Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 13	September 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The School (British band)[edit]

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

just another band. fails notability guidelines for bands. all sources in the article are primary sources that don't establish notability. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they do have a staff written bio at AllMusic here together with three staff written album reviews there. Also there is an article about them at The Guardian here and a review of one of their albums at the BBC here, and PopMatters here and TinyMixTapes here. Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep This subject meets general notability guidelines.--Panther999 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306; the reviews linked clearly satisfy WP:GNG as well as WP:NMUSIC #1 ("the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"). I suspect there is more, but the ones brought up here are more than sufficient. That being said, the article needs to be rewritten for potential copyvio issues (some of the text is taken from the band's website, or the band's website took it from us, I can't tell which is the case). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Palakkad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulthanpet, Palakkad[edit]

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

Not notable and proved by sources geo article Dark Juliorik (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palakkad. Ingratis (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was overwhelming consensus to delete this page in 2005, but it appears that the XFD was erroneously closed as no consensus due to a ~~single~~ two "keep vote." Clear-cut case of WP:NOTDICT that should be deleted. - car chasm (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Clear delete. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. BilletsMauves^€500 17:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete This isn't Wiktionary. --Panther999 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Golf[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NCORP. Not enough notability, nor good independent references/sources. Golf related sources aren't reliable Dark Juliorik (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first two refs in the article discuss the most expensive golf ball in some depth. A quick newspaper search finds this, and there many more hits that I haven't looked at more closely. There seems to be enough independent coverage here. MB 23:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: The first two refs are obviously the same press release that also can be found in many other places, e.g. here is the full release. Other refs are also PR. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the newspaper coverage is better. MB 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage in truly independent reliable secondary sources – mostly blogs and press releases with a few interviews. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough RS to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above. Little coverage that's not either self-published or a copy of it. 07:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Design Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable school. All the sources on the article are of absolutely no use, and I'm not finding anything under either of the school's names (string: "lci melbourne", "academy of design australia"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This is a degree giving organisation and the article is well sourced. Note that this kind of organisation is not called a school in Australia. That is a US term. --Bduke (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a degree-giving organisation means nothing, and have you even looked at the sources? Two of them 404 out (one of them marked as permanently dead), one is IMDb, another is its homepage, and the rest don't even mention the subject, let alone discuss them in any depth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let me modify my opinion to Very weak keep. Degree giving organisation should be notable. Can anyone closer to this academy find sources. --Bduke (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, that is not the case and has not been for ages now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your link says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.". Does that not fit this case? --Bduke (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to what I wrote in my deletion argument. I've looked for sources and come up empty. It's possible there are offline sources about it, but with the paucity of results overall and quality of said results I don't see any way the subject meets WP:NORG or WP:N. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree there may be potential for a page, but potential cannot be the basis for the page’s existence. At the moment the sources are inadequate. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly, whether its a school or not, its just not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stefano Valdegamberi. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Future[edit]

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

Not a party, but a small group born in the regional council from the split of other parties. Excluding a few articles about its foundation in the regional council, the name of this group appears in the sources exclusively next to the name of the chairman Stefano Valdegamberi: in practice, the sources concern the political activity of the latter, not of Popular Future. The article itself tells nothing about this group. At most it could be merged with Stefano Valdegamberi. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Christianity, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Party or not (its activities and members, including a former member of the Chamber of Deputies, indicate it was a party), the subject counted three members out of 60 in the Regional Council of Veneto, a region with 5 million people (more than several countries in Europe), for three years (2012–2015) and played a distinctive role in Venetian politics. Its leader was re-elected to the Council also in 2015 and 2020 in Luca Zaia's personal list and, differently from what is written in the article, the party continued to be active even after 2015 (see [1]). When evaluating this subject, we should not be influenced by a recentism and we should not overlook the importance of regional and local politics (correctly, there are also municipal parties in Wikipedia!). However, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Stefano Valdegamberi. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "Its leader was re-elected to the Council also in 2015 and 2020 in Luca Zaia's personal list" ": indeed, he was elected in the Zaia List, what does Popular Future have to do with it? The fact that it was a party is still to be demonstrated, however, as I have already stated, I would agree to merge it with Stefano Valdegamberi.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Checco as I have already said, I would be in favor of merging this page with Stefano Valdegamberi. On the other hand, I do not find it useful to keep this article standalone: I have not found any source mentioning this group / party that is not directly related to the political activity of Valdegamberi himself. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna Bekleviç[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 20:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Economics, and Turkey. Kadı Message 20:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article with this many references should have a better deletion rationale than simply "Fails WP:GNG". It is by no means self-evident that it fails. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After Phil Bridger 's comment above, I decided to take my time and check the sources in the article. There is a lot of spam articles and deleted ones. However, there are plenty of eligible in-depth articles from reliable and independent sources. I'm not a great expert on the Turkish or Armenian press, but here are the ones that easily qualify the politician:

There are many more I found on Internet but I believe that will be more than enough. Also, I wonder how the nominator Kadı came to conclusion that such a prominent figure in the politics of Turkey fails WP:GNG? It looks like the nominator didn't spend enough time to check the articles and notability properly, which brings a question of their competence but this is not the place to discuss it. I'm just concerned that it is not a one time mistake but something that might have happened with other pages. --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suitkvarts I'm not sure how accurate this above analysis is. I haven't checked much yet, but the final link you've sent is literally "Our speakers", that's not independent, is it? A few reliable Turkish sites only include his statements and quotes (eg. 1st Hürriyet one) and aren't in-depth coverage. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Re-ping Suitskvarts. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@~Styyx I just sorted the sources in the article that have coverage of the politician. The very first ones have deep coverage and indicate that Tuna Bekleviç was a big political figure in Turkey (Presidential candidate and also a leader of an oppositional political party) who was persecuted and fled the country. Some sources above have an extensive coverage of Belcevic career and many of them are well known and reliable - Telegraph, CNN Turk, Hurriet. As I understand, we need 3. Also, it is enough to type the name in Google Search to see that there is a need for additional audit and research.

Suitskvarts (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suitskvarts, Do you know Turkish? Kadı Message 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadı. No, but I know how to use Google Translate. Also, there are many sources in English as well. I have the same question, do you know Turkish and if "yes", did you use your knowledge to check the articles in Turkish?

Suitskvarts (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suitskvarts, Turkish is my mother tongue :) I checked all of them, this person's notability can not be proven with these sources. Also, if you want to know more about my Wiki-experience, you can check this page. Kadı Message 18:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadı. I'm glad to hear that Turkish is your mother tongue. However, as Phil Bridger, there is a lot of sources and your nomination's rationale was way too short. Also, this article is very sensitive politically: Belcevic fled Turkey to avoid political persecution and many sources in Turkey are persecuted. It is well know fact that the Turkey government uses its power to censor the press and there was news about the Turkish government trying to suppress Wikipedia pages related to Kurds or Turkey's opposition. Therefore, I sincerely hope you do not have a conflict of interest here.

Suitskvarts (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suitskvarts, Could you please explain the correlation between Tuna Bekleviç and government, Kurds etc. ? Kadı Message 19:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suitskvarts Turkish Wikipedia has no ties to Turkey, Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia, and it is impolite to accuse users of being government suppressors. Please comment on the content and not on the users. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 19:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 I apologize if I seemed impolite to anyone. But to tell that I accused anyone in Turkey's opposition suppression is your own interpretation of my words and is simply not true. This is a free forum and I didn't go beyond WP policy if I ask someone a question. Asking is not accusation and I didn't have in mind that the nominator was a government suppressor - let me state it very clearly. However, I would like more editors to have a look here as my concern is that nomination was wrong and the nominator didn't do a thorough analysis. And he didn't respond to my questions, so I refuse to respond to his. I shared my opinion here and I don't want to get involved more in this discussion

Suitskvarts (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The current article is very poorly sourced but after checking Google search, I've found multiple publications with good coverage - most of them date back to 2019 when he left Turkey but he was clearly a notable oppositional politician and has a lot of media. Here is a couple more:

https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/tuna-beklevic-portresi-emperyalizmin-guttugu-esek-41385255

https://ahvalnews.com/ahmet-kaya/his-62nd-birthday-millions-hold-hope-ahmet-kayas-songs\

From the list above, "Jerusalem Post" is definitely good and reliable. Also, here is the link to the search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tuna+Beklevi%C3%A7&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS909US914&sxsrf=ALiCzsaM2SnKWcc6gzVVjIAKYWy_Q-0EbQ:1663447478740&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDj8rg2Jz6AhVsMEQIHYHZAE8Q_AUoBHoECAMQBg&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1

--Onetimememorial (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose : passes gng Furius (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. Almost all of the article is indiscriminate statistics about hybrid electric vehicle sales. Hybrid electric vehicles have no political, economic, or cultural significance (or if they do, then you can't tell from the article), and there are no articles for countries other than the US. Plug-in electric vehicles, on the other hand, have a lot more significance, and there are articles for 18 countries, 38 U.S. states + DC, and 4 Canadian provinces. Numberguy6 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems well-sourced. Odd topic to be honest, I'd maybe trim down some of the charts, seems maybe too long. Looks like GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has existed since 2010 as a split from hybrid electric vehicle from the section American market because it was getting too long. Other sections exist in the mother article about the Japanese and European markets, but not enough to either make it as a stand alone article. Even though the US is the world's second HEV market after Japan, there is no Japanese HEV article because there is not enough material in the English language. About the content, this article is similar to the Plug-in electric vehicle in country X because the focus is on the market, the rates of adoption, not the technology that is common to almost all markets. Discussing the evolution of a market IS NOT a collection of statistics. Additionally, this article is relevant because it presents the history and evolution of the hybrid market in the U.S., not as important now for environmentalist, but this market precedes the mass market of plug-in electric vehicles, and even just for historical reasons it has merit to be preserve (we should not delete articles just because the subject is or seems out of fashion). In fact, together with plug-in electric cars, sales of conventional hybrids have took off in the past two years, and the info is just dated, but not irrelevant. As proof of the relevance of this article, since July 15 2015, the page has had over 155.000 views. In addition, the content shows lessons for developing countries that are just beginning do adopt HEVs, BEVs and PHEVs. Therefore, the article could be improved, updated but there is no proper justification for deletion, the subject continues to fulfill the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability.--Mariordo (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete the tablecruft. I think there's a clear case of notability for the subject, but the existing article needs serious cleanup. The giant-ass tables of statistics need to go. To give one obvious example, the article should discuss California's laws which will eventually require all cars sold in the state to be EVs or plug-in hybrids [2]. Other sources discussing hybrids in the U.S. in some amount of detail include [3] [4]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
California's law covers fully electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are covered under Plug-in electric vehicles in California. This article covers conventional battery hybrid vehicles (e.g. the Toyota Prius.) Numberguy6 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mariordo. The article definitely needs a restructure, though. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet GNG to me but I too believe this needs to be restructured into a more encyclopedic article regarding the history of HEVs in the US and major events within rather than a bunch of numbers. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkmate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Please note that most of the cited sources are NSFW. They are:

1. A very promotional review on "girlcamsites.com". This seems like an unreliable source.
2. An award roster for a non-notable award. Pornography industry awards are a dime a dozen.
3. A press release (credited as "newswire") promoting the company's affiliate marketing program.
4. Another ad for the affiliate program. Notice that the url is https://www.payoutmag.com/press-releases/...
5. This is an ad that ran in The Austin Chronicle, not a regular news article. Just look at the other entries in https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/ads/ (NSFW) -- it's full of ads for snake oil and scams.
6. An affiliate marketing article. If readers click through to the advertised websites and spend money there, the article publisher will receive a cut of the proceeds.
7, 8, 9. Promotional articles about the affiliate marketing program in the pornography trade press. The AVN and YNOT articles are lightly edited copies of the same press release cited as Ref 4. gnu 57 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Websites. gnu 57 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's hard to find anything discussing them that isn't, um, adult-related. We'd really have to dig to find a decent mention of the site in RS. Nothing in the NYT or other news sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT, never mind clearing the higher bar of WP:CORPDEPTH. Incidental mentions and plenty of sponsored content. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage of this organization from multiple independent reliable sources, so this fails WP:NCORP and should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination as apparently subject has extensive coverage in nation of origin. (non-admin closure) ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 21:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moonika Aava[edit]

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

Article lacking reliable sources; appears to be a database style entry. Individual seems non-notable, with a search turning up very few non-English news sources, most of which only mention her name a single time and don't appear to be significant coverage. Of what I can find, there is her marginally longer and apparently more thorough Olympics Fandom Wiki page, which claims (though without sources) that her only real achievement is setting the record for best result by an Estonian athlete in women's javelin throwing in Olympic history. Of minor note is that the Fandom page claims she set this record in 2008 rather than 2004, contradicting her Wikipedia page. Of more pertinent note is that if this is the case, Aava would fail WP:BLP1E for her only claim to fame being the achievement of such a specific and obscure sports record and not having seen any WP:SIGCOV since. Page should be either deleted or redirected to a suitable location (an article covering the relevant event at which she achieved the record or something similar). ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Olympics, and Estonia. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 17:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She has an entry at Eesti spordi biograafiline leksikon that confirms she was the 8 times Estonian record holder between 1995 and 2010. She is covered in featured articles in Õhtuleht, which is the largest daily newspaper in Estonia (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) She is featured in headlining articles in Postimees, which has the largest circulation and readership in Estonia, (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Completely passes WP:SIGCOV. All you had to do was a WP:BEFORE. Someone isn't less notable for inclusion on English Wikipedia because the press is in a language that isn't English. ExRat (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I did do a search, it's just I didn't know of those newspapers and Google is apparently garbage. Regardless, I guess I'll speedy close the discussion and tag the page for improvement. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 21:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hangar Studios[edit]

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

Created and edited exclusively by SPAs, doesn't cite a single source, and no evidence of notability on Google. A recent edit by an IP attempted to rewrite the entire article into a brochure page. BrigadierG (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree here that as a studio, I am not seeing much (hardly anything) in way of WP:SIGCOV and really not close to asserting notability. It's all well and good that some seemingly notable productions are associated with it, though notability is not inherited. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrigadierG, we apologise for adding too much 'brochure style information'. We wanted to add some more information on the studio itself as well as update the various new productions, including ones from the BBC, Netflix, Marvel etc. We can cite these to the imdb pages, which has our company attached. Please advise on what information we can and cannot share. JamesNash98 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think responding in the collective first person is a pretty damning case of WP:NOTHERE, where "we" implies some kind of collective business interest rather than encyclopaedic interest. Wikipedia is not a place for your business to promote itself, per WP:PROMOTION. This response is also a tacit admission to an undisclosed WP:PAID violation. Aside from these behavioural problems, there's one way and one way only to make this article appropriate for Wikipedia - make it pass WP:GNG by backing it up with multiple, independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. WP:IMDB is not a reliable source for production credits, and production credits in general do not establish notability on their own. In terms of what you can and cannot include, I suggest reading WP:NOT and WP:COI. BrigadierG (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / weak delete - the "UK's largest permanent green screen" is a robust claim of significance and I'm a little surprised there isn't more coverage. As it stands, I could only find one example of third party SIGCOV and even then it reeks of being a rehashed press release, so is a bit dubious: [5]. I strongly suspect this subject will achieve notability in the near future as it currently isn't very far off, but for now I agree it doesn't belong in mainspace. Waggers TALK 11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter (2017 video game)[edit]

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

It is a HEAVY dose of irony that The Letter (2014 video game) is notable simply for being so outright terrible while this game isn't, despite being much better in production values and having a much larger team, but unfortunately, this game seems to clearly fail WP:GNG. The Kotaku review is literally the only instance of WP:SIGCOV from a reliable source, and GNG requires several of them. There is a very short mention in TheGamer, but that source is not considered super-reliable in the best of times, and it's part of a listicle. The others are definitely unreliable sources. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but a thorough search into the matter comes up with nothing. (And yes, I also checked the archived link of the Siliconera article listed in the talk page; it is simply an announcement and not a review; I would not call it SIGCOV). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Removed unreliable sources from the article. I did find this, albeit just a news piece. IceWelder [✉] 14:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked over that and it did not seem nearly like SIGCOV. I think potentially the only saving grace could be any foreign language press that wouldn't come up in an English search, but the article certainly doesn't demonstrate any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the Kotaku review, the others (1, 2) are trivial news releases, so this doesn't meet WP:GNG, my WP:BEFORE search didn't find any more refs. VickKiang 10:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Legal tender#Demonetization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demonetized[edit]

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

speedy, for now, better likely as a disambiguation page — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 13:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We also have Demonetization with the same DAB; neither goes to a sole topic on either subject, so both should be deleted, or a new consensus should be formed beyond this. Nate • (chatter) 17:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Legal tender#Demonetization -- edit history of Demonetized indicates the nom was mistaken, and there's no reason to change the status quo. Demonetization is currently an unnecessary dab as Demonetization (YouTube) isn't real and doesn't go anywhere of note on Youtube. Frankly, Demonetization should also redirect to Legal tender#Demonetization. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Legal tender#Demonetization -- the youtube section no longer exists ZyMOS (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pokémon anime characters. If you would prefer a different redirect target or to merge some content, please bring the discussion to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serena (Pokémon)[edit]

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

While the article was declined at AFC, the creator continued to do an end run around the article creation process and publish it anyway, so I have to nominate it for deletion as I do not believe it passes WP:GNG. The reception is very WP:REFBOMBed and relies heavily on listicles. Wikipedia is not FANDOM and articles should show some basic evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I should also note the WP:NOTHERE style behavior on the part of the article creator, particularly "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", in ignoring the issues with the article and continuing to publish it without approval. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little of note is there to List of Pokémon anime characters. Complete wikia-grade content. Reception largely inconsequential passing mentions of game reviews or unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with a redirect to Pokemon X/Y too, for the sake of consensus. I really only oppose keeping the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Pokémon X and Y, where the character originated from. The nomination is correct in that this article is very heavily WP:REFBOMBed. Many of the sources are not from reliable sources, or either only briefly mention the character in general reviews of the game or anime, or don't mention the character at all. When all of these copious amounts of inappropriate references are removed, there is not actually much left, and those mostly fall into the realm of episode/plot summaries for the anime. Her role in the anime is already sufficiently covered at List of Pokémon anime characters and her role in the game is already covered at Pokémon X and Y, and there is nothing that would indicate that the topic needs to be split out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Pokémon characters#Protagonists or Pokémon X and Y, preferring those two destinations to List of Pokémon anime characters per Rorshacma. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon anime characters, per Roschacma. Serena demonstrates no notability outside of being a supporting character in the XY anime. I don't think the article should be redirected to Pokémon X and Y, or List of Pokémon characters#Protagonists, as the character has barely any notability in X and Y and is largely characterized in the anime. DecafPotato (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are good sources for Serena, almost all of them are exclusively about the anime. [6] [7] [8] [9] I would say that these cause it to pass WP:GNG, albeit barely. If it were to get redirected though, redirect to List of Pokémon anime characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Screenrant and CBR are terrible sources. The Polygon is a decent source, but Pocketgamer is basically a name drop. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant is seen as reliable for entertainment-related articles that are not BLP and CBR is situational, with the author being an editor on the site and had created over 100 articles. I think both of these should be fine. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect In-depth secondary reliable coverage is not here. GNG isn't met. The article is full of linkbomb and fluff, such as a lengthy sentence about Gamespot's review of the game that barely refers to the character. Numerous unreliable sources are present, a third the reception uses primary sources, and there's a heavy reliance on Comicbook.com and Valnet properties (CBR, Screenrant, Gamerant), churnalism sites that hold a "situational source" label at best. Even if they were reliable, there is a lot of misuse, such as multiple sources about a specific episode being used. The sources cover the episode and it's events, which of course requires mentioning the character, but does not represent in-depth analysis of the character. If the misused Gamespot review, CBR/Comicbook/Screenrant/Gamerant, and Primary/unreliable sources were removed from reception, there would be one source left, SoraNews. Surprise, that source is about the kiss episode and how Ash is 10 years old and barely mentions Serena. -- ferret (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Ferret's source assessment is on the money. It should be codified that these outlets are insufficient for notability, if they should even be cited at all, rather than repeating the same story at every video game fictional character AfD. czar 19:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I concur that sources fail WP:SIGCOV and occasionally, WP:RS, I think the reception section has some value and would prefer to see it merged to one of the targets mentioned earlier. The creator may not fully understand some aspects of current Wikipedia standards (like SIGCOV) but their work is nonetheless a net positive, if resued responsibly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge: I agree with the assessment of the sources, and this issue has come up perennially at WP:VG/RS. No one, including myself, has been able to really codify the best advice on how to handle lower quality sources, or journalism that's largely driven by social media such as this[10]. It's not that these subjects shouldn't be covered, but that a full article based on these sources becomes nearly pointless, as a WP:COATRACK of random news clippings that mention the subject. I've tried to get some discussions going on how to handle this kind of "journalism", but I think we are still some ways off from a concrete proposal. Sometimes I think we should deprecate CBR/Comicbook/Screenrant/Gamerant as reliable sources, but I believe a proportional solution will be more nuanced than that. In the meantime, I see a frequent consensus that this kind of sourcing isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasef (missile)[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable, non-primary coverage of this missile type. The one source in the article dedicates only 3 sentences to the missile. Does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Arab Emirates. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I could only find mentions of the rocket (in reliable sources). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good primary source: Technical Specifications, a bad secondary source: Arabic text, and a good secondary source: Azeri magazine (page 20) PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Azeri, and can't even tell if what's in that magazine article constitutes significant coverage. Primary sources do not establish notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Azeri source is a good one, it's a published magazine. However the missile is only mentioned, not significant coverage, and there is a picture of it. There is a section talking about the Halcon missiles in a more general sense. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Best to be merged to an article about Halcon Systems or Defense Industry of the United Arab Emirates if they would have existed. In the mean time merge it is best megred to List of equipment of the United Arab Emirates Army or United Arab Emirates Armed Forces. Topic is notable in the context of the UAE defense industry but does not appear to have enough independent coverage about it to constitute its own article at this point.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was developed in the UAE doesn't mean the UAE military uses it. This should not be merged to anything relating to the UAE military unless we have proof they use this missile system. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings You are right, perhaps of the existing articles it is best merged to EDGE Group which Halcon is a subsidiary of. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to delete myself because the most that I think should belong in that article is a mention added to HALCON manufactures guides missile systems, specifically the words "including nasef". The article currently boils down to "Nasef is a missile manufactured by Halcon", the rest being specifications that don't belong in the Edge group article or unhelpful information. That content alone is not worth saving the content as written (since merely adding a mention is all that could be done). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think people who search Nasef (missile) should not be redirected to the subsidiaries section of EDGE Group? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that could happen as opposed to a merge. I assume you're talking about what would happen if my mergish proposal (i.e. adding a mention) happen. I'm slightly inclined towards deletion because of how little information would be presented (readers may already know that it's a missile built by Halcon when they search) and readers might be surprised to be directed to a subsidiary list with a single mention of Nasef in it. In short, I doubt its usefulness. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 10:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I think your idea of merging this article to EDGE Group by adding "including Nasef" to the section about Halcons missiles is the best option right now. I have made Halcon Systems redirect to EDGE Group. Perhaps in the future, if Draft:Halcon Systems becomes an article, then the information of Nasef from this article can be included in a list of missiles by Halcon on that page. If Halcon systems ends up becoming its own article then perhaps a case can be made that Nasef (missile) should redirect to there, however as it stands now I agree that Nasef (missile) is too detailed of a name to redirect to EDGE group as that would set the precedent that every single product of every subsidiary of EDGE Group can become a redirect. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robi Hager[edit]

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

Was deleted once through Prod, so ineligible again for that route. Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass GNG, and the roles they have had do not support NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing GNG, he was in casts with other members, but not enough coverage for him alone. Anthony Rapp in the first ref is now in Star Trek Discovery; this fellow was (and is) just a Broadway performer. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I began this article stub as part of this year's LGBTQ+ WikiScholar training, and my instructor said he passed GNG. His productions Little Duende and Las Silhuetas are scheduled to come out this theatre season (presumably in the next few months), so could the article remain a stub until more sources are published regarding that show? Thank you all for your help and your advice and please have a nice day! Lotus S. Tem (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how notable those productions are, and how significant his role is in them. At best, he might be notable in the future, but doesn't pass GNG right now. However, if the article is decided to be deleted, you might ask that it be sent to draft, in the hopes that in the future he does attain GNG status. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft seems TOOSOON based on the explanation. A draft could be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Petro[edit]

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

daughter of the President. no individual notability DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any Spanish sources to go towards WP:GNG? I'm currently leaning delete as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: the two sources in the article are in Spanish and are the best two I have found so far. But I'm also inclined to either delete or redirect to Gustavo Petro per WP:INHERITED... basically she's only known for being the daughter of the new President, and as a consequence has had some attention and media interviews, but she hasn't really done anything of note as yet... she talks about feminism, standing up for human rights, feeling like she has imposter syndrome and that she has been sexualized... nothing that marks her out as having done anything independently notable. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found several good Spanish sources, see my comment below. CT55555 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may only be known for being the president's daughter, but she is known. NOTINHERITED says that notability isn't automatically inherited, not that it can't be inherited. The sources in the article, and additional sources (e.g. El Tiempo) demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a great source at all – a short article about who her boyfriend is. And the fact that she had been in the relationship for more than two years, but El Tiempo only decided to publish an article about it one week after her father became president, is pretty damning evidence that nobody was interested in Miss Petro until her father won the election. The sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY interviews with her, not independent, and talking mostly about her father. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Whilst there is some coverage that goes towards WP:GNG, I don't think it's significant enough. A redirect to Gustavo Petro as suggest might be worthwhile. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to passing WP:GNG based on the following coverage:

Two of those sources have already been discussed in this AfD... one is an interview with her so not independent, the other just talks about who her boyfriend is. The first source you linked is just one statement from her, absolutely no biographical information whatsoever. The only one that has any coverage of her as a person is the last one, El Comercio. Richard3120 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN one reports an interview she did with a different news outlet. I think therefore it's completely independent. But tell me if I'm missing something, I'm working via Google translate. CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the original interview was with Canal Capital in Colombia, which is a public TV channel... owned and funded by the Colombian government. So I doubt its impartiality in interviewing the daughter of the President of the Colombian government. Richard3120 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reason to discount the original interview. But not the CNN reporting on it. CNN is a well established media organisation with journalistic standards. I consider its reporting on an event about the subject of the article to be a reasonable basis to establish notability. Noting also you agree the El Comercio source is good, I think my keep !vote is reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes GNG judging by the sources given by CT55555, which feature sigcov of her. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

She definitely gained notoriety for been Gustavo Petro's daughter however it could be relevant enough by herself now.

Video interview with El País about her political views. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W598EEIU0yI
30 minutes video interview with El Tiempo about her life, career and the elections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR6NT1AFw4E
Video from Semana with one of the leaders of the opposition talking for nearly 5 minutes about Sofia's political statements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HgxkxHoWvQ

You can find many video interviews and news articles related to Sofia Petro, however all this was in the context of the political election so I'd say week keep. -Chien (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Eifert[edit]

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

I can't see any reliable sources that this article cover. Mokorow1122 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the sources use him as a "talking head" to discuss whatever financial story they're covering. Rest is routine, non-notable stuff. Manager of a hedge fund is nothing GNG, there are many like him. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search has shown there are many independent source. Of you look at https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/07/13/the-big-problem-are-where-people-are-effectively-pitched-extraordinary-returns-on-low-risk-basis-says-qvrs-eifert.html, https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/the-big-problem-is-people-being-pitched-extraordinary-returns-on-a-low-risk-or-risk-free-basis-says-qvrs-eifert/vp-AAZxtiU,https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-01/transcript-benn-eifert-on-the-mania-that-was-even-bigger-than-meme-stocks, https://www.cboermcus.com/speakers/benn-eifert etc are all reliable that talked about him and that can establish notability. There are numerous financial managers that have article on this Wikipedia. I'm sure this article has pass GNG. Mr Alebiii (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new sources given above appear to be him as a "talking head" as explained. Not seeing GNG. We need articles talking about him, not him talking to other people. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources mentioned him as a CEO of company and I believe they are not significant coverage. ZanciD (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mathematical optimization. There is consensus against keeping the article, but no consensus to delete or merge; redirection is a compromise. Content can be merged from the history as deemed appropriate. Sandstein 16:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal optimization[edit]

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

Subtly not notable. Based on the cited sources, the definition at the top that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz is incorrect; "ordinal optimization" is just the name Ho, Srinivasan, and Vakili (HSV) give to the following strategy for developing an approximation algorithm:

Simulate as many options as you can think of, then pick the best one.

That's not a deep insight. Consequently, there's a lot of potential sources that you could cite to argue it's studied all the time. But very few sources explicitly call it "ordinal optimization" or consider it a concept worth remarking over.

With that said, a Google Scholar search for the term does find a bunch of electrical engineers using the term to justify making physical investments based on their simulation results. I can easily imagine a world in which this did deserve a Wikipedia article, because the name is a useful description of much work in applied mathematics and engineering, and sees explicit use in "selling" the intellectual products thereof.

But we don't seem to live in that world. Of the cited sources, only HSV use the name. Based on the same Google Scholar search, no one seems to have expanded, generalized, or refined HSV's heuristic argument for the strategy. And I understand why — I, personally, am not really convinced that HSV's argument tells us anything we didn't already know. One professor's neologism isn't enough secondary work for a WP article. (Maybe appropriate at Wiktionary?)

If the article is kept, there's no way that "ordinal optimization" is the best title...but I 'm not sure what a better one would be. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the current content of the article is just introducing posets and lattices. It doesn't really discuss optimization much at all. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I don't think it's worth merging anywhere. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that some synthesis has gone on here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of the article seems entirely separate from the actual use of the term, and whether that use could warrant an encyclopedia article is dubious. We'd need, first, not just engineering papers dropping in the term to puff up their prose, but reviews or textbooks indicating that it is a coherent subject area. Then, we'd need to completely redo the existing text on that basis. The text as it stands was mostly made by copying definitions and examples from elsewhere in Wikipedia [11], and it shows. XOR'easter (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to optimization, perhaps? I cut out all the unnecessary background, leaving a well-referenced stub. There is some evidence this is a coherent field in the form of a review paper on applied ordinal optimization,[12] but I'd prefer to see a review outside of the cluster of research groups using the term. There is clearly work on optimization over posets and lattices, e.g., [13] and [14], but calling that "ordinal optimization" might be a synthesis too far. The content may work better as a section in a broad concept article like optimization. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd tend to agree with merging into the article on optimisation after the work done by Mark viking. I didn't have an in-depth look at the references, but maybe those to [10], [11], [12] could be detailed a tiny bit more, by expliciting to which kind of poset they use (is it just that of subsets of the pouplation?). The batch of "raw" references in the first sentence is also near-useless as it is in my opinion. The last sentence could just be a link to vector optimization (maybe adding the given reference [13] to this article if it is relevant). jraimbau (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Kumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article instance was deleted at AfD in June 2021 (though it is claimed on the Talk page that that article was about a different person). This biographical article concerns the co-founder of a company Razorpay, and is sourced mainly to coverage about the company, about the other founder Harshil Mathur, and announcement coverage of the subject's replacement as CTO. Such coverage, particularly the Dec 2021 Forbes India item, could possibly contribute towards notability for Razorpay, but notability is not inherited for an article about the co-founder / managing director. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant coverage about him individually, that I can find, to justify a standalone article. — hako9 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG.ZanciD (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Krinsk[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Whilst RS are currently cited in the article, they provide only passing mentions and some don't even mention the subject at all (two already removed). The LAT article from 1985 is the best source, but it is discussing a legal dispute and has zero information about the subject. My own searches turned up this from 2020 in the LAT about him resigning from the California State University Board of Trustees due to problems with his conduct, but that hardly seems like a good source to base a BLP off. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Meenakshi Raveendran[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meenakshi Raveendran -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Sorry, meant to do a speedy delete. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Jaupaj[edit]

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

Albanian singer of little notability. Been watching this for a while to see if any sign of improvement or abiding importance emerges. It hasn't. Hasn't won any music competition, no evidence of any music charting, no evidence of any enduring influence or impact. Coverage is skimpy social pages stuff, no in-depth coverage. Borderline, yes, but ultimately not a WP:GNG pass and not WP:MUSICBIO either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Albania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, but I can't read most of the sources. They don't look like RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Eick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've got a book with 626 citations, and a paper with 225 citations and followed by several other papers with respectable citations (but under 100). Comment that authors are generally alphabetically ordered in math (although this doesn't appear to be the case with the book); this is a low citation field. The smallgroups library, as a computer database, is likely undercited relative to its importance -- papers are likely to just cite the larger computer algebra system, for instance. (But papers describing the library, The groups of order at most 2000 and The groups of order at most 1000 except 512 and 768 have over 100 citations taken together.) I do some work in related areas, and am holding back a little from making a formal !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm also holding back for now. But, when I saw this created today. I added two cleanup banners that I thought it needed. I did not add a notability banner. That was deliberate, and not merely an oversight. I saw the same citation numbers Russ mentions above, and thought that they at least made a plausible case for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eick's work creating the small groups library--the backbone of GAP that is used by group theorists around the world--is singularly notable. Minndietz (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I went on the GAP (computer algebra system) website and they are listed 1 of the 24 active members of the development team. Do you have a source the library or code? It would have to be independently notable on its own. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: Eick is coauthor with Hans Ulrich Besche and Eamonn O'Brien of the SmallGroups library [15], a database of the groups of order up to 2000 or so. As there are 49487365422 of order 1024 alone, it is a considerable accomplishment just to store the necessary information efficiently. While I think it is a slight exaggeration to call it the backbone of GAP, a useful thing (and perhaps a main useful thing) that you can do with GAP is to check your conjecture against a large number of small groups. Papers where this is useful would tend to cite the main GAP system [16], rather than the SmallGroups package. Now, she is listed separately listed as an author of GAP [17] (along with a large number of people, so this doesn't contribute much to notability), and is chair of the GAP council [18] (which I think probably does contribute somewhat to notability). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the topic of citations, book citations for "handbooks" will always be high. Whenever you need to cite something fundamental or basic you'll find a handbook cited. This is more common the smaller the academic discipline. Not dismissing it but it's important to give it in context. Unlike many highly cited papers in one area which would easily establish notability. In general I dislike using citations as a single metric for establishing notability. As a personal example I have a few highly cited peer reviewed papers but they're all over the place (software, stats, psych, ecology) and I would AfD myself in a heartbeat. That is not to say that citations don't matter, if there were a few highly cited articles all in the same area I would be much more inclined to agree with you both. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - can this also be added to the list of AfD discussions for women? I don't know how to do that, but I don't see it there. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can find the script for doing it at WP:DELSORT. Hope that helps beyond this AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Eick satisfies WP:NACADEMIC for the following reasons:

1) Eick's work has about 747 citations on MathSciNet with publications starting in 1997. By comparison, one of her mentors, Charles Leedham-Green (who has a Wikipedia page) has 1009 citations with publications starting nearly 20 years earlier in 1969. Citations are not the only measure of the importance of ones scholarly contributions, but they are a measure. This satisfies criterion 1 under WP:NACADEMIC.

2) Eick was awarded a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, a prestigious German foundation. This is not an award such as earning a Fields Medal, but is noteworthy and perhaps satisfies criterion 2 under WP:NACADEMIC.

3) Eick quickly earned her habilitation after her phd, and has the highest possible title in German academics. This is akin to having a named professorship in the US, and thus satisfies criterion 5 under WP:NACADEMIC. Minndietz (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) I'm not familar enough with citation counts in this area to comment. 2) That was a Feodor Lynen Research Fellowship which is basically up to 2 years of funding it looks like; that isn't notable. 3) Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Habilitation, I don't see how that is equivalent to a named professorship, and hence not sufficient to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was holding back, as I'm probably too close to this area to make a neutral judgement. I would not like this to end as an expired prod, and no one else has !voted, so here I am. Anyway, in math, which is a low-citation field, I would normally look for three works with over 100 citations. The subject here has two that easily clear that bar, combined with a long tail of moderately cited items. Now, the GAP council among other things retains editorial control over accepted GAP packages (which are refereed). While I do not think this chair position is necessarily a pass of WP:NPROF C8, I do think it is akin to a chief editor position at a smaller journal. The combination brings me to a weak keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone who is chief editor at a smaller journal wouldn't be sufficient to meet WP:NPROF C8. Personally I think this comes down to are the citations, etc. are sufficient to meet C1. I seem to be very much fence-sitting... -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I don't think it passes WP:NPROF C8. I'm suggesting only that the council chair might be enough to push a case that is on the edge over. Agree that the case borders on WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fair. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week. I see a lot of Weak Keeps right now and only the nominator advocating Deletion. Definitely borderline. Thanks to those editors who are not AFD regulars for participating in the discussion and offering their critique of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my comments above. The Handbook alone would not be enough to convince me, but the other high-citation publication ("A millennium project: constructing small groups", essentially a position paper advocating research on a certain topic), in what is generally a low-citation field, pushes me to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems like a decent number of citations, agree with discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looks like we've figured this out. I still disagree with the notion that their citations make them notable, I'm only moving from delete to keep because they work in a very small area of study and "math is kinda strange like that sometimes". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Salmon Falls (Snake River). Participation is very low but among those who contributed there seems to be a general consensus - albeit more of a reluctant acceptance of a compromise than a wholehearted endorsement - to merge into a Salmon Falls article with a larger scope. Waggers TALK 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Salmon Falls[edit]

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

Same rationale as Lower Salmon Falls, No assertion of notability, can't find any in my BEFORE. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The Snake River is notable but individual features of it should be described within the parent article unless particularly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources (e.g. [19] (p201-202), [20] (p52-54, p118), [21]). The obvious thing to do is merge this with both Salmon Falls (Snake River) and Lower Salmon Falls Dam and expand into a single article titled Salmon Falls, Idaho about both the falls and the hydroelectric facilities.----Pontificalibus 11:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - participation is low here. I would agree to a merge to gain consensus but the suggested merge target does not exist. Salmon Falls (Snake River) does exist though, which would be an ideal merge target - except that I cannot see anything in the article to merge. There is just nothing here that is not already there. I also note that Lower Salmon Falls was previously nominated and is supposedly waiting for merge into Lower Salmon Falls Dam. I suggest this article just be redirected to Salmon Falls (Snake River). This will leave (after the above merge is complete) just two articles - one on the falls and one on the dam. This seems like a sensible solution to me as both dam and falls will meet notability guidelines, although both articles could do with a lot of work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist. Please consider the redirect option in the comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to have COI, little significant coverage Gtag10 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Maine. Gtag10 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Significant coverage in The Portland Press-Herald, The Boston Globe, and various other lower-level pieces of coverage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article relies too heavily on listicles, which don't constitute substantial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. More in-depth, standalone coverage of this restaurant such as the Press-Herald profile mentioned above would make it stronger. Ibadibam (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that listicles can't be SIGCOV – if enough of them provide different information, they can be combined to demonstrate notability. Plus, what about all the sources the last AfD found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the guideline I linked...

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists (If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.)

I don't see any lists here that count as significant coverage by that wording. Ibadibam (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Schwartz, James H. (2016-01-24). "Dine Out Maine: Green Elephant in Portland. The vegetarian food isn't groundbreaking, but it is mostly satisfying". Maine Sunday Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The restaurant review notes: "Green Elephant, a self-styled “vegetarian bistro” in downtown Portland, is a completely different animal. Yes, it’s dynamic and hip, with the electric-green wall behind the bar and a veneer of rough-cut stone blocks dominating the other side of the dining room. But it’s also affordable (most entrees cost $15 or less). And it’s relaxed; an invitation on the restaurant’s website encourages you to come as you are, “with your best formal attire or in your favorite pajamas.” ... Meat-free restaurants may not be for everyone. But Green Elephant comes close. It’s fun, congenial and healthful, an easy place for vegetarians, dedicated carnivores – and the rest of us – to enjoy."
2. Kamila, Avery Yale (2022-06-12). "15 years later, a vegan pioneer still sets the standard. The Green Elephant serves vegan versions of familiar Thai dishes". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article notes: "Before chef Dan Sriprasert and his business partner Bob Wongsaichau opened the Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro 15 years ago, they spotted Portland’s demand for more vegetarian restaurants in their tofu sales. ... The Green Elephant wasn’t Portland’s first vegetarian restaurant and it isn’t the city’s only vegetarian restaurant, but its opening did bring something new to town: A vegetarian restaurant with affordable pricing yet worthy of a date night. With its blond wood floors, bauble-covered chandelier and neon green wall, plus its menu of familiar dishes, the restaurant soon attracted lines of diners waiting for a table. Fifteen years later, the demand and the affordable pricing remain. Even now, when prices of food are rising fast, the most expensive menu item costs $18 (Siamese dream curry noodles), and most entrees are priced around $15."
3. Forrest, Rachel (2015-10-15). "Green Elephant serves bevy of vegetarian options". Foster's Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The restaurant review notes: "Portland's Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro (they also have Boda in Portland) has opened at PortWalk and every single dish is vegetarian. Many are vegan, as well as gluten-free. ... The space is modern and warm with lots of sleek wood and cool accents, which is what you'd expect in this new section of town. Some call it FauxPo, and I get that. ... There is a full bar at Green Elephant, with some exotic flavors in the drinks, as well as good beer and wine lists. The bartenders on one night seemed a bit frazzled, but on another, more smooth and calm."
4. Ricchio, Joe (April 2011). "Green Elephant". Maine. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The restaurant review notes: "Sister to Portland’s Boda, Green Elephant provides innovative, delicious, and healthy Asian-inspired fare for vegans and omnivores alike. ... Moving into their fourth year of operation as the only fully vegetarian dining option in the greater Portland area, Green Elephant continues to be a destination for those who not only like their vegetables, but like them cooked with some style and international flavor."
5. Nangle, Hilary (2012-04-29). "10 Maine restaurants where vegetarians reign". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The restaurant review notes: "The Asian-inspired fare at Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro (608 Congress St., Portland, 207-347-3111, www .greenelephantmaine.com, $10-$16) has persuaded many carnivores that going veggie does not mean sacrificing flavor. Every menu item, including wine, is labeled as vegan, gluten free, wheat free, and/or organic. Regulars know to begin with the roti canai, an Indian flatbread paired with a curry dip. After that, favorites include char guayteow, Siamese dream curry noodle, citrus spare ribs, and tofu tikka masala. One taste and you’ll see the light. This place is extremely popular, and does not take reservations."
6. Kamila, Avery Yale (2020-01-19). "Vegan Kitchen: Portland's vegan restaurant scene is red-hot". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "They join the state’s reigning vegetarian restaurant queen, the Green Elephant – the full-service, all-vegetarian, mostly vegan, pan-Asian restaurant on Congress Street in the Arts District continues to pack its dining room night after night more than 12 years after opening."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage located by Cunard demonstrates conclusively the subject meets the subject specific notability guideline NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:PRODUCTREV emphasizes the caution we must take in using product reviews to establish notability. (This makes sense, intuitively—any number of local restaurants would otherwise be notable.) In light of this I'd like to see some more as to why these reviews are enough to contribute to WP:NCORP. Observing Cunard's other sources: #1 is a passing mention imv (part of a list of restaurants closing for COVID), #2 fails source independence (heavily based on interviews), #6 is fairly passing as well. The rest are reviews. That said, I don't think the restaurant has had a ceaseless promotional machine, and has received some broader attention than just Portland, so I'm leaning toward keep. Ovinus (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus against keeping individual pages. The arguments to keep are weakened somewhat by references to the games as a whole, whose notability is beyond dispute, and isn't the matter at hand. Indeed the matter at hand isn't notability per se, but the need for standalone pages, and the arguments to delete are stronger on that score. I will say it's odd to me that a sporting event this large wouldn't have coverage of individual events, and so if someone were to write a specific Football at the YYYY Maccabiah games that has prose and not just database entries, this discussion doesn't preclude its existence in mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2001 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. There is past precedence to delete the year specific Maccabiah Games articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Keep loss of information with deletion. There is enough information for separate pages. What precedence? --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been numerous AFDs for equivalent articles for other sports, whose articles on specific appearances at these Games were deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link them please? --SuperJew (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no need for separate articles. Giant Snowman 20:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per previous AFDs on Maccabiah Games individual event articles, these also don't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until 1985 (which is significant for itself due to the participation of apartheid South Africa). As a side remark: I wasn't around for previous AFDs, but I find it perplexing that the "the third-largest sporting event in the world by number of competitors" (as it says in the Maccabiah article) are considered to not pass WP:GNG. If anything, an effort should be made to expand individual event articles in which notable olympians (Agnes Keleti, Mark Spitz, etc.) participated.--Eranrabl (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is totally in line with similar articles that we have in other international tournaments. No reasons have been presented that explain why these would be singled out. Very odd. The Games themselves are as pointed out highly notable. Competitors are in good numbers Olympians and the like. The referencing is appropriate in general. I also didn't see the prior AfDs. And as we know, otherstuffexists is a perfectly fine argument when not the ONLY argument made. And we have Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics. 2006 Arab Women's Championship. 1963 African Cup of Nations. 2020 OFC Nations Cup. 2021 FIFA Arab Cup. 1957 Latin Cup. 2021 Copa América. 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup. 2019 WAFF Women's Championship. This is so out of synch with the existence of not just these pages -- but literally hundreds more just like it - that this nom is very troubling. And the comment by Giant that there is no "need" for individual articles misses the above point, as well as the of course obvious point that there is no "need" for any article on Wikipedia. That's never a reason therefore for deletion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:401A:1701:C4F5:B270 (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of significant coverage that is independent of the tournament organisers, which is what is required to show notability. Number of participants in the overall games is irrelevant without showing specific coverage of the football tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There’s no doubt that the Maccabiah Games themselves are notable and it’s common to have sub-articles for individual sports at multi-sport events. That said, the sourcing seems pretty spotty and the overall Maccabiah Games articles don’t seem big enough to warrant spin-off articles. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these matches even played by senior teams? the articles themselves dont even include squads or players or anything and just link the country instead of the national teams. they need a lot of work. for me, this is delete with the poor state the articles are in.Muur (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The matches are played by senior teams. And usually there is also a youth category. For example this last Maccabiah there was an Open category (any age), a youth, and a Masters (over 35). It's not the national teams that play, but rather a team selected for the Maccabiah (only Jewish athletes). The state of an article has no bearing on a deletion discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tournament itself is noteable, this just provides more backgroud on the tournament. Not sure what the issue with keeping it is.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I sense we are at the ever present football divide again but I'm relisting the AFD for a week any way since editors are still commenting on this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe no need for separate articles. Agreed to GiantSnowman. ZanciD (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not enough coverage or sourcing to warrant separate articles. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 following comment here from author Ged UK 15:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Wario's[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG due to no independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC) ––FormalDude (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the creator. Five Nights at Wario's is one of the most popular FNaF parodies. I was able to find a few more sources, as seen in my edits made after I contested the PROD. I actually do need a bit more time to finish - if you look at my user page I am a bit busy right now. Thank you. Ulysses Grant Official 05:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fan game. Andre🚐 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the only reliable source I could locate, which is not enough for notability. IceWelder [✉] 08:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. "I need time to find sources" is not a logical argument, the sources should have already been found before creating the article. But it seems that there are none out there that prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, non-notable, WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT failing game. None of the refs are RS, the Kotaku one is routine and non-SIGCOV. The creator's WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument is unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT, Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy SNOW Delete The contents of this article are poor, written like an advertisement in some areas, No Reliable or secondary sources at all, Article uses very poor grammer, Article is likely beyond repair. Articles author is suggesting a G7 Speedy Deletion. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I could care less at this point, just delete it. I can't find the time to edit it, but since that can't be accepted, just delete it at this point. Ulysses Grant Official 05:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails the GNG, and I don't believe any amount of revisions by the creator is likely to change that right now. Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Presidents Corners, Indiana[edit]

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

Well, here we have quite the comedy of errors, beginning with the GNIS entry, which is just flat-out wrong, and I don't know why, because if you look at the correct location in older maps, the name is right there on the topos. (I've fixed it in the article.) But then we have the assertion in the place names book that the "village" was named after the juxtaposition of the four township names. The correct answer is hinted at in the article: it's not a village or "unincorporated community" or anything except the intersection where the monument is situated. And it is that monument itself which gives the place its name, as stated in this page from the Four Presidents Corners Historical Society: "Joseph Marquart, a rural mail carrier, promoted the creation of a monument recognizing the uniqueness of the junction of the four townships named for presidents." The monument was erected and dedicated in 1917, and that's all there ever was to the place. There might be some notability to the monument (personally I think it's marginal at best), but that's a different article. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Huh, interesting topic to learn about. But, per nom, there is no evidence that any sort of community exists or has existed there. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This should be incubated to allow for the article to be more about the Four Presidents Corner Monument than the article which is currently about a non-notable GNIS location. This article has enough in the way of citations that a little incubation and then moving it back to article space at Four Presidents Corner Monument. TartarTorte 13:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community. I see no need to maintain this article even if anyone wants to make one on the monument. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a community, and the monument doesn't appear to be notable. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any community. NMasiha (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is that this article doesn't violate WP:NOTESAL or WP:DIRECTORY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1992–present)[edit]

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

per WP:NOTESAL and WP:DIRECTORY –Aidan721 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is useful summation of notable college football standings. The list needs an expanded lead section to properly introduce and contextualize the data in the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I'm on the same page as Jweiss11. The article could (and should) see a bit of expansion but it's notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Is this page not redundant to List of Southeastern Conference football champions? –Aidan721 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, they cover some of the same information but there are distinct differences. The templates on the nominated page include the standings of all the teams in the conference and not just who won it. These templates also include the information about where the teams ranked nationally at the end of the season. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aidan721, certainly not redundant. List of Southeastern Conference football champions details only the conference and division champs. It doesn't detail full standings and records. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is so significant about the list of standings and records? Those are covered in the individual season pages, and pages such as List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons. This is merely a list of templates. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to point out there's another article for the seasons prior to 1992 at List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1933–1991). I mention it because the two should probably be nominated together since the deletion discussion would follow the same course. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the earlier SEC list, but there is a slew of analogous lists for other conferences, e.g. List of American Athletic Conference football standings. See Category:College football standings for the full scope. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator, this list violates WP:NOTESAL and WP:DIRECTORY. The most important thing for these years is who won, which we have a valid separate article about - we don't need complete standings for every season in a separate article, as Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Also support deletion of List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1933–1991) for the same reason. Adding a bit of prose to it wouldn't take away from the fact it doesn't meet our guidelines for a stand-alone list. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the argument about WP:NOTDIRECTORY just doesn't apply here, because frankly the article in question is ... well... not a directory. Specifically, the article in question does not apply to any measure in NOTDIRECTORY: Simple listings; Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations; Genealogical entries; Electronic program guide; nor A resource for conducting business. As for WP:NOTESAL, the criteria in that guideline is passed-specifically, Notability "is based on the group." The season standings of the Southestern Conference football program may be trivial to some or to many, but those seasons have also garnered WP:SIGCOV from a multitude of independent, third party sources. Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and many regional and national newspapers are easily solid examples of passing WP:GNG. I'm unsure why the page was nominated, and I've read the reasons; the reasons just don't seem to fit to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standings themselves are not non-notable, it's the list of standings (that are already grouped together in a category) that is not notable. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that categories are not a substitute for lists and that these standings templates are grouped together at Category:Southeastern Conference football standings templates, a template category, which is considered an administrative element and " not part of the encyclopedia". Jweiss11 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Aidan721. It looks to me that both the individual season standings and the list of the standings are notable. That they are grouped in two different articles for better management of content is simply an editing decision.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jweiss11 and Paulmcdonald. Valid topic for a list article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot add anything beyond what's been said above other than I think consensus has been met here and the discussion should be closed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not seeing any guidelines or policies violated by this article. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CamFind[edit]

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

Notability has not been established by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Internet, and Software. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG by virtue of having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject,[22][23][24][25] and meets WP:NSOFT by virtue of the numerous reviews of the software.[26][27][28][29] - Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first four sources listed by Aoidh are sufficient to meet the GNG. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rodeo: 1987 - 1993[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC should be redirected to Blue Rodeo discography. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Between the already present source and these four [30][31][32][33] it should clear per SIGCOV. QuietHere (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellison, Indiana[edit]

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

Yet another late addition to the maps, which show a few random houses along the road but nothing else. I came up with nothing in searching. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've gone through 9.5 pages of incorrect book text search matches on google books and many bad matches elsewhere. I can find absolutely nothing about this town. TartarTorte 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found nothing on newspapers.com. Jacona (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phakamani Mngadi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about former footballer with a brief professional career but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Previously deleted at AfD, but re-created after Mngadi made a handful of additional appearances in the National First Division. No SIGCOV is available online, even with the additional appearances - just routine/trivial coverage. Jogurney (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] among many many more sources from grenzecho.net, news24.com, standaard.be, diariodeleon.es, YouTube, soccerladuma, snl24, goal.com, pressreader.com, kickoff.com, timeslive.co.za, heraldlive.co.za, nieuwsblad.be, lanuevacronica.com, dispatchlive.co.za, dhnet.be, digitaldeleon.com, sowetanlive.co.za, etc. Clearly was significant figure in South African football who played abroad in Europe and Asia. He played for one of best and well known teams in South Africa - Kaizer Chiefs in a fully pro career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through those 11 sources (3 of them had already popped up in my BEFORE search), and I don't think we're quite at passing the GNG. The four articles from snl24.com (June '14, August '14, October '14 & February '15) are all routine/trivial in nature and briefly cover his unsuccessful loan at Kaizer Chiefs (none are WP:SIRS). The two articles from goal.com (August '14 & September '21) are both routine/trivial in nature and briefly cover his unsuccessful loan and permanent deals with Kaizer Chiefs (neither is SIRS). The article in Kick Off (magazine) (May '17) is hardly more than a name-drop and definitely not SIRS. The article in Sunday Times (South Africa) (July '16) is routine/trivial in nature and briefly covers his return to Eupen after the unsuccessful loan at Kaizer Chiefs. The press release from Kaizer Chiefs F.C. (September '14) is from his employer and is not independent of the subject (definitely not SIRS). That leaves two articles that both appear to be SIRS: the article in L'Avenir (Belgian newspaper) (October '13) is paywalled but looks likely to be in-depth coverage of his first spell with Eupen, and the article in Hard Gras (June '14, via benelux-texte.de) is in-depth coverage of his entire career to that point. So we have two SIRS (one certain, one paywalled, but likely), and a bunch of trivial coverage. I don't think it's enough to pass GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While those 11 sources listed definetly are enough on their own, those sources I listed are not the only sources I found, there are many many more sources from grenzecho.net, news24.com, standaard.be, diariodeleon.es, YouTube, soccerladuma, snl24, goal.com, pressreader.com, kickoff.com, timeslive.co.za, heraldlive.co.za, nieuwsblad.be, lanuevacronica.com, dispatchlive.co.za, dhnet.be, digitaldeleon.com, sowetanlive.co.za, etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like enough sourcing to prove GNG to me. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by User:Das osmnezz, and per the nominator's admission that two WP:SIRS exist, which is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Clear GNG pass in my opinion. Frank Anchor 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough coverage to meet notability. NMasiha (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Made Google research, subject is notable.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Article reference formatting needs to be done on the page. Any editor who can help with that, future kudos.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skip (singer)[edit]

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

For an artist active during the 2010's, there's very little information about him online. The charted singles are difficult to verify. Claims to have Gold certification, but he does not appear on the PARI list of certified and authenticated awardees.

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. KH-1 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO. ZanciD (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eubac[edit]

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

Too complicated for PROD. First off, yes this is a copyvio but if I stub it back to this version, then it's an A7. As I consiered doing that, I realized I am unable to identify any independent sourcing with which to write an article under EUBAC, or the fuller name, European Building Automation and Controls Association. It does not appear they meet N:ORG Star Mississippi 01:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Europe. Star Mississippi 01:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "Eu.bac" (with the period) or "European Building Automation Controls Association" (without the "and") yields a few more results, but I'm still not seeing enough for notability, particularly under the exacting WP:NORG standard: it's just passing mentions and the like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis[edit]

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

This article has a number of problems and should be deleted. It is a violation of our policies on WP:OR. The article's existence takes many separate incidents, almost all of which already have independent Wikipedia pages, and amalgamates them into one big crisis that doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. This is a type of synthesis/original research. I do not see support in reliable sources for the idea that all of these incidents are part of a single, sustained, 2-3 year crisis that is separable from Iran–United States relations.

The article was originally split off from Iran–United States relations due to size, but it has just become a dumping ground for every little thing that happens in the Gulf or between the US and Iran, violating our WP:NOTNEWS policy as well. It is a perfect example of a WP:COATRACK. The article's content is already adequately covered at the many linked articles on specific incidents (May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone, 2019 K-1 Air Base attack, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, July 2021 Gulf of Oman incident, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and numerous others). The article's content is also covered at Iran–United States relations, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and several others. This article's existence is redundant. Its content is either better covered elsewhere or too trivial for inclusion at all.

The article also adds to confusion by being titled 2019-2021 but stating that the crisis is "ongoing" in the lead sentence while also covering events in 2022. Finally, WP:TNT applies; there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues.

Apologies for the long nomination statement - this is a complex case. I previously brought up the issue on the WP:NORN noticeboard, which I linked on the article's talk page with a ping to major contributors, but received little response. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, Israel, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for "persian gulf crisis -wikipedia" in Google, with results limited to those published on or after 1/1/2021, gives a bunch of hits ([45], [46], [47]), but these all appear to be discussing the conflict (or whatever noun should be use here) between Qatar and it's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia. What I'm not seeing is evidence that all these events discussed in the article are being treated as a single coherent "crisis" in reliable sources. Skimming thru (all I have time for now; hence just a "comment" at this point), I get a feeling that the article is at the minimum in need of massive trimming and an overhaul, as well as likely a renaming to something else. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:TNT. There might be an article to be rescued somewhere inside there (perhaps as something like US-Iran crisis (2019-20??)), but there's just so much prose (88597 characters, according to DYK Check, with 320k bytes of wikisource) that cutting all this down into something even vaguely in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE seems too much to ask from anyone. If someone came forth and volunteered to do the legwork, I'd have no objection to giving them the chance to. But as it now stands, I think, I'd imagine the sheer scale of the article will put off anyone from doing even the most minor changes. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Even given Ljleppan's considerations, WP:TNT would be warranted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up There was indeed a recognized period of heightened military tensions ("crisis") in the Persian Gulf region between the Trump Administration and the Iranian government between 2019 and 2021 as detailed and documented in the article, supported by numerous linked RS. The crisis specifically prompted the creation of the International Maritime Security Construct military consortium that is still active today. However, the crisis died down by the end of 2021 and, instead of just wiping away all of that information overnight, editors should declare the crisis over during the onset of the Biden administration to prevent WP:SYNTH. Or, alternatively, follow-up on Ljleppan's considerations. RopeTricks (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in particular refer to a sustained 2019-2021 crisis that is separable from Iran-United States relations? There are a lot of sources in the article, so it's possible I missed it, but none of the references I checked supported the idea of treating all these separate events as a single crisis which has now ended. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:synth. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and my previous comment at OR noticeboard. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The 2019-2021 Gulf crisis is real and well documented. The response that RopeTricks received, after he raised this, is that the end date of the crisis is unknown. While this is correct per se, it doesn't really matter. It is very difficult to write recent history and the next serious flare may convince some that this subdued crisis is ongoing. THE POINT is that such a recent end date, if at all, does not matter for keeping or deleting. Different points of view can be portrayed until a broader consensus is reached. It does not make the crisis unreal. gidonb (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the paper are mostly OR. Actually "a source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source,"(WP:VERIFY). This is while the sources are used mainly based on the feelings and judgements of the users who thought the content were relevant to the topic, without paying attention to fact that the sources should explicitly talk about Persian Gulf Crisis. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to this paper that uses mostly OR sources? Also, please explain: why would the sources of a single reference terribly matter? Finally, in which way is yours not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, like all other delete arguments here? gidonb (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The number of sources verifying individual pieces of content does not matter; we need sources discussing the topic-as-a-whole, and I'm not seeing those. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious case of WP:OR. KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Elder[edit]

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

BLP with lots of references to his own writing, but nothing independent. There are other people with the same name. He has certainly written some books and is good at publicity. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Estonia, and United States of America. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find references mentioned to 2007 SFO magazine book of the year and 2002 Barron's book of the year in a google search myself. At least I could not find it. Dosnot not seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR at least no rs provided in article says that. I check back and may change my comment if there is any sources provided by others.Singularitywiki (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2022-09 Andrew Aziz (closed as ✗ delete)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Though he has written numerous books, none of the books pass WP:NOTBOOK. Other than a couple of trivial reviews and PR releases, there is virtually no coverage of the subject in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Banks Irk (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Literary criticism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose interpretation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources are cited in-article and my own search has mostly turned up primary source descriptions of the event and team websites describing it, with no significant third-party coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or as a distant second-choice, redirect to Literary criticism. Waggers TALK 12:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Literary criticism.--Panther999 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oratorical Interpretation[edit]

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

No coverage outside plainly unreliable websites and some miscellaneous descriptions of the event. No significant third-party coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only coverage available consists of primary or unreliable sources, GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Advocacy[edit]

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

My search hasn't turned up anything except for plainly unreliable websites and a couple primary sources just explaining what this is. No reliable third-party coverage that I can see. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly redirect to Advocacy but seems an unlikely search term. Not a merge because there's no referenced material. Waggers TALK 12:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks reliable sources. I am not sure if the subject is notable. NMasiha (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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