Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 19	November 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Collective (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

No notable stable. 99% of the sources are WP:ROUTINE, don't prove notability of the stable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has 40 sources. 36 surces are results of pro wrestling events and just a few mentions Artist Collective. 15, 38, 39 and 40 are the exceptions. 15, a interview by WWE with Sami Zayn. 38, a ranking of tag teams. 39 and 40, the history of the Intercontinental Title and Tag Team title, no mention of the Collective. With just WP:ROUTINE sources, doesn't meet notability guidelines. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 20 November 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 per WP:SNOW. Editors improved the article during AfD. (non-admin closure) Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adriane Rini[edit]

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

Seemingly a non-notable academic. The three listed sources in this article are her own PhD and the university she works for, hardly independent sources, and therefore fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell she also fails WP:PROF, but I'm not overly familiar with the guidelines there so I listed it here, instead of WP:PROD. Xx78900 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xx78900 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough published book reviews for WP:AUTHOR even if one skips the edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna challenge anyone's votes because I don't know enough about AfD in this area, but number of books published isn't a criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR, I think you have the wrong guideline in mind. Xx78900 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your original comment. I still don't feel that this body of work is "signifcant or well-known", which the review criteria is subordinate to, but I won't challenge you on it.Xx78900 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx78900: To put it another way, we have now ten in-depth, reliably published, independent sources about Rini's work. WP:GNG only demands two. They are about her work rather than what kind of pets she keeps but what do you expect sources on a scholar to look like? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A bit on the early side but some respectable cites on GS for a very very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
As above, I won't challenge anyone, but I don't think 'respectable' number of cites is an inclusion criteria by WP:PROF. Xx78900 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is. That's how we usually evaluate WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a pass of the wiki-notability criteria for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wiki-notability criteria for authors. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. Thriley (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not seeing how they pass WP:AUTHOR, but they do seem to be cited within their particular field to just pass WP:PROF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAUTHOR states that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In this case, three of her books ( Aristotle's Modal Proofs, The World-Time Parallel, and Logical Modalities From Aristotle to Carnap) meet the criterion, with each having a minimum of three reviews from high-quality, WP:RS scholarly sources per refs 6, 7, and 8. Therefore, WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied. VickKiang (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 19:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunker (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFF as all sources are about casting and film starting production, but the production hasn't been proven to be notable. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. The Film Creator (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Unreleased film. Currently, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Per WP:NFF, this unreleased film shouldn't have its own article. Draftify until release. ProofRobust 20:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Οἶδα (talk) 21:50, 23 November 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 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Metropolitan University Entrepreneurship Program[edit]

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

This article has no secondary sources used in the article, and a search on Google ngrams and web search shows no real secondary sources that discuss this program at length. The overall topic of this article is also unfocused as it seems to be summative of ALL entrepreneurial activities done by the university (outlining program, and funding for initiatives outside that), as opposed to being focus on a specific program/inititative.

Overall this article seemingly fails WP:NOTABILITY guidelines with no secondary sources (see WP:NFACULTY, noting how the faculties that would administer such programs/initiatives doesn't even have their own article). Leventio (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Leventio (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no sources. Not notable. Mr.weedle (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, and a plain Google search just yields primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Not notable. --Bduke (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. As Leventio points out, the faculty doesn't have an article. No indication that this program would pass WP:ORG. (Though the article is, bizarrely, not just about the program in the title and seems to be about a smattering of separate organizations vaguely linked to the university.) Samsmachado (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nonsense reasoning. WP:ITSOLD is absolutely not a delete reason for anything except a minuscule flash-in-the-pan fad. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Peoples[edit]

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

This cancelled movie has no meaning today. Wikipedia shouldn't promote it as if it were important today. Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's properly sourced and explains why it was nixed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But how is it important to today's fans of Disney movies?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is anything of the past important to "today's" fans? That is not a valid reason for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't transient. GNG is GNG. It's more than likely not notable for today's fans; yesterday's fans that look up the movie might find it interesting. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only is it sourced with reliable sources, but the rationale for deletion is invalid and has no basis in Wikipedia policy.

DonaldD23 talk to me 21:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Keep and close: No valid reason given, inside our policies, for deletion. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I'm the main contributor to the article. I had been familiar with the title and Barry Cook's career, although I didn't create the article. The production was covered in reliable newspaper sources like the Los Angeles Times and Orlando Sentinel so it has notability. Although it's a minor footnote in Disney history, the production was the one of the final nails in the coffin for 2D animation at the Disney studios at the time. It was shut down in favor of Chicken Little. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your point to keep this article and are also very familiar with the film. Though I do have one question. Why does this article exist when My Peoples is already mentioned in the List of unproduced Disney animated projects article. Once again, I am with keeping this, I just find this article a tad bit useless when what most people know about this unreleased film is that it is, well, unreleased. NateAnimates (talk) 07:15, 24 November 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 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CEM and SSM chips[edit]

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

The article comprises a lengthy list of technical data of no use to a general audience, in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AUDIENCE, and it's almost entirely uncited. --Rob Kam (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a product directory. The topic of "CEM and SSM chips" may well be notable, but there is no non-directory content worth preserving here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Pppery Zekerocks11 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 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 November 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article is 90% inappropriate in its current from, but these chips did play an important role in the history of electronic music, which is a huge genre. The article needs to be adapted for a more general audience, but some of the information here could be kept. Or maybe someone has some suggestions about where it could be merged to- maybe Synthesizers? Chagropango (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's almost an orphan article. Besides one wikilink under a See also there are no direct wikilinks to this article, only piped links to Curtis, SSM, CEM3340 and CEM3372. --Rob Kam (talk) 14:12, 21 November 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 Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. Star Mississippi 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds are For Cocktails[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Very little coverage, it's either passing mentions or press releases. Mooonswimmer 18:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The short description on Zarah should be plenty. A few sentences could be added to it and perhaps a redirect if someone was so inclined, but this book does not warrant its own article. Chagropango (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. There's no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject as far as I can tell, but a redirect seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. I suppose it's possible that the book could receive coverage in the future (it was only published last month); if that happens, then the redirect can simply be reverted at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. The book seems to be relatively new. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a reasonable WP:ATD and to leave room for expansion. Archrogue (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Οἶδα (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There isn't really enough coverage of the book to justify it having its own article. There is some mention, but it's in passing at best or press releases at worst. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There isn't independent coverage of this in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:31, 26 November 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. It appears this can be addressed editorially, as per the discussion. Sandstein 06:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Formation[edit]

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

The "Santa Cruz Formation" in Argentina is the clear primary topic here (and is currently being worked on, see User:Magnatyrannus/Santa Cruz Formation). Neither of the other two units labelled here has ever been known under the name "Santa Cruz Formation", making the disambig unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this page can easily be moved to (disambiguation) when the actual Santa Cruz Formation article is created. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: ...when the actual Santa Cruz Formation article is created ...

But there are two Santa Cruz Formation articles to create! Even though the Argentininan and Philipininan units might have the same or similar facies or fauna stage, I am uncertain that they can be mapped as a single unit ....

Certainly, splitting the Santa Cruz list into "Formation" and "see also" is a technique that really hasn't been done with geologic classifications, and I am concidering undoing the edit. This split presumes the modifier to Santa Cruz is a reliable or standard means of distinguishing between geologic units with the same name. If the type name is assigned a range of ranks, we do not make a disambiguation to list the ranks. The ultimate example is the Dakota, which is formally classified as Dakota Group, Dakota Formation, Dakota Member, and Dakota Sandstone across its range — we don't list the different ranks of the same strata in a disambuation. But, in this case, all four geologic classifications are valid for separate articles as they are named for different Santa Cruzes in different juristictions, which seems to be a peculiarity of units in the old Spanish colonies.

What is generally done with geologic units (wrt disambiguation) is to create entries in the "broad topic" disambiguation (examples being Ogallala Formation, Greenhorn Limestone, Purgatory Conglomerate, Wellington Formation, and Cottonwood Limestone).

IIUC, "See also" in disambiguation pages is generally used for links to other disambuation pages. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines Formation is extremely obscure by comparison and is likely of little interest to the general reader. ~~I propose Merging' the current Santa Cruz Formation disambiguation page into a "geology" section of Santa Cruz, which is what I probably should have done to begin with.~~ Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A geology section on a dab is usually unnecessary and I tend to indent a single geological unit entry under the location it is named for, but a geology section might be best for international units having the same base name, but for different locations having the same name. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Disambiguations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid dab, there are multiple topic known as "Santa Cruz Formation". I think "Santa Cruz Mudstone" is acceptable as a synonym. If the draft on the formation in Argentina becomes an article and is the primary topic, then this page can be moved to Santa Cruz Formation (disambiguation).
Delete. Two redlinks, and two bluelinks one of which fails WP:DABMENTION, is not a valid dab, regardless of how ambiguous or not this phrase might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid international dab. I don't know how to access the deletion reasons for Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina, but it is pretty easy to see that it is real and notable: "One of the best-known faunal assemblages [that is, the Santacrucian] that characterizes the past ecosystems from South America comes from the Santa Cruz Formation in Argentina." and should not have been deleted for notability if that was the case. Hemiauchenia suggests the article was draftified? Please link? The same case with Santa Cruz Formation, Philippines, however, notibilty is not so easy for me in a few minutes. If I could access the deleted page, that might be another matter. At worst, the Philippines case is a very easy to understand duplication of the name, and maybe even the age and fauna. Yes, keep, even with the red links which should be resolved either through replacement articles or redirects. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina was deleted for being created by a sockpuppet account. The current WIP version has nothing to do with the previously deleted version, which I can't access. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, before the ban, T' created the dab with the intent of starting/completing the Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina (they did that sort of frameworking). So, you are saying

(1) the "original" Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina, created after the ban is deleted for sockpuppetry (regardless of validity of content (OK, if that is policy));

and you are also saying

(2) there is a "current WIP version" of the "Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina", which I am hoping that you can link for me.

Whether or not there is a draft started, IIUC, Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina is a notable topic.

IveGoneAway (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is not much call for geology sections in dabs, as the location names are supposed to be unique, but there are legitimate collisions in the namespace between USA and Latin America, especially. That said, this is probably the best solution for such cases. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dabs direct us to where we can find information on a topic on WP - they don't need to have articles. 2 entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION and 2 valid see alsos. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to say that we don't make dabs for the sole purpose if accommodating redlinks, but it turns out that the current situation is exactly covered at MOS:DABRED; Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina is the "Flibbygibby (architecture)" example, and thus wanted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa Cruz Formation (disambiguation) for now. Once the article has been moved, or if the work in my userspace draft is complete, then the main article can be created. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, too. Thanks for working on the article. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IveGoneAway: Now the draft is ready for mainspace. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnatyrannus: Thumbs up The article looks fine to post to me. I am urged to say that the prose and flow of the lead is both excellent and conventional for geological units. My coverage is stratigraphy, lithography, and history, and from those points, the infobox is just fine. Aside from dabbling in a little early-late Cretaceous benthic fauna, I have nothing to contribute on paleontology review. I'll take Hemiauchenia as covering that. I would like pictures of the unit, though, ... I guess I'm closer .... IveGoneAway (talk) 01:39, 26 November 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. Star Mississippi 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rushdi Abu Alouf[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any better sources that amount to significant coverage. Edwardx (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, no coverage, can't find any awards, doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:JOURNALIST Mr.weedle (talk) 22:24, 20 November 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) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Sell[edit]

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

I have a few things to say about this. 1. This seems to be written by someone with a close connection to this person possibly. 2. The one reference link is now dead, and looking online, I cannot find a reliable source pointing to this person. 3. This article is about a living person, and while the notability is (I believe) clearly stated in the article, the lack of sources able to back up the claims is next to nothing based on my quick scan on Google.

As, again I am somewhat new to AfD's, but this article is setting off a lot of red flags in my mind over WP:BLP, and a few guidelines in WP:DP. Zekerocks11 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Zekerocks11 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof, at least on basis, of stunning citations in GS. I see nearly 6000 sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help point me to some of these sources that you saw? I only ask this because I couldn't find any relevant information when I looked so I figure I'm looking for sources wrong. Zekerocks11 (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her Google Scholar page is available here [1] DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think her OBE suggests she likely meets the notability threshold. Thriley (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OBE is generally insufficient by itself. Too many people get them for us to consider them all notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation counts on the Google Scholar profile linked above are enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1. (Zekerocks11: click on each citation number in this link for a list of publications by others that refer to each of Sell's works.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 24 November 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 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Sabretooth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This film was nominated for deletion in July 2021. At the time I voted "Keep" because I found a review at Dread Central [2], which is a Reliable Source, and another one at HorrorForever [3], which hasn't been assessed to my knowledge as to whether or not it is reliable. I also found a rating at Allmovie [4], but no indepth review...but, I have seen other films being kept by having just an Allmovie rating as Allmovie is considered a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

But, the overall result was "no consensus", and the notability tag remains. I am not a fan of that tag, I think that either the article should be improved to the extent that the tag can be removed, or the article should be deleted if notability cannot be proven.

Can we come to a consensus this time? Notable (keep article) or non-notable (delete article). ~~I vote Keep.~~See below DonaldD23 talk to me 17:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found a review at "Outnow.ch" [5], which has not been assessed to my knowledge either, but it does have an editorial page/staff [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 17:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Donaldd23 does an excellent job in film-related AfDs and my opinion might be controversial, but I just can't see how WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met. GNG requires multiple independent, reliable, (preferably) secondary sources constituting of WP:SIGCOV. Dread Central meets so, but AllMovie is merely a rating. That is nowhere near WP:SIGCOV, it is a rating and a database entry that does not meet the 100 words requirement per Wikipedia:One hundred words (of course this is an essay but it's my personal subjective metric) that is the bare minimum. Additionally, the other sources are unreliable. The translated version of Horror Forever reads Powered by the Blogger service. If a Blogger blog with no editorial policies whatsoever or that the author is a subject-matter-expert is undiscussed, it should be a SPS and generally unreliable, similar to a WordPress blog per WP:RSP, unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. Additionally, on Outnow.ch, IMO merely having a vague staff list is insufficient for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to meet WP:RS. That has to be demonstrated from detailed editorial policies and submission guidelines, I also don't see that the authors are subject-matter-experts, nor is there sufficient WP:USEBYOTHERS. The author who wrote the article in question's qualifications is helping with a minor podcast and. being a passionate Star Wars fan. This does not seem at all to be resembling a WP:RS site. WP:NFILM is likewise failed- for criteria 1, none of the critics are nationally well-known. My WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions, 1, 2, or additional non-RS sites, 1, 2, 3, clearly not counting towards GNG/NFILM. Therefore, IMO this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading VickKiang's assessment of the citations that I listed above, I am now convinced that this should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I would love to save a movie as dumb as this one, there just isn't much coverage out there. Certainly not enough to establish notability. It's just one of the films SyFy made before they really started getting attention for their mockbusters. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:11, 25 November 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 SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Spin-off characters. Star Mississippi 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Squidina Star[edit]

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

I nominated for PROD, but someone reverted. Seems to be a non-notable TV character. Can't find sources online that aren't just passing mentions. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Spin-off characters, which appears to entirely duplicate this stub's contents so merging is unnecessary. I agree that there's lots of content in industry press naming this character and its voice talent in discussions of the spinoff show itself, but nothing jumps out at me as SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Spin-off characters, no new content from the original. I would recommend to the draft's creator to work on the article in draft or userspace if they think it is notable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Can't find sources that are more than just passing mentions and fails WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 03:32, 22 November 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 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space launch statistics[edit]

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

The intended scope of this list is unclear and possibly too broad, such that it fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It appears that the current article lists the country with the largest number of successful launches per year and a related statistic, which is completely unsourced and perhaps a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. A number of related lists exist, e.g. List of spaceflight records, and might be suitable targets for a redirect, but it's not entirely obvious if these statistics belong anywhere, and if so, where. I would also support draftify/move such that the scope can be more clearly defined and the article would unambiguously pass WP:LISTN/WP:V. ^Complex/_Rational 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fail of WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no context — borderline A1. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:43, 22 November 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 Antonio Margheriti. Viable AtD that preserves history should sourcing that may exist be found. Star Mississippi 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky and Ghosts[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Passing mentions in books, no reviews found in a BEFORE. And, is this a 1974 or a 1978 film? Conflicting information in article.

PROD removed with "three sources stated, you would have to take this to AfD, Italian film post internet has WP:OFFLINESOURCES."

All the citations are passing mentions that only prove the film exists.

And, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES isn't the best rationale to keep an article. Reviews and reliable, independent resources are required. Those can be offline, but they need to be listed if, in fact, they exist. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prodded and sent to AfD within six days of it's creation. Old Italian cinema does have sources when you go looking for them. You say passing mention in those books, have you actually checked what's in those books? You haven't even mentioned Antonio Margheriti who was the director film-maker, who was fairly well known in Italian cinema. I do get confused by wikipedia sometimes. "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched?" Govvy (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they have sources then they should have been added to the article at creation, IMHO.

Also, having a well know director is irrelevant because notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED.

Yes, I clicked on the links present and they took me to previews of the books. This one [7] just mentions the film's name. This one [8] has one line about the film. This one [9] is the exact same book as the previous citation, just with a different name. So, none of them are good enough for notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems clear, the books given aren't substantial sources and I can't find anything further to support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find some hints that there may be coverage, but it would need someone to look in Italian and very likely offline. Evidence in question is a snipped from this L'Espresso book containing articles from the 1970s and this one from Biance e nero. I don't think that this is really enough to fully argue that sources exist, mind you. I'd need a bit more than this, as I can't get enough of a view to tell if the snippet is from a review, a database type entry, or a passing mention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Antonio Margheriti as an ATD. This is a tough one: searching is difficult due to the name (multiple languages and different spellings of whisk[e]y) and the fact that potential sources are paywalled/offline. I agree with ROTP that there are several few indications that sourcing might exist (well-known director, mentions in tertiary sources, etc.), but ultimately after quite a bit of searching through GBooks, ProQuest, the Internet Archive (which has archives of several Italian newspapers/film magazines), etc., I haven't found any in-depth sources, much less the multiple ones that the GNG requires. Although WP:NEXIST gives us a bit of leeway here, I'm not comfortable !voting keep without more concrete evidence of notability. Happy to reconsider if anything can be found (even one good piece of sigcov would probably convince me that other sources are out there), but otherwise I think a redirect, which preserves the history in case sources come to light later, is the best option. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 26 November 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 Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Shooting. Viable ATD Star Mississippi 18:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Adriaenssens[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS, competed in two olympics though. Could also be redirected, but I suggest deletion as then, the notifications of the new article would go to its creator and the one who has probably the most of interest in maintaining the article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. To my mind the best option is probably Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Shooting where a note should be added to summarise his appearances. A note could also be added to Belgium at the 1924 Summer Olympics#Shooting as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 16:27, 20 November 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. Star Mississippi 18:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of the Slime[edit]

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

Delete I originally nominated this for deletion based on the fact that these stamps are no more notable than any of the other about 10,000 stamps issued worldwide each year. The fact they were issued, what they depict and who designed them does not make them notable in and of themselves.

The sources do not show notability:

SOTW is a user edited website that just illustrates the stamp with basic information so cannot be considered reliable.

The Monash University page only verifies who issued the stamps, who designed them, and what the stamp illustrations are based on. This is fairly normal reporting for many flora and sauna stamps worldwide and does not confer notability.

The Indiana University Press source does not show any text at all, so is useless.

The external link "Rise of Animals: Evolution and Diversification of the kingdom Animalia" only verifies the stamp was used to illustrate a book cover which does not verify notability.

The external link to Monash University only gives a 404 error.

Comment: This link has been fixed but does not mention the stamps at all.

I cannot find anything substantial from independent third-party reliable sources which is the requirement for notability. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Products, and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a routine stamp issue that hasn't received much critical attention since release. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 20 November 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. Star Mississippi 16:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Manni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jay D. Easy (t) 14:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 14:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources in the article only provide trivial coverage. Couldn't find any other sources that would make the article pass WP:GNG. ProofRobust 17:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revuelta Vega Leon[edit]

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

Cannot find a single source online. At least with Google Search. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Florida. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small company with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ProofRobust 16:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Basically self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Donald Albury 16:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This comes close to WP:A7 territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Burns[edit]

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

Google search does not turn up anything, Battle for Dream Island doesn't even exist. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that he's notablr. Besides his work on the BFDI franchise, he also worked as an animator on Inanimate Insanity , is showrunner for Object Overload , and he is also known for his work on a webcomic. - Ricciardo Best (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in any sources I found. Coverage is only trivial. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NPEOPLE - specifically WP:CREATIVE. ProofRobust 19:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Battle for Dream Island was deleted, both speedily and by consensus at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - more BFDI disruption, intentional or not: see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive346#Request for the creation of the page "Battle for Dream Island". MER-C 14:26, 27 November 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!} 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HackerspaceSG[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. References on page are by the founders of hackerspace. Google search yields 0 news articles on hackerspace apart from cursory mentions when discussing innovation, startups, co-working in Singapore. No articles that address/criticise/talk directly about this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. The organization, though being non-profit, is not notable nor has enough RS per NCORP. --Morpho achilles (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)) [reply]
Keep (note COI). I have added additional sources from The Straits Times and The Business Times, among others, about HackerspaceSG's notability within Singapore's co-working and entrepreneurship communities, and which might hopefully also help with WP:RS. I believe this article should instead be cleaned up. --ValentineC (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on this article yet, but the sources that are used should be linked to the newspaper articles to evaluate them. This is not a true requirement for Wikipedia, but kind of essential during a deletion discussion. To the author of this article: if this article does not survive this article, I would recommend putting the information on https://wiki.hackerspaces.org/HackerspaceSG. That is more suitable than Wikipedia, which has a strong requirement for secondary sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As ValentineC stated, cleanup is more appropriate. ADifferentMan (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsOnMyBookshelf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

initial nom was many years ago, where it was speedy kept - not sure why, I can't find any in-depth RS showing notability at all JMWt (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Correction, I think it was speedy deleted in 2007 then recreated some years later. JMWt (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This website is unnotable, and I also couldnt find anything that talks about this website.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the non self-published sources are passing mentions including The Guardian article. The business's website was crawled until 2016, so looks like it was in operation for just over 10 years. Nothing found on its closure so doesn't look like it was much missed outside of its membership. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Rupples (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2000 WAFF Championship squads[edit]

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

This list is not at all suitable for main space but the article is too old to be draftified. I can't see any evidence that this list will ever be complete, at least not from what's available online about this tournament. The one source for the Iraq squad looks okay but I can't see that the same type of source exists for Palestine, Syria etc. I believe that there is no potential for this topic to meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN and should be outright deleted but, if people are adamant that there is potential, I'm happy for this article to be sent to draft to allow time for the article to be completed as an WP:ATD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both neither pass WP:GNG, and given that they appear to be unsourced, we shouldn't merge them into the parent articles (unless sources verifying the squads are found). We generally only have separate football squad articles for the FIFA World Cup (men's and women's) and continental competitions e.g. UEFA Euro 2020 and similar for other continents. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 19:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 WAFF Women's Futsal Championship squads[edit]

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

Squad listing for minor futsal tournament, similar case to 2019 UEFA Under-19 Futsal Championship squads and Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' team squads all of which were deleted with clear consensus. I can find no evidence that the squads were covered in multiple reliable and independent sources so the topic does not meet WP:GNG and I'm not seeing a WP:LISTN pass either as the contents of this list are not discussed as a group. In fact, I'm struggling to even see how WP:V is met as I can't see where the article creator has got their information from; the article appears to be original research in violation of WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Football, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would oppose a merge to 2022 WAFF Women's Futsal Championship as the content is currently unsourced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as not a major championship like the FIFA World Cup/UEFA European Championships (or similar for other continents), which are the only squad lists that generate enough coverage. Oppose merging as the content is just lists of non-notable people and is unsourced- as such, would not be beneficial in the parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 19:27, 23 November 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!} 08:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pacific Women's Four Nations Tournament squads[edit]

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

Squad listing for minor friendly tournament, similar case to 2006 ELF Cup squads, Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's team squads and 2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads all of which were deleted with clear consensus. I can find no evidence that the squads were covered in multiple reliable and independent sources so the topic does not meet WP:GNG and I'm not seeing a WP:LISTN pass either as the contents of this list are not discussed as a group - a pre-match squad listing on Twitter doesn't count for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Football, Oceania, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 19:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST, same as the other examples listed by nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 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!} 08:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Bangkok Metropolitan Council election[edit]

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

Long version: While there may well be an election for the Bangkok Metropolitan Council in 2026, no sources have been given to verify this. My initial thought was to redirect this to the Bangkok Metropolitan Council article. Given that there are named candidates for an election to unverifiablely be held some four years from now, I also considered tagging this article for speedy deletion, but I admit I am at a loss to find which one of them would apply. Short version: WP:CRYSTALBALL User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did only just PROD this shortly before this AfD was raised, with similar concerns as I didn't think it was too controversial a decision. I don't mind if we go through this process for a more conclusive decision. I didn't think it satisfied CSD but definitely it's WP:TOOSOON for any credible sources to be available and anything would, at this stage, be purely speculative. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sub-stub without any actual content, and totally WP:CRYSTAL. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon. Information won't be correct then. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ballery at the moment, if there is indeed an election that year this can be reconstituted in the future. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Sal2100 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 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!} 08:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Cultural Fever[edit]

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

WP:DEL#REASON #14 — WP:NOTESSAY. This is not a Wikipedia article. This is written as a persuasive essay. It's even written in the second person at times. Before nominating it for deletion I tried to stop and think about whether or not the page is salvageable, if it would maybe be possible to rewrite it into an encyclopedic article, but this is nothing more than a poorly written essay or blog post which occasionally tries to cite sources and does so inadequately, only using them to verify certain factoids or statistics rather than the actual content of the article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vanilla Wizard 💙 08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the topic is probably worthy of an article, but this article is so bad that WP:TNT is the most appropriate action. Chagropango (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rambling, unfocused, with no clear topic at all. I assume that as this appears to be an English translation of a Chinese term, there must be a definable concept that could be written about encyclopedicslly, but this isn't it and it would need a complete fresh start. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT this whatever it is, it needs focus and a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. The article makes no sense; it is a hodgepodge essay that is essentially gibberish. What is particularly alarming is that if you start reading academic texts, such as the first page of the Zhang article, "On Some Motifs in the Chinese 'Cultural Fever' of the Late 1980s" on JSTOR (visible in preview mode), you'll see that the phenomenon they are referring to as "Chinese cultural fever" is something else entirely...and I would argue, if you wanted a Wikipedia entry on the Chinese 'cultural fever' of the late 1980s that these scholars are referring to, it probably should be called something else. For that reason, I don't think a TNT rewrite could save this; it's just a straight delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:47, 22 November 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. Consensus is to Keep these two articles. Considerations of renames or redirects can occur on article talk pages. Or just be Bold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Springs Mission, Arizona[edit]

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

It's a mission, not a settlement; the first result in a Google search is its website. I see other references confirming this but it's not notable, that I can see, as coverage resembles that for any local church organization. Mangoe (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following, since it geolocates to the same place:

Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Hidden Springs, Arizona. There is not much of a settlement there, but the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona consider it to be the center of a group of its members that live in the area. It is referred to as a place in [10], [11], [12] newspaper articles from 1990 when the tribe was recognized by the government. One article talked about making Hidden Springs its headquarters, but that apparently did not happen as it is based in Tuba City. MB 18:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an inhabited area - there's articles on wikipedia with villages of only 10 people. Agree with the comment above me. Marleeashton (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't an "inhabited area". It's a facility where churches supply services to the surrounding population. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - populated place. Though I agree it should be moved to Hidden Springs, Arizona.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. There are opinions about Hidden Springs Mission but what do you argue should be done with Willow Springs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and agnostic about the move. Easily beats the sourcing most other populated places have with the newspaper cites about it's link to the Paiute people. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:03, 20 November 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. List of defunct airlines of Albania to List of airlines of Albania for the more comprehensive list in one place. Star Mississippi 16:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Albania[edit]

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

This seems too specific per WP:SAL, as there are only two items in the category. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Lists, and Albania. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of defunct airlines of Albania. Both articles will have more than two items in total.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, The target article should be List of airlines of Albania, with the more specific List of defunct airlines of Albania merged into it. Joyous! | Talk 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge List of defunct airlines of Albania into this article to provide a more comprehensive list. ProofRobust 17:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of similar articles with the same problem. Most defunct airlines lists by country are too short to be separated from operational airlines, particularly for several countries like Liberia with zero operational ones. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:31, 22 November 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) 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (1998 painting by Ellen Gallagher)[edit]

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

As much as I hate it, I think the notability tag on this article is correct. Searching is difficult because of the generic title, but I did my best and am reasonably confident when I say there appears to be no significant coverage of this painting specifically. I checked Google, GBooks, Google Scholar, and TWL and found much coverage of Gallagher but nothing about this particular painting in specific. Would prefer merge/redirect to deletion - only reason I didn't do it is because I suspect it would be challenged so no sense wasting the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist. I don't see any coverage about this particular work, only catalogue listings or mentioned in conjunction with the larger body of work by the artist. Oaktree b (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the National Galleries of Scotland link and the source of the funding used for the purchase is enough for notability for a painting. It was purchased and stored by the institution, creating the verification and notability used for visual art articles on Wikipedia, and funds for this purchase come from the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, to quote its lead, "was set up in 1980 to save the most outstanding parts of the British national heritage". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an explicit exception to the GNG for paintings somewhere? Otherwise, National Gallery or not, it needs significant coverage just like anything else does. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's been the standard at visual arts pages since I've been aware of them. A reputable museum listing is all that's required, it proves notability. The artist here is certainly notable, and plenty of her paintings have Wikipedia pages. The funding by the National Heritage Memorial Fund seems to put this one over the edge, they don't play around with what they fund. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that the National Gallery ownership is very serious and I'm not trying to undermine or attack their legitimacy. But my understanding is that all pages are subject to the GNG except in areas with specific carved-out exceptions such as WP:NPROF. There is not an established a carve-out for paintings/visual works insofar as I understand. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I've been taking note of it a museum citation is regarded as a major reputable source and usually is all the reference needed to promote a page from draft status to visible space. This practice just seems common sense and, as with this page, additional notability would be contained in the funding source for the purchase of the artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that the museum is a reliable source for the purchase, but simply being purchased does not constitute significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ellen Gallagher is a famous artist and it would be unlikely that a national gallery acquired it it wasn't notable. I know also these very large pieces tend have their own existance, and they become famous in their own right. There is something very special about them. It think it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope that the closer accords this vote the minimal weight it deserves. Feeling that this piece is special and notable is hardly a policy-based argument for keeping, particularly in the absolute absence of significant coverage of the individual painting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it is pretty well-established that a painting acquired by a major public gallery is at least presumed notable, and for a national gallery that would be pretty decisive. Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this work is discussed in the Grove Encyclopedia of American Art and this essay by the Tate as well as in books (some I can only see in snippet) such as The Secret Theory of Drawing and Refining the Imagination. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the encyclopedia would not be improved by the removal of this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 23 November 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!} 07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasia la Zona[edit]

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

Orphaned article since 2013 that doesn't cite any sources. May be a hoax, considering the author's username being similar to the program + the only Google results coming back to the article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Peru. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. Chagropango (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some related google search here in Spanish but it have no WP:SIGCOV which means it fails WP:GNG.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion given (WP:CSK#3). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsogo language[edit]

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

The Tsogo language article is too small and it is unknown where the citations have been put. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 06:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Democratic Republic of the Congo. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 06:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations are in the infobox. Some languages don't have a long list of historic scholarship to reference, so they often won't have very long pages. But Glottolog, WALS, and Ethnolog all have reliable information or resources on it, and the fact that it has been asssigned an ISO 639-3 code indicates basic notability. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick keep per WP practice that natural languages are notable. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article size alone is not a very good argument for deletion. There are sources commensurate with the current stub content, and natural languages are generally (even if not inherently) deemed notable. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 21 November 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. Analysis of sources demonstrates that WP:GNG is not met. This AFD result isn't a prohibition of an article on this subject in the future, just a consensus that, at this time, it's not possible to establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quackity[edit]

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

This YouTuber does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing pops up in the reliable or situational video games search engine. Although there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in Dot Esports, this is only just one source and that is really it. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple sources. The IGN source here is a passing mention at best, and I couldn't find anything else with a quick Google search. Sparkl^talk 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Mexico. Sparkl^talk 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think he may be notable enough, but if sources are this weak, then the best option is to delete. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage from Dot Esports is reliable, independent, covers him in depth, and offers a great claim of significance towards Quackity's notability. The issue here seems to be that coverage in Dot Esports isn't in itself enough to support Quackity's passing of WP:GNG, which is a fair point. This absence of other reliable coverage could be debated with the Newsweek article. Although there is no consensus towards the reliability of Newsweek past-2013, I do notice that the consensus established that reliability should be evaluated on a case to case basis. Perhaps we should debate on this aspect. The IGN article, although a passing mention still asserts him as a central figure of the movement the article focuses on, as does this article I have found in the Washington Post [13] Célestin Denis (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, there were three Dot Esports articles sourced in the page before this article was nominated for deletion. I found a DualShockers article that also gives him WP:SIGCOV. It's listed as situationally reliable on VG/RS (I actually participated in the discussion), and it seems decent enough to establish notability. Also, he was listed as one of the most discussed gaming personalities on Twitter from Business Insider, which should be a decent credible claim of importance. If I find more sources this week I'll post immediately, but for now, I vote keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current references are insufficient for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NCREATIVE. GNG states that Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. The three Dot Esports pieces are published in a short span of six months by a single author, Kacee Fay, these are not three sources but only a single reference. One piece is a routine announcement based on Quackity unveiled the announcement on his official Twitter account, two of the paragraphs provide general details on the show instead of Quackity. Therefore, IMO per WP:GNG one of the pieces falls under: moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Nevertheless, even if it's generously assumed that Dot Esports meet WP:SIGCOV it counts as one source, not three as another user suggested. Dual Shocker is a situational/marginally reliable source, there isn't consensus for general reliability so I don't think it could be used to count as a full source in establishing notability. Moreover, it is an announcement column that opens with Quackity has made an announcement, it covers the YouTuber's Dream SMP, routine details, and speculation, IMO it is a minor news story/announcement column failing WP:SIGCOV. Further, passing mentions might assert importance, but that does not lend to counting towards GNG. The IGN source is two mentions and trivial, whereas two references from Newsweek, a marginally reliable source, are debatably-RS and non-SIGCOV. The first is an announcement based on a Tweet, then an overview of subscriber count; the second one covers Quackity in two paragraphs, with the second being quotes, obviously too short for WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, Business Insider is trivial mentions based the 10 most tweeted about gaming personalities of the first half of 2021, that indicates popularity but it is not synonymous with notability, Insider is also a marginally reliable source for non-culture related content per WP:RSP, this appears to be a media piece, not a culture one. Thus, one source does not result in WP:GNG met, I also do not see WP:BASIC satisfied. My WP:BEFORE only found trivial mentions and non-RS sources, unfortunately. VickKiang (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think this article should stay personally, unfortunately I vote for Delete as per @VickKiang. If sources can be found, then this article should stay, but all sources given are extremely trivial. Zekerocks11 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VickKiang. The Esports reference is questionable, but being generous, it's one source. The others are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 25 November 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!} 04:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Chapters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable short film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as just appearing at festivals is not enough for notability requirements.

Relisting in the hopes that this time there will be more input into the discussion so that it does not end in no consensus again, but is either deleted or proven that the film is notable and finally have the notability tag removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Singapore. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref bombed out the wazoo, most are only trivial mentions. I don't see any further references we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various non-SME blogs and YouTube channels are not WP:RS; routine announcements (e.g., this, general coverage of the festival and quotes, but not WP:SIGCOV for the film specifically) and trivial mentions about nominations/shortlists for minor festivals are not WP:SIGCOV. WP:GNG and WP:NFILM criteria 1 is therefore failed, the awards are nowhere near the requirement set out by WP:NFILM criteria 2: a major award. Moreover, WP:NFILM inclusionary criteria 2 is not met. It states that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. The director in question, Abbas Akbar, has a notability tag, making it debatably a notable person, moreover, the second part states that An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there- this is a refbombed, questionably sourced article that I see no compelling size split requirements. VickKiang (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VickKiang. I could not find any coverage of the film on NewspaperSG. Abbas Akbar could probably be redirected to Chennai 2 Singapore. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just not enough coverage of the short. It's mentioned in passing in relation to the director, but by large it's not received any coverage. The best I could find was this review by SINdie. I can see where the site has been used as a RS by academic and scholarly source like this and this, but this is still only a single source and not enough to establish notability. Notability isn't inherited by the director or anyone else in the film being notable either.

To be honest, this is extremely common for short films and debut works as a whole. Sometimes the director gets well known enough to where their earlier stuff gains coverage, but by large the early stuff tends to be just mentioned in passing in regards to the newer works. It being a short doesn't help a lot since those are often overlooked as a whole, even when it involves highly notable people at the time of filming and release. This title is also too general to be a good redirect target, so I wouldn't recommend a redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:02, 25 November 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. Consensus that this article is a justifiable fork. Joyous! | Talk 03:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Salonga on screen and stage[edit]

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

content fork. A loose necktie (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is already amply covered in the main article about the actress and the top half of this article isn't sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the Wikipedia:Content forking guidelines, "... As an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genre of an aspect of culture such as a musical style." This living and active actress has over 80 credits. This subarticle is necessary. Mjmatousek (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the Wikipedia:Content forking guidelines. The list can be more complete than the credits discussed in the main article, which should use WP:SUMMARY. If the main article is overwritten, that is what should be addressed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Mjmatousek. References had since been added for the prose section of the article. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Necessary subarticle per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:52, 23 November 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 is partially because it doesn't seem like the nominator is seeking article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Studen[edit]

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

This article was created by me, but it has now been tagged as not notable enough (as per WP:GNG). I have thus nominated it for deletion, but have also highlighted the person's notability and added another source. In my opinion, he meets GNG as he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as evidenced by the added refs). I look forward to hearing the opinion of the community. TadejM ^{my talk} 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. TadejM ^{my talk} 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. In additional to the RTV obit in the article currently [14], there is also a substantial Dnevnik obit [15]. I think these are probably enough for GNG, although the Slovenian media market is so small that I don't think it's a slam dunk. I don't see much sign of WP:NPROF, but WP:NAUTHOR (or WP:NCREATIVE) would be more expected for someone in history, anyway. This would generally required multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources: there is one review of an authored book in the article now [16]. I found also this review of an exhibition Studen curated [17], which I think might support notability. I'm not so fluid in searching in Slovenian, so I did not look exhaustively. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I noticed coverage in several media, with obituaries, some of which were linked above. Extensive covering, not just death mention. Meets GNG to me. --Tone 20:45, 20 November 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!} 04:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scite.ai[edit]

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

Promotional article written by the company's CEO MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment decently sourced, not sure how trusted "Learned Publishing" is for a journal. COI is always an issue here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I think the sourcing in the current version is pretty bad. Background reading (like a paper from 1964) or press releases from organizations that have adopted/affiliated with scite.ai cannot contribute to notability. There might be a notability case to be made, based on news items in the specialist press, but apart from one decent example [18] they look to be pretty superficial [19] and probably don't meet our standard for covering corporations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I don't see much independent or reliable non-promotional coverage here. All the current citations are either the company's employees, or barely mention the database at all. I agree with XOR'easter, this is basically it. I don't think that's enough for a wikipedia page per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, personally. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I'm not seeing anything to suggest this meets our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 21 November 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. Sourcing found seems to be sufficient Star Mississippi 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caldecote, Buckinghamshire[edit]

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

Article hasn't been updated beyond minor edits since 2007, it has no references and there is a section within Walton, Milton Keynes #Caldecote that looks to be a much better fit for this. I've searched and haven't found any useful references for this and likely -- lack of notability. Marleeashton (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Walton, Milton Keynes refers to a similarly-named village called 'Caldecotte'. This article refers to a village just to the east of Milton Keynes called 'Caldecote'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - that’s what I linked in the post. I think it fits much better there as it doesn’t carry it’s own weight as an article with no sources to be found. Ran across it in my recommended edits from Suggestbot and tried for awhile to find some citations and couldn’t find anything. I know in the early wiki days there were a lot of geo articles started from databases and I’ve been trying help them with the Villages wiki project but in some cases there’s just not enough.. Marleeashton (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is confusing two distinct and separate places albeit both are in Milton Keynes Borough. @Marleeashton please click on the co-ordinates on the Caldecote and Walton, Milton Keynes pages and check the mapping to verify. Rupples (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed its a different place, we could probably have an article on that as well[20][21]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not an OS settlement it is a place in the Domesday Book[22][23]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that a brief note in the Domesday Book makes the article inherently notable and therefore every specific place mentioned therein is justified in having its own page? Rupples (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a Domesday place name (as opposed to something merely mentioned) I'd argue that it may make a place inherently notable as its a census and it does include more than a trivial amount of information about the place then again I'm not sure, perhaps some Domesday place should be merged with the parish they are in but most are probably notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course somewhere mentioned in Domesday Book is notable. It indicates it was a recognised settlement which means it meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "of course" but it wasn't obvious to me. Anyway, having carefully read Wikipedia:GEOLAND I now understand why it's deemed notable, so thank you for the reference. Rupples (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason as the two contributors immediately above. Rupples (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two paragraphs in the Victoria County History of Buckinghamshire tracing Caldecote's manorial history, digitised here [24] Rupples (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is to be redirected or merged it should be to Moulsoe as Caldecote is in this civil parish. Rupples (talk) 05:04, 27 November 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 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Reider[edit]

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

So there are a few potentially noteworthy claims here, but I don't think any of them pass the bar for assumed notability, and there's a general lack of GNG.

1. On WP:NACADEMIC - Does being "Associate Dean of Biomedical Informatics at Albany Medical College" pass? I don't believe so - he's not a professor, this was an administrative position.

2. On WP:NPOL - Does being "Deputy National Coordinator and Chief Medical Officer of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, a staff division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services" pass? I don't think so. This is an unelected position, and he was only a temporary appointee.

What do we get regarding sources? The article itself has been refbombed with WP:ROUTINE, but google turns up more results...

---

https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/inno/stories/news/2022/08/03/circulo-health-clifton-park-practice-primary-care.html Difficult to tell exactly because this one is paywalled. Seems to be SigCov, but not sure about independance.

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/World-class-care-for-Medicaid-patients-coming-16794327.php Seems to be independent, but isn't SigCov.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/future-pulse/2022/03/09/health-tech-leaders-ponder-the-future-of-digital-health-00015453 Mentioned in Politico, but only as a very insignificant passing quotation.

https://fortune.com/2021/03/10/covid-vaccine-free-people-not-getting-coronavirus-vaccines-cost-price/ Mentioned in Fortune, but I can't read the article as it's paywalled. From the excerpt, I suspect it's not SigCov.

---

From this, I think he narrowly fails WP:GNG, doesn't pass subject specific notability guidelines, and I'm also a little suspicious about various contributors to the article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of hits on him giving advice on any particular topic, nothing about him as a person/subject of an article. His positions as above don't really seem to be at GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the above. While notability can be shown by the number of sources IF they were entirely about the subject (ever 2–3 might suffice), these are not that. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:06, 20 November 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 Deleted as G12 - violation of the copyright policy.. — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The P4 Language Consortium[edit]

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

The current references are trivial mentions (ref 1, ref 2 (mainly covering the processor, not this organisation), ref 5), non-SIGCOV database, or routine WP:NORG failing routine announcements primarily quotes. Therefore, WP:NORG is failed, WP:BEFORE did not find additional sources contributing to notability, only routine announcements as well (see my previous PROD rationale). The article is also promotional, e.g., The main purpose of The P4 Language Consortium is to create a thriving open source community to perfect the P4 language and encourage its widespread adoption to design network systems. VickKiang (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like page was created in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the promotional tone explained above. I only find articles on how P4 fits into the "larger tech landscape" and "drives inovation bla bla". Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I watched the video at the link in the URL, looked over the content and sources here. I do not believe that there is anything about this article that fully meets notability guidelines, and the advocacy point is well grounded in my opinion. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:12, 20 November 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.