of reliable sources if you wish.) Ratfae (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is perhaps more important than quantity. Which are the three (WP:THREE) most reliable sources that give significant independant coverage of the subject (i.e. not user generated and not passing mentions)? And/or how does this article meet WP:NMUSIC? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to figure this out so be patient with me. If I had to pick 3 sources from the list above and leave all the rest those would probably be billboard, rollingstones magazine and LA Times as the ones which are more recognizable than the rest but on the other hand there are the credits for globaly known hits such us holding out for a hero. Each part has its own merit so I am a bit confused. (I did check the list of the reliable sources. I haven't checked all of them still though.) Ratfae (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to in-depth with sigificant coverage The Rolling Stone pieces contain a single sentence each! Theroadislong (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ratfae, I think you've made your point. Please take a step back and let others weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok (Redacted) 07:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

ok (the previous comment was mine but I hadn't logged in) Ratfae (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man has a remarkable resume, certainly more remarkable than a lot of lesser lights whose biographies appear in Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
certainly more remarkable than a lot of lesser lights whose biographies appear in Wikipedia- this seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. VickKiang (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A remarkable resume then. Chisme (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help if some editors looked into a few of the many sources mentioned here to determine if they help establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has over 70 sources, and that is very impressive. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely false assertion. These credits are real, these writings are completely factual. The humas who gathered this information, submitted this information, are also real humans, deeply immersed in the music industry. Please read the sources and the links, and you will see. 2603:8000:DF00:1249:553:91BE:C811:8BEF (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I posted my comment in the wrong place. This is a messy thread, dear Wiki. But yes I agree with Davidgoodheart that this is a KEEP article, and I meant to post my comment under Theroadislong comment that this is a sock puppet. I cant find a wauy to delete my comment and put it in my intended pLace. But know that JOHN PHILIP SHENALE is a massive artist and every facet is accurate in this article. 2603:8000:DF00:1249:553:91BE:C811:8BEF (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/john-philip-shenale-mn0000815023/credits 2603:8000:DF00:1249:553:91BE:C811:8BEF (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noizbloc[edit]

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

Non-notable record label - fails WP:NCORP. The Orchard & Sony are distributors, but that doesn't confer notability. KH-1 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘’Do not delete’’ I believe this article can be modified or editors can add additional information about this label. CameronAćosta (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CameronAćosta (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete non-notable. A google search doesn't seem to return any results that could be considered significant coverage. Some of the sources do discuss the group but seemingly only because they released a new track. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I additionally searched newspapers.com. No search results were found. Jacona (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Taborda[edit]

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

Article about former semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Online coverage is routine/trivial stuff like this match preview, which fails far short of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was contested in 2021 without providing any indication that there is significant coverage in reliable sources.Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best source I can find is Maisfutebol, which is not enough on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Weintraub (producer)[edit]

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

David Weintraub seems to primarily be known as a talent manager/agent, having celebrity friends and for working on a variety of reality shows. But besides the two sources listed (one passing mention but the LA Times cite is decent), a quick search came up with other individuals who share his name and his LinkedIn profile (and a sexual assault charge). He seems to have a decent career in Hollywood but I don't think he meets WP:CREATIVE. I'm frankly surprised that this is the first time it's been nominated for an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wishing I had just PROD'd this article first. Oh, well, let's discuss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of the article doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and the article itself is a sea of citation needed tags, I couldn't find anything else while searching either other than what has already been mentioned. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 06:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have a soft spot for these old towns in Arizona which are like the ones my grandparents lived in in the early 20th century. But I am even more impressed at the lengths editors here go to to determine whether or not these one sentence articles represent towns that have any notability. Kudos to you all for doing your due diligence for Enid, Arizona! The consensus here is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enid, Arizona[edit]

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

Searching is beyond hopeless, but the maps and aerials show yet another isolated rail point, so most likely not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GEOLAND fail. Bruxton (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree delete as there seems to be no such place, much less notability. It is weird that the USGS list it as a populated place [15] KeepItGoingForward (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. This book says that a cinema theatre closed in Enid, Arizona in 1931. That confirms existence, but that's all I've got. The article coords / GNIS entry are probably referring to an old rail stop, so quite likely not very close to the actual location of any settlement that is/was here. SpinningSpark 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep per Spinning Spark I don't think Google Maps knows where it is. It's going to a location with a few buildings that look like ranches, a skydiving club, and a Muslim cemetery, but it may just be choosing a random location in Arizona. It refuses to give me driving directions to go there, is why I think this. There's a secondary highway right there and I should be able to drive there if I wanted to. Assuming this location is correct, regardless of zoom levqel, I am not seeing any label or post office, gas station or railway...nothing at all that looks like a town. Similar results on web and Google Books search. Nada. At most a very remote and isolated desert ranch community, assuming the map Google is showing me is on some level correct. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I tried again starting from the coordinates in the infobox and they do go to the location discussed above. Street View shows an old wood house that may be vacant, a couple of single-wide trailers, ditto. A car is parked by one of the buildings across the highway. Best guess based on knowledge of Arizona, although not this bit exactly: probably once was something there, but now... There are some roofs just over the horizon, and the structure with the car looks like a business. It's a pretty lonely place, definitely not notable or even likely to be noticed driving through. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once notable always notable. Even if it no longer exists, that in itself does not call for deletion. I've changed to weak keep. The Publix cinemas were known for being plush and ornate. Even though the one in Enid failed (noted in the source I linked), an upmarket cinema would never have been built in the first place if there was nothing of significance there at all. SpinningSpark 10:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will buy that, although I am somewhat incredulous based on the Street View. When I say business, I mean maybe a tractor repair shop or some other light industry. I really don't see anything that looks like the sort of downtown that might house a theatre. But. Your rationale is a secondary source and mine is OR, and I have no inherent objection to the idea that there was a town here. Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe the book. If this place was big enough to have a movie theater that was written about, there would be more that that reference. The line in the book is "Notices appeared about the sale of theatres in minor centres like Enid, Arizona and Chicksaw, Oklahoma". I think that was a typo and was referring to Enid, Oklahoma which had a population of over 25,000 in 1930 (the time frame of the book reference) that would have supported a movie theater. The most substantial mention I can find is AFL-CIO. Railway Employes' Dept. Convention Proceedings which talks about an 1961 rail accident there. There is no evidence there was a community there. MB 05:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be quite likely right so I have struck my keep vote. This book not only confirms that Publix owned two theatres in Enid, Oklahoma, but the town was their headquarters. SpinningSpark 18:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Companion (Doctor Who)#Thirteenth Doctor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lewis (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Character did not have a significant tenure on the show as a regular cast member and does not seem to have received any significant coverage beyond being mentioned in coverage of series 13 occasionally. Suggest redirecting to Companion (Doctor Who)#Thirteenth Doctor. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Popular culture. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who)#Thirteenth Doctor. I also couldn't find any significant coverage of the character specifically, just coverage of the actor or the season he was in. All the information currently in the article is redundant (it's mostly just plot summary that's already covered in the relevant episode articles). OliveYouBean (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who)#Thirteenth Doctor: All of the coverage that I could find was on the actor, not the character. Notability is not inherited. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I concur SIGCOV is not met for a stand-alone article. All we have is pretty much a glorified plot summary + note on which season the character appeared it. That's not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Luney[edit]

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

Unsourced, could not find additional (non-primary) sources online, fails WP:BLP TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, do not see how WP:BASIC is met. A search in Irish sources, both north and south (like in the Irish Times or the Irish Independent or Belfast Telegraph or The News Letter or Irish News) returns nothing at all. Not, seemingly, even trivial passing mentions. A Google search is also similarly sparse. And, while such this Google search returns a handful of sources that support some of the basics in the text (like this and this which confirm that the subject is/was a professional drift driver), they do not support a claim to notability. (The only result, of any kind, that is even borderline, is this apparent coverage in The Daily Mirror newspaper (UK). But that's not enough on its own.) The seemingly COI/SPA/NOTWEBHOST nature of the article's creation does little to help matters. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear fail of WP:GNG. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wayne Coles-Janess. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life at the End of the Rainbow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Unable to find significant coverage. I could only verify it has won one award, the Houston one. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Screen Education, no.32, 2003 Spring, p.159(2) (ISSN: 1443-1629) contained a 1675 word review [16]. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I couldn't find any RS about this film via Google; and only one via NewsBank and WikiLibrary databases in addition to Duff's Australian Screen Education review by Wendy Rawady: "Silver lining for town at the end of the Rainbow", 10 September 2003, by June Alexander, The Weekly Times (Melbourne, Australia), Page 31. Unfortunately I do not see how these are sufficient to meet WP:NFILM, so I'd suggest this page be merged with Wayne Coles-Janess as ATD. Cabrils (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasboi[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, perhaps just another influencer. Non-notable but we wish them well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable "influencer". Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite valid COI concerns, the consensus here is to Keep this article given the coverage the subject and his books have received. Thanks to editors for spending time improving the article. It looks like the accounts that were thought to be the subject have been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Shapiro[edit]

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

No one has ever edited this page except Shapiro himself through various sockpuppets (see here and here). There is nothing on the page to establish notability and all the sources used are either primary or only mention him in passing. I listed it through WP:PROD and Shapiro removed the tag. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the sources given are articles he's written, and he writes quite a bit. Brief public radio chats (more like an extended interview) here [17] and [18]. Semi-useful for GNG. I'll keep looking; article as it is now is very promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Book reviews in the NYT link above, but I'm at my limit for free articles,so I can't say how useful they are. Book reviews in Kirkus [19] and the WSJ [20]. Article needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The New Childhood which is a notable book. The coverage for Shapiro himself remains subpar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His other book, The Father Figure, does not appear to be as notable, but it has a review in Publisher's Weekly [21], non-review but independent and nontrivial coverage in the Washington Post [22], and is excerpted in Parents Magazine [23]. I think that's enough for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR and a save from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search found a lengthy Philadelphia Inquirer feature story of the subject, which I added to the article. In addition, the subject's two books were published by a large traditional publishing house and received reviews from The New York Times and an interview with the subject about one of the books by The Washington Post, with a review by Publisher's Weekly, another national publication. The subject has had coverage from National Public Radio (NPR) as well. The Inquirer, The Times, NPR, Publisher's Weekly - cannot be dismissed. The coverage is not mere mentions. There clearly is wide coverage by reliable sources about the subject. I cleaned up the article some but it could use more work. Despite that, this clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: He passes WP:NAUTHOR on the merits of having several independent reviews of several different books, but it is not a strong pass, as I wish there was more biographical coverage of him. Curbon7 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of secondary sources. The article cites only two sources (both of which are dead links and appear to have been primary sources). Baronet13 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing additional of value found on the internet, not notable. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dead links for a minor company. BD2412 T 05:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Jinian (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Germany. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Again and again, people bring AfDs for record labels founded by clearly notable musicians; there's no utility to having a redlink here. The content should be ported over and a redirect established. Chubbles (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what?Baronet13 (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olajide Kindness[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Article is also a promo. —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and appears promotional, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Okonkwo[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 6. A show they fail to win. —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEEVENT. Little to no coverage outside of appearing on reality TV. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im defending four pages at the moment. I can't do all at once, its too much. I have a life. Y'all put this one on hold andet me be done with the djrst two first Amaekuma (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hey man im josh. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Kalyan Government College[edit]

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

Non notable institute with no reliable source. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reliable source in a google search. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 passing mentions in gnews. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gopeshwar College, Hathua[edit]

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

Non notable institute with no reliable source. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG, no sources could be found, other than the college stats websites that are already listed in the article. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search found no sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 06:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As all users said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Singh College, Siwan[edit]

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

Non notable institute with no reliable source. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search found exactly zero sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 06:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As all users said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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