Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 11 August 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me, or the admins at WP:REFUND know. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Law Center

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

Fails WP:NORG. Of the 13 references, four are self-published, four are dead, three do not mention the organisation, one is a mention because it quotes someone from the organisation, and only one reference (the second one) might be about the center, but it requires registration.

Much or the article is unsourced; much looks like it has been copied from somewhere. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 12 August 2023 (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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanelly Treminio

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has made at least five appearances for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Adebola

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

I am not convinced that this subject has been discussed in independent, reliable sources and thus does not meet the general notability guidelines. Nominating for the input of the community. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 12 August 2023 (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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Dosa

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

Does not have 2 reliable reviews. Since this is released during the Internet Age, Indiaglitz/nettv4u is not reliable.

Karam Dosa means spicy Dosa so please redirect there. [3], [4] DareshMohan (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, seems like we are stuck between a Keep and a Redirect to a completely different article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. The idea of redirecting to a food for a movie I personally think is VERY absurd and out of the ordinary. Anyways, I'm not seeing the GNG fulfilled yet. I think that one source is provided, but I would like to see more. If this is to be presumed to pass our notability guidelines, I think there is room to improve, but the article as a whole isn't ready. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:53, 13 August 2023 (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! 04:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Sirisute

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:KICKGUIDE. Refs are a couple of small interviews and profile pages. Nswix (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Thailand. Nswix (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a piece of in-depth coverage from Black Belt magazine[7], which suggests that he was indeed a significant figure in martial arts circles especially in the 1980s. There are probably more sources out there that require some digging. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, by "a couple of small interviews and profile pages," I assume Nswix is referring to the numbered website citations and not the book sources listed (without in-line citations) as general references at the end? While the third one is written by the subject and can't be considered for GNG, none of them have previews available on Google Books, so they'll need closer evaluation. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced of importance or significance of the subject which does not meet criteria WP:SPORTSPERSON and very hard to establish notability as per WP:GNG. Not known as a fighter himself, fails WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the Black Belt article identified above, has been featured in cover stories for several martial arts magazines in the 1980s,[8] including Inside Kung Fu (August 1982), Inside Karate (May 1986), and another Black Belt issue (November 1986). While their content isn't available online, I am positive they constitute in-depth coverage that satisfies the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got mixed emotions about this article. I can't find significant independent coverage, but agree that the articles found by Paul_012 may well be it (but I can't be sure). The fact that he founded a growing international Muay Thai organization is good and he seems to be fairly notable as a MT teacher. However, it's hard to quantify that notability (unlike winning championships). I think I'd like to vote to keep the article since it's not an obvious deletion to me, but it's also not an obvious keep. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 12 August 2023 (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. After 3 relists and despite much work to identify notability-establishing sources among the mountain of citations in the article, reliable sources, secondary providing significant coverage of the subject have not been identified. signed, Rosguill talk 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Roberts (wrestler)

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

Non-notable sportsperson, only sources are databases in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for heads up on this. I believe Andy Roberts to be a notable sportsperson within professional wrestling and I'll be happy to make any necessary changes to his page in order to please anyone with concerns.
  • I disagree RE: non-notable:
    Andy Roberts is a decorated veteran of UK wrestling. He's held two championships with Wiki pages (the ICW Zero-G Championship and his ongoing reign with the European Heavyweight Championship which spans multiple promotions and has set multiple records for reach, longevity and title defences). He's wrestled in several countries and continents and won multiple titles and awards from the most well-known companies in his home country including the most populous city of Glasgow (ICW), the capitol city of Edinburgh (Discovery Wrestling), the third most populous of Aberdeen (WrestleZone) as well as Ayr (Pro Wrestling Elite) and Kilmarnock (British Championship Wrestling) in addition to those from wrestling media (Fighting Spirit Magazine) and the Scottish Wrestling Network, which I understand to be in good standing with Wiki).
  • I also disagree RE: reliable sources.
    My understanding is that databases like Cagematch are considered RS but:
  • Multiple sources are provided for many points and the page includes multiple primary sources from ICW, WWE, Dragon Gate USA, Andy Wild/Roberts, Discovery Wrestling, Union of European Wrestling Alliances, BCW, FPWA, etc.
  • All blacklisted sites at time of publication but I'll work on removing any of the other wordpress sites now, though I currently have no reason to believe them to be unreliable.
    I hope this can be resolved. I'm happy to make to make changes to the page in order to prevent its deletion. SugeRight (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SugeRight, you're trying to prove his notability by association with other notable people. Just because you're the father, mother, brother, sister, wife, husband, son, daughter, student, teacher, etc. of a notable person doesn't automatically qualify your notability. The wordpress blog is not a reliable source. Its links are mostly primary sources and don't really count either. The fact that many of the sites you want to use as sources are blacklisted says something about their reliability too. I do appreciate that you are willing to find good sources to support the notability of the article, but remember that stuff like Facebook is definitely subpar. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Draftify may be an option. Subject is a World Champion, which suggests there is coverage out there somewhere about him. However, the reliable independent news sources used in the article are minimal, most of the WP:UNDUE information is sourced to blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter or wrestling stats webpages. We need a more concise summary of what Roberts is known for, not every dot-and-comma of everything he's ever said or done. Sionk (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, the article has 330 links. It takes time to read, but a quick look... several of them are Cagematch, which isn't useful for notability (notability is given by sources with in deep coverage of the subject, Cagematch includes results from every promotion in the world). Others are FaceBook, Twitter, Youtube... which isn't allowed in most cases. Other, Primary Sources. Ecstasy of Gold Wrestling isn't reliable. Even if he worked since 2006, he only performed on a independent level. Also, at some point it fills like OVERSOURCING. being Coach of Fife Pro Wrestling Asylum school has 7 sources, challenging McIntyre has 8 sources and facing Dave Mastiff and Jack Starz has 16 sources. Maybe it's notable, but I only see wp:routine results from Cagematch, social media like Twitter or Facebook and similars. Again, look for in-deep coverage of the subject, no passing mentions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, working on this now. any edits welcome ofc. SugeRight (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for your feedback, oversourcing and verbosity is definitely something I'm guilty of in many aspects of my life! I've made more edits, I've removed all wordpress/blog links and the majority of databases/social media. I've left a few Cagematch links where I think it's helpful for covering multiple points without using multiple sources (i.e 15 different title defences without individual sources) or for illustrating that the UEWA reign is still currently ongoing (which past results/interviews/articles won't do). I've cut a lot of sources out. Please don't hesitate to remove anything else. SugeRight (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, echoing above, SugeRight can you pull out the best 3-5 sources that contain significant secondary independent coverage of the subject? That means nothing from social media or blogs (which are explicitly not allowed on BLPs), nothing from any organization he's ever been remotely affiliated with (such as governing sports bodies, clubs, orgs that have given him awards, etc.), no stats databases, no interviews, no routine match recaps/previews, no injury announcements or transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    working on this, thank you very much. Also fully encourage anyone to make any edits they'd like. Again, thank you for the feedback and help. SugeRight (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as the article is actively being improved. I was surprised to see it was sent to AFD less than an hour after it was created so, needless to say, there have been a lot of changes since the nomination was made. Care to take the time to review the improvements that have been made?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page has needed work but appears to be in pretty good shape now. I removed the last flag (linkrot) and hope it can be be marked keep and unlisted for deletion. 208.91.121.188 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hello, IP, I won't untag this article until there is feedback offered by other editors on whether the changes made to this article overcome the objections in the AFD nomination and brought up in this discussion. That takes more than your comment that things are okay now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article certainly isn't in good shape, still written like a fan page in parts and littered with synthesis largely from YouTube videos or minor mentions online. I've been removing some of it, but I'll wait for the outcome of this discussion before doeing anything else. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is plenty of discussion but not many opinions expressed about outcomes. Is there additional support for Draftification here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already !voted, but I can't see what a draftification would do. There are zero sources per sourcebot that are green/reliable, some red and orange. This is now ref-bombed with every tidbit of information sourced. If we can't get a RS after this long, I'm not sure what pushing this to draft would accomplish. Oaktree b (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:NSPORT pro wrestlers are considered entertainers and subject to WP:ENT, so championships have no bearing on his WP notability. Seeming to source the results and announcements of every card he's been on doesn't provide the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources I believe WP:GNG requires. I'm not seeing anything that shows me "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2023 (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 Jeung San Do. Should reliable, secondary, independent sources become available, these redirects can be restored and returned to article status. The main consideration right now is the lack of independent sources. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dojeon

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

I don't think the Dojeon deserves its own article separate from the main article on Jeung San Do because I couldn't find any reliable sources that focus specifically on the Dojeon. The entire article appears to be sourced from https://en.dojeon.org

Additionally, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion because they are all Jeung San Do ideas that are not covered by sources independent from the Jeung San Do movement:

Sangsaeng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haewon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wonsibanbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gaebyeok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cosmic year (Chinese astrology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tae eul ju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dojang (temple) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boeun (Jeungsando) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wpstatus (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I agree that it belongs in the main article as there is too much good info here to throw out. However, a merge without inline cites is bad form. I added a plea to the Talk and pinged editors of this article or the primary to see if anything can be salvaged. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeung San Do. The entire article is unreferenced and seems based on primary material so it should not be merged unless other reliable sources can be found. - Indefensible (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I think a bundled nomination like this needs more input from editors. My question, is it being suggested to Merge all of these articles to a target article? Because that would be a huge addition to a target article. And is that target article Jeung San Do as was offered in the suggestion to Redirect or was a different target article envisioned here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 12 August 2023 (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! 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lefter Koxhaj

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

Unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. I do see some sources but nothing that looks like in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I would have draftified it but a draft already exists. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2023 (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. Please add sources found to the article. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MV Nantucket

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

This article doesn't give a reason why this vessel is notable. I don't think it is more notable than MV Martha's Vineyard, which doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: FYI, large ferries usually get their own articles. That's not to say they should -- just that it's common.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as notable as any other ferry of which there are many articles. Her sister ship not having an article isn't justification for deleting this one. Perhaps the OP should create an article about the MV Martha's Vineyard to accompany this one. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Murgatroyd49. A stub can be expanded. QuincyMorgan (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think another week is warranted with two keeps and two weak keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:17, 12 August 2023 (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. This is a clear G5 with no one favoring keeping the article even before the socking was confirmed. The AfD for Omobude is more split, so if that closes to retain the article, any interested editor can create a redirect thereto. Star Mississippi 12:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Light International Ministries

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

Sources available are either unreliable or does not discuss the organisation in depth. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE: page needs better secondary sources, sources do not establish notability. I was unable to find anything relevant in search. This page seems at best a tool for recruitment. See WP:SOAPBOX
Jollyjalopy (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Felix Omobude. This church is probably not notable but its pastor, Felix Omobude definitely is (notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that his article is, for now, also at AfD)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Felix Omobude?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per G5. The article's author is a sock of David Eribe, an LTA spammer. If this discussion were not already underway I would have implemented a speedy deletion myself, but since others have taken time to review the content and sources I will merely contribute this !vote. I believe that the Felix Omobude article should also be deleted per G5, under which circimstances the redirect would not be appropriate; I would not object a redirect if that article is retained. Girth Summit (blether) 10:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Dubey

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Indian Express Yes Story is written by a journalist at Indian Express based on original reporting. Yes Indian Express is considered a reliable source. Yes The entire article is devoted to Dushyant Dubey. ✔ Yes
The Hindu Yes The reporter is not affiliated with the subject. Yes The Hindu is a newspaper of record in India. Yes An entire article is dedicate to this man. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully garner some discussion over the source table
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mardial

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

I don't think this article meets WP:GNG and WP:NM. Very few sources, for articles of living people. ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 08:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, Ariandi Lie, MbokGalau02, and Ustad abu gosok: This article, simultaneously, is also proposed for deletion on idwiki (see) ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see WP:MUSICBIO points. Ariandi Lie Ariandi Lie 08:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person failed to all notabilities criteria.
FYI: User whose create this article is a sockpuppetry on idwiki. Ariandi Lie Ariandi Lie 05:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:07, 12 August 2023 (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! 01:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of failed SpaceX launches

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

Content fork of three existing lists (Falcon 1, Falcon 9/FH, Starship) that does not add anything new. No one besides the article author (who got blocked with two accounts for vandalism) linked to this list and two other users have questioned the use of this list on the talk page before. We don't have such a list for any other company, and we don't have a list of only successful launches either. mfb (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge: this is an unhelpful list. There's no context as to how these fit into the program overall.
It's more meaningful to combine successes and failures in one list per craft in chronological order. This shows overall development and any patterns of failure.
Preferably, I'd like to see such lists embedded in the main articles if not too long. A list can always be collapsible if it's only "long-ish". For longer lists of good and bad launches for a particular craft, use a separate list article. Finally, if almost all launches are good, you could follow the example of many aircraft articles and list only problems, not successful launches (example: Boeing 767#Accidents and incidents).
Just as importantly, we don't need forks.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written content fork Dronebogus (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about merging to the List of SpaceX launches, that just contains only successful launches? Suitskvarts (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split between delete and merge. Relisting for some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theresah Boie

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joelyn Aimi

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

The subject has made at least two appearances for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2023 (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! 19:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franyeli Brazobán

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

The subject has made at least two appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (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! 19:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yerly Palma

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (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! 18:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zahrisaurus

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2023 (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. Ordinarily, I'd relist to consider the Merge option but one participant directly says that Merge is not appropriate. Should an editor wish to work on a draft of this article, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Anti-Igbo Pogrom Retaliation

1966 Anti-Igbo Pogrom Retaliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Broadly unsourced, this is a contested draftification. It has no place as an article. Patently not ready for mainspace. Draftify or delete and consider salt since the creating editor seems unable or unwilling to work on this as a draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 12 August 2023 (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! 18:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buzdartherium

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2023 (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! 18:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgai

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2023 (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! 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakitherium

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2023 (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! 18:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kahamachli

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2023 (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! 18:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jules' Undersea Lodge

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

The line "the only undersea hotel" – unsourced – is a claim of notability, but the rest of the page is an advertisement and the sources are not very good. — Trey Maturin™ 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. To the IP editor who states that any family member in a current or former monarchy is considered notable, well, if you are going to make that claim, you have to support it with a reference to the policy which makes that claim accurate. Please do so in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amor Torres

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

Per WP:GNG; fails WP:NBIO. Rejected G4 (previous discussion closed after a copyvio speedy deletion, not consensus to delete) and PROD was removed. After removing unsourced promotional material and other BLP violations, the article's content in its entirety is "<person> is a woman born in the Philippines." A longer version in the history expands on her claims to fame which don't appear to be notable. This is also related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Care for Humanity, the organization she founded, which was found to be non-notable although that discussion was 7 years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, that's one more point in favor of deletion. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and we should seriously consider salting Mason (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’m really amazed why an editor will be blanking all the references attach to this article. These references aren’t press release as he said. One thing about the notability of Royal member, Queen,Princesses etc is not about media coverage. Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.

This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria). Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO.

Furthermore, there’s important criterion that you should also look:

    • The subject serves in an official capacity within the government, such as an Ambassador or Administrator.
    • The subject is a member of one or more national orders, such as the Order of the Chrysanthemum or the Order of the Garter.
    • The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession to the throne.

Which this article is either of this categories. Please admin should intervene by warning the editor from removing her clear information and the references. 102.91.55.98 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m even surprising why the article was notable before then become non notable now. Once an article is notable it’s notable forever. The first AFD was copybio it got deleted because that, the second AFD has passed without deletion, the third AFD got deletion with reason not strong. We should know that media coverage is one of the key factor that determine notability but not really apply to any article such Royal Family. 102.91.55.94 (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Filipino princess champions humanitarian efforts in Cambodia - Khmer Times". 2019-10-15. Retrieved 2023-08-13.
  2. ^ Sureis (2018-11-23). "Pokhara is paradise, says Filipino princess". The Himalayan Times. Retrieved 2023-08-13.
  3. ^ "Philippines' Princess Maria Torres spends time with Bangladesh's special children". bdnews24.com. Retrieved 2023-08-13.
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 Inuit group. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S/2005 S 4

S/2005 S 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO, along with the 40 other like pages created by the same user ([11]) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect the article MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To which article? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:00, 17 August 2023 (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 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Servtrans

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

As far as I can tell this company no longer exists - if it is notable historically then sources should be added Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there doesn't seem to be any indication that the company is particularly notable. Darron4 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Ghamdi

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

Played 15 mins of professional football before dropping down to semi-pro/amateur level and with no apparent significant coverage. There appears to be a commentator of the same name according to Koora Break. My Arabic searches aren't yielding anything even close to decent about the footballer of this name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as far as I can tell. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 12 August 2023 (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 14:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time Apart: A History of Hope

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

In looking for reliable sources across DuckDuckGo, Google Books, Google News Archive, and NewsBank's newspaper archives, I found only one article about this film, published in The Chronicle Herald, a Halifax, Nova Scotia newspaper, when it premiered before an audience of "About 150 people". I searched the websites of the other alleged sources for information about the movie that the introduction lists; nothing relevant appeared. None of the film festivals listed in the article appear to be major, and only one, the Atlantic Film Festival, is apparently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Setting aside this award's inability to establish notability, when I checked previous New Brunswick Joy Award recipients, neither this film nor the filmmakers showed up in any year from 2008 onward. Based on this, I believe that this film clearly fails WP:NFILM. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Canada. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be fair, the New Brunswick Joy Award is actually a pitch contest for as yet unmade films, so you actually will find this film in that link if you back up to 2004. But it isn't a notability-conferring award for the purposes of WP:NFILM at all: that requires the awards to get reliable source media coverage to establish that the award is actually seen as a notable one, and is not a status held by awards that require you to source the claim to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because media coverage about the awards is nonexistent.
    The claim that it "received press coverage" in various media outlets has also proven mostly unverifiable, as absolutely none of that has turned up in any WP:BEFORE searches besides the one piece noted by the nominator above (which is, going by date and publisher, the same piece that's already incompletely cited in the article as its sole footnote, so we haven't bumped up to two) — but one piece isn't enough all by itself, and "notability because media coverage" is not passed by saying that the topic was covered in media, it's passed by using said media coverage as footnoting for content. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one locatable source. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kutsu

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

Playing 3 games for the Carolina RailHawks is no longer seen as an automatic notability pass. Kutsu needs to pass WP:GNG to have an article. The best that I can find is Modern Ghana, a trivial mention, Xinhua News Agency (via ProQuest), a trivial mention of being a standby player for a youth tournament, and Miami Herald (via Newspapers.com), which is a mention in a match report about getting a red card. Through multiple searches, I couldn't find any actual detailed coverage of Kutsu. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found for this person. Agree that the sources above are trivial. The family name appears to be a Japanese word, so a few hits come up for that. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brabby Kofigo

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

The database sources and trivial mention provided do not establish WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and most of the content relating to the COVID pandemic is generic league info and not specifically relating to Kofigo as an individual. In my own searches, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Kofigo. The best sources were Modern Ghana, a single passing mention, Ghana Soccernet, which also only mentions him once, and All Africa, which looks to be the best source but still only has 2 sentences about Kofigo and doesn't contain enough info to write a bio from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:10, 12 August 2023 (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! 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Music Festival

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a music festival, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. The only notability claim being made here is that it exists, which is not in and of itself enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it, but the only footnote being used for referencing at all is the event's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of notability-building coverage in sources independent of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived local and regional media in Texas can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it, but improved sourcing has to be shown to exist, not merely speculated to maybe exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2023 (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. Comments below plus WP:G5 (Amansharma111) Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra Kumar

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

The subject is not notable enough to have an article. --- Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Power

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP criteria. As always, companies are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their coverage in reliable sources such as news media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no reliable or GNG-building sources shown at all.
It also warrants note that this was recently hijacked to be about a completely different company with the same name, which was also referenced entirely to its own self-published website with no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, and thus wasn't properly established as notable either. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (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) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KMAQ-FM

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

Not notable. Radio stations need to meet the standards of WP:NCORP. I found one source that appears good here, but nothing else. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require coverage from multiple sources, and that just isn't fulfilled here.

Additionally nominated per WP:BUNDLE: KMAQ (AM).

Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 13:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Iowa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Both stations easily meet WP:NBROADCAST and not only did you not seek out any new sources outside one as required by WP:BEFORE, you didn't bring up any article concerns to anyone or use any talk pages, just straight to AfD. Nate • (chatter) 15:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an essay, NBROADCAST doesn‘t have the level of consensus behind it to establish notability on its own. Even if it did, this is what it says: A licensed broadcast radio station must meet the general notability guideline. In other words, what do you mean by „meets NBROADCAST“?
    The fact that I mentioned a currently-unused source in the nomination quite clearly shows that I did in fact carry out a WP:BEFORE search; if I missed any relevant sources, please do link to them here for others to take a look. It‘s a bit weird to me that you accuse me of being sloppy with the BEFORE search in direct contradiction with the nomination statement.
    I‘m not aware of any requirement to „use talk pages“ before opening an AfD. If you have a specific procedural concern, what is it? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrSchimpf as well as past precedent for U.S. radio stations. JPG-GR (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For my understanding, where is this precedent documented? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrSchimpf & JPG-GR. Stereorock (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added several substantial news clippings (which also should be ported to the AM article). KMAQ-AM-FM got a few long profiles in the Quad Cities newspapers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best opinion I can offer with regard to the nomination itself is a weak keep per Sammi Brie, but I mainly wanted to point out two things: first, that these articles were split (itself contentiously; the split was reverted, and the reversion itself reverted) from a combined KMAQ article (that is now a disambiguation page), which is how they got onto the new page patrol's radar and subsequently landed here; and second, that arguments based solely on NBROADCAST and BCASTOUTCOMES (which I think is the "past precedent" that JPG-GR was referring to) apparently are continuing to rely on pre-July 2021 versions (and again, NMEDIA in general is an essay) that over-presumed notability for licensed broadcast stations. A 2021 RfC established that this over-presumption was and is incorrect and GNG must be met (this is how BCASTOUTCOMES was altered to relfect this) — and the nominator does make a valid point that, in reality, it may actually be NCORP that applies (the only real difference is NCORP has a higher bar for sourcing quality; I'll also note that even the old NMEDIA, in presuming non-notability for unlicensed stations, actually deferred to NCORP and not GNG for those). I do still think that broadcast stations are generally notable more often than not, but I did feel the need to provide context as to why arguments that would probably be deemed "non-policy-based" today are still being made. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Wcquidditch, thanks for your input! This helps me a lot, especially since those discussions were before my active time on en-wiki. I do feel that all you said basically supports the nomination statement; the community rejected inherent notability for radio stations, which means the relevant guidelines are GNG and maybe NCORP. If GNG isn‘t met, what‘s the basis for a Keep !vote? NEXIST maybe? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:37, 13 August 2023 (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 13:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joychandra Singh

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

Has been tagged as needing additional sources for two years now but I can't see any evidence that any decent sources exist. Current sources are well short of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Even an Indian source search doesn't seem to yield anything significant. Searches in conjunction with his former clubs does bring up a few trivial mentions in match reports like Telegraph India, Sportskeeda and Times of India. The only recent coverage I can find is AIFF, which is not at all significant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:37, 12 August 2023 (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 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishan Ahanthem

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

None of the references in the article show the depth of coverage required for WP:GNG or even for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. He played 81 mins of football back in January 2021 but doesn't seem to have played any football since so I'm not seeing any guarantee of future notability here either. My WP:BEFORE only returned database sources, which SPORTBASIC explicitly states as not being enough for notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 12 August 2023 (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! 05:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Louise Smith

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT " A violent crime, accidental death, or other media event may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." A Google search for "Louise Smith Shane Mays" for results after 1 January 2021 (days after the sentencing) reveals only two main events which are both routine: the appeal to increase the sentence was rejected [12] in February 2021, and a review in January 2022 [13] found that the victim received no support after reporting an unrelated rape a year earlier. While it may sound callous to say, there is little that points to any lasting notability of this crime, which occurred in a year of 594 homicides in the UK. When I see the other few crimes in Category:2020 murders in the United Kingdom, they received heavy coverage for wider issues or unusual aspects: the Murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman involved racist and sexist gross police misconduct and a truly senseless motive; the murder of Matt Ratana was of a serving policeman in his station by a handcuffed man who then became severely disabled in a suicide attempt; the killing of Emily Jones was a stranger attack on a child and involved mental health and immigration controversies. Again, it may sound callous but females being killed by men known to them is not unusual and the lack of extensive coverage besides news updates shows that Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (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! 18:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creature (company)

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

run of the mill defunct company that doesn't pass GNG. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2023 (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! 02:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zalaris

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Routine references don't support the article. While the company is listed, with the assumption that it is automatically notable, references must support it that WP:V and WP:SIRS, not press-releases and profiles. Wikipedia is not an automatic listing service. scope_creepTalk 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google will translate this if you enter the Norwegian URL but for some reason it doesn't produce a valid translated article URL.
I hope this is helpful,--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: None of those is substantial coverage of the business: they are all just reports of individual events, such as the company's stock market value having increased this year. They are also all written in such glowing terms as to make them look like press releases or other promotional material, and sure enough on searching I found that one of the web sites says of itself "Our mission is to empower ambitious people and businesses." On the other website I haven't found any such direct statement of promotional purpose, but I have looked at a sample of 10 other articles on the same web site, and every one of them had the same promotional tone. These sources certainly don't provide substantial coverage of the subject, and it seems clear to me that they don't provide independent coverage either. Being "seen as a high profile tech success" is not a part of any of the notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are absolutely terrible references that fail WP:NCORP mostly because they are PR. scope_creepTalk 18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I read these closely as well as a number of other articles about Zalaris. These 4 are not press releases. They are bylined articles in respected newspapers. You can expand the current stub with this material. If you want more financial depth, I'll get you audited financial reports; they're WP:RS but they don't establish notability.
If you still really, really think these truly are press releases, just run sections of their Norwegian text through a search engine. If they're press releases, you'd get lots of hits. But you won't because these are news articles.
In any event, the closing admin will read the articles and make their own decision independent of your comments or mine.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dagens Næringsliv and Finansavisen are the two primary business news organizations in Norway.
    • Like many other news organizations (Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg), they carry press releases but those are not bylined. Somewhere they note the source.
  • These are bylined stories, not recycled press releases.
  • My point about "high profile tech success" is not that that makes this company notable but rather to note why the Norwegian press is very interested in Zalaris. The resulting press coverage is what makes Zalaris notable.
  • Other than 7-month COVID market drop, the company's stock has done well as have the company's sales if you look at the financial reports (not cited above). So, like any story nowadays about Apple's business, they're getting mostly positive press for now. That will inevitably change at some point.
  • One article does note they're cutting costs even as sales grow because profits aren't following. So if you're looking for bad news, there's some for you.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the old bylined wheeze as though that is important. Depth of content, significance and independence of thought per WP:SIRS is the consensus based criteria, not whether there is a presence of a sentence that somehow signifies validty. I have zero confidence that your capable of evaluating a good reference. I have completed a WP:BEFORE on the article, per best practice. scope_creepTalk 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 [14] Company report. Non-RS.
  • Ref 2 [15] Investment report containing information obtained from company website. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 3 404
  • Ref 4 Company profile on Zalaris. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [16] Company listing. Routine. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.

Looking at the references above:

  • [17] Interview with the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • [18] Info taken from company report. Turnover and operating margin. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine coverage.
  • [19] Behind a paywall. Now aiming to cut costs, reads like a press-release.
  • It states in the article, information taken from the last quarterly report. Not independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:SIRS.

None of the references above pass the bar of WP:NCORP. It is the usual kind of a routine information published by a relatively small company. scope_creepTalk 04:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak KeepDeleteChange !vote due to Cunard source below This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Just in response to a comment above by A. B., it is not one of our guidelines nor does it form part of any criteria whether an article is "bylined" or not. Indeed, the idea that we don't examine an article's content (if it is bylined) so as to check it meets the criteria for establishing notability would provide an exception not contemplated by the guidelines and otherwise flies in the face of the checks required. I largely agree with the assessment of sources above and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If this company is as notable as some say, I would expect to see a number of sources that analyse the company without relying on an interview from the CEO or information/forecasts provided by the company. HighKing++ 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, usually a company trading on the stock market generates sufficient attention for analysts to produce detailed reports on the company. The company's website says that they are covered by the following analysts - ABG Dundial Collier, Arctic Securities, SpareBank1 Markets and Kepler Cheuvreux - but I am unable to locate anything which meets GNG/NCORP. In addition, it might appear that these "analysts" may be more concerned with raising capital and selling bonds in recent times and this might well affect whether their output (if any can be found) can be considered independent. HighKing++ 20:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis as to whether the available sources about this subject meet WP:NCORP would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rennie, Elizabeth (2023-03-13). "Zalaris - Cloud HR Transformation Services 2023". NelsonHall. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      This link contains an abstract of the report. The abstract notes: "Headquartered in Norway, Zalaris is dedicated to HR and payroll services, with SaaS, BPaas, and consulting offerings. It primarily services the SAP HCM market with HR services and complementary proprietary Zalaris technology (including Zalaris PeopleHub). Zalaris has two divisions: • Professional Services: the implementation division offering project management, technical consulting for SAP HCM/Payroll, SAP SuccessFactors and Zalaris platforms, test management & execution, change management, and digital adoption execution • Managed Services: primarily managed payroll as well as application support (AMS). Its Managed Services business also has payroll services clients where the HCM technology is not SAP. To support this, it delivers HCM integrations with Workday and Oracle."

    2. Bjergaard, Anders Pedersen (2020-10-12). "Tror på snuoperasjon i Zalaris. Etter to mislykkede oppkjøp i 2018 falt driftsmarginen i Zalaris som en stein. Nå tror Arctic Securities-analytiker Henriette Trondsen på snuoperasjon og reprising" [Believe in turnaround in Zalaris. After two unsuccessful acquisitions in 2018, Zalaris's operating margin fell like a rock. Now Arctic Securities analyst Henriette Trondsen believes in turnaround and replay.]. Finansavisen (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 2023-08-09. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Now that all the new Tech companies are getting a lot of attention, Zalaris is quickly forgotten. The company has a high degree of repetitive revenues and low customer ways. After two bad acquisitions in 2018, the stock developed weakly. In fact, the operating margin fell from 9-10 to 2 per cent, says Henriette Trondsen. ... The company is in the midst of a turnaround, supported by some activist investors. The margin has also improved during the first half of the year, although some derives from cost cuts associated with the corona pandemic. Nevertheless, Zalaris shows positive development, says Trondsen. ... If Zalaris manages to deliver a margin improvement, it is up to a replay of the stock, says Trondsen, and continues: 'I think they're going to make acquisitions so I wouldn't have been surprised if they take any steps in relation to this. Therefore, my recommendation is long -term and not short -term.'"

    3. Johannessen, Andreas; Kringhaug, Glenn; Haakon, Amundsen; Schjøtt-Pedersen, Karl Fredrik; Kapanen, Ludvig; Magnus Braaten, Rikard (2020-03-17). "ABGSC Daily Report - Bonds" (PDF). ABG Sundal Collier. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The analyst report notes: "However, in our view, the main near-term risk revolves around its Professional Services segment that primarily consists of consulting/project-based services. Zalaris could very likely experience that their consultants are unable to work due to either being sick, in quarantine, or that the customers put off work for the same reasons. Some of the work could possibly be done from home, but we don’t know to which extent. To put this into context, Zalaris had 2019 revenues of NOK 777m, EBITDA of NOK 104m, and personnel costs of NOK 437m in the PnL (+NOK 16m of investments in intangibles that likely is capitalized R&D expenses). That said, the company laid off 52 FTEs / 6% of its workforce ahead of the Covid-19 situation that should soften the effect somewhat. In other words, the 2019 figures include limited / no effect from the lay-off, in addition to extraordinary costs due to the use of external consultants."

    4. Johannessen, Andreas; Kringhaug, Glenn; Haakon, Amundsen; Schjøtt-Pedersen, Karl Fredrik; Kapanen, Ludvig; Magnus Braaten, Rikard (2020-05-08). "ABGSC Daily Report - Bonds" (PDF). ABG Sundal Collier. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The analyst report notes: "We attribute the strong beat to the fact that the COVID-19 situation has had limited financial impact on the company. We also note their comment that the underlying margin is higher after concluding the cost-cutting program, although it was negatively affected in Q1 by lower utilization on freed-up capacity during the quarter. This has been a concern of ours during the past time, but the management does not seem to share that concern for now."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zalaris 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) 09:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your back foisting raw financial information from company reports and press-releases as genuine reliable secondary references. I will go through them when I come back from work. scope_creepTalk 13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will need redo them, they are wide of the mark. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Cunard! The first is a research report on Zalaris' offerings and capabilities and meets NCORP. Individually, the others are weaker and arguably fall short but I'm going to change my !vote to Weak Keep on the assumption there are sources available perhaps (maybe in Norwegian, maybe no longer available elctronically, maybe a paper research report..) HighKing++ 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is consensus here that the page is unacceptable synthesis, even if individual incidents are cited. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals of the Serbian Progressive Party

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

Another non-NPOV article that is full of original research and various accusations that are not even linked to the Serbian Progressive Party but instead to certain individuals. A similar article, which also included various accusations that are not connected to the Serbian Progressive Party, was created back in 2020 and has been since deleted. Some of this material could instead be copy-edited to neutral style and added to articles of these individuals (Aleksandar Vučić, Aleksandar Vulin, Bratislav Gašić, etc.), but adding all of this together to a single article that is not even relevant to the Serbian Progressive Party is just a bunch of nonsense. Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is inherently related to the Serbian Progressive Party as all of the people involved in the scandals are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and have been for years. All of these people are interconnected in their wrongdoings. If we can have Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration i think this will work too.
All of these accusations are backed by sources like KRIK, BIRN, and Insajder, which are independent investigative media. In the article itself is listed the reason why i cannot diversify my sources more, most news media in Serbia have turned to exclusively pro-government tabloid journalism over the last few years.
While i can see why you might think the article is non-NPOV, i think it would be much more helpful if you were to correct/point out the specific lack of NPOV instead of flagging an entire article for deletion. Graphite2277 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not true, not all individuals listed here are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and even if they were, that does not mean that SNS itself was directly involved in the scandals, which the title of this article implies. There is a great difference between the Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration article and this one. First one is in the name, this article claims that all of these accusations are related to a single party, which is incorrect, while the scandals listed on the Ronald Reagan administration article were all investigated and the individuals were convicted/pleaded guilty. The accusations here were not done by SNS nor was the party involved in them.
There is also original research and misinterpretation of sources, here is an example:
  • For 300 out of 365 days in 2022, the president Aleksandar Vučić was present on some national television programme – Source says that from 1 June 2022 to 31 May 2023, Vučić appeared on 300 television programmes in total, not that he appeared on some national television programmes for 300 days
Again, although the article contains a lot of original research, the article still does not imply how these accusations are related to SNS, or how SNS was involved in any of them, at all. Even if the article was to be renamed to something else it would still have a lot of content that is not related to the actual topic. As I've said, these accusations are either related to individuals, not the party, while some were related to the government (COVID, 2023 shootings, Belgrade Waterfront), and most of these are already present on these articles. I'm not disputing the reliability of KRIK, BIRN, Insajder or other sources, they are all reliable. The main issue here is not the sourcing (though there is unsourced content), but rather that these numerous allegations and accusations, which are already present on most articles related to these topics, are not related to SNS, even though the title implies that SNS was involved in every one of these scandals, which is not true. I'll give you some examples:
The article has been already tagged for NPOV, not by me, and reading through the article, not everything written is in neutral tone. You have even sorted the controversies into "minor" and "major" ones even though no source implies this. Vacant0 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While not all individuals mentioned in this article are members of SNS, i only mentioned non-member individuals who are directly connected to members of SNS and who presumably stood to gain from it (Mitrović getting country funds, Belivuk's clan being able to operate for over 10 years because they were involved with the president's son etc.). All of these are SNS scandals because what is a political party if not it's members and their public image? It would not be fitting to name this article "Scandals of the Serbian government" or something similar, as all of these scandals happened since SNS became the leading party in 2012.
Again these are all inherently related to SNS as their members were involved and the only reason they were involved is because they're members of the party. As for source misinterpretation, i assure you it was accidental and i would be more than happy to fix any instances of me misinterpreting a source by providing another source or changing the wording, although i am more than positive that any hard accusations made in this article are properly backed. The same applies to non-NPOV. Please do point out more examples of original research, non-NPOV and source misinterpretation so i can promptly fix them.
While some of these scandals are already present in some articles i believe it is a much better choice to just link to that article here or vice-versa (whichever has a more detailed explanation). On the other hand some of these scandals are not mentioned anywhere else and there is not an adequate page to move them to.
The sorting between controversies and scandals was truthfully done on my own accord, where minor controversies are ones where the action was technically legal but very unpopular among the Serbian people and at most caused financial harm, while "scandals" involve a major loss of country funds or life, or just blatant disregard for the law. I am more than happy to remove this and put everything in a single "Scandals" section. Graphite2277 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the problem. You have used original research to link everything in the article to SNS and that is the reason why this article should be deleted. The article cannot be fixed or corrected because SNS was not involved in majority of these accusations. Individuals were involved instead. SNS cannot be inherently related to the accusations when there is no proof that SNS was involved in these accusations. Claiming that it is, is original research. Other than this, I won't repeat what I have already said. You can read my comments again, read more Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and in the future use the Articles for creation process to create articles until you get more familiar with how Wikipedia articles are supposed to look like. Vacant0 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth wouldn't it be correct to rename the article to "Scandals involving members of the Serbian Progressive Party", and to adjust the wording a bit? Nowhere except in the article title and the opening statement have i implied any of these scandals were the entire party's fault. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also just to add: Nearly all of these people involved in scandals of various severity were allowed to keep climbing the political ladder. None were ever prosecuted, the party itself never even condemned their actions. This is what i mean when i say the party essentially supported these controversies. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. No reason to have this article (as well as the others mentioned that are non-NPOVs). Боки ✉ 13:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please be concise in advocating for your position on what should happen to this article from the limited options that are available: Keep, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is cited, but all these incidents (many of them with our old friend "Sources Say") seem like an unconnected gripe list mad at a party structure more than specific things a certain cabinet did, and 'shame' articles just because a certain party didn't 'punish' someone enough never really fly here. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this feels like a bad way to present information. Any extremely important or historic scandals would of course be covered at Serbian Progressive Party. Ones that are less important but which still commanded media attention over a lengthy period of time should have their own individual articles, and ones that only had an impact over a single news scandal and did not receive lasting attention should really not be covered in detail per WP:NOTNEWS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Please let a Merge discussion begin on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple past

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

I think we should merge this with Preterite. Both talk about essentially the same concept. The article even says that preterite is an alternate name for simple past. TheLatinNerd (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. AfD is not the venue for this sort of article cleanup. This plainly meets GNG, and as both articles have hatnotes for each other I've no concern of a bad content fork having happened. Agree that the potential merge should be discussed on the talk page. —siroχo 12:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 12 August 2023 (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! 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Clark Marshall

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

Ethan Clark Marshall

Non-notable junior footballer. The article says nothing about significant coverage, and the references do not show significant coverage, because the first three of them do not appear to refer to the subject by name. The fourth and last reference could not be viewed because it was flagged as unsafe, which means that it is definitely a different type of unreliable source.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 skysports.com About the league competition - Did not find mention of subject Yes No ? No
2 swfc.co.uk About the team - Did not find mention of subject Yes No ? No
3 gtfc.co.uk Did not find mention of subject Yes No ? No
4 www.bostonunited.co.uk Web site detected to be unsafe due to malware ? No No No

There is also a draft. The draft can be left alone when the article is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2023 (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! 05:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Watch Company

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

The article has two sources: a PR piece, which by definition fails WP:ORGIND, and a "Retailer Profile" interview with a watch industry trade publication of unknown reliability, but which probably also fails WP:ORGIND. I spent over an hour looking for sources to satisfy WP:NCORP in Google Books and Google News archive. I searched NewsBank's newspaper archives. I even searched in a list of wrist watch blogs, which would be considered generally unreliable, just to see if anybody had reviewed one of this company's products. I used the current name and their two previous names in all my searches. I found absolutely no non-trivial coverage in any reliable source. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2023 (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! 01:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broodwork

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

Topic lacks notability and significant coverage Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2023 (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 06:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 12 August 2023 (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 Draftify‎. This AFD is a discussion that went off the rails. I could relist it but I think that this would just prolong editors arguing over the article subject which is not what an AFD discussion is for. So, I'm following the guidance of the one editor who seems uninvolved and who "voted" and moving this article to Draft space. Content creators please be aware that if you move this back to main space, we'll likely have a quick return visit to AFD which might have a less gentle closure. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anga (region)

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

The article is based on original research and synthesis that too of various unreliable sources. Fails wp:or and wp:v. Thanks— Mikeanand (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: As a neutral third party editor coming to this AfD, it's hard to sort out the merits of this article because stuff's getting removed as fast as Biharpro7252 can add it. This means I have to step through the page history reviewing this article, edit-by-edit. At some point, I'm inclined to give up and just say "keep", since that's the default decision for AfDs that are too hard.
This AfD was started during the article's construction less than 24 hours after the article was started. I don't think I've seen this before.
@Mikeanand, what's the rush?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I should stop editing the page for some time so that a fair conclusion can come up. Thank you— Mikeanand (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding, Whenever I add any source @Mikeanand removes it. And It is even not 24 hours for creating this article. Biharpro7252 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the reliable sources refers to the Anga Cultural Region and The part of it including its History, Angika Cuisine, Manjusha Art, Music and Drama, Non-Profit Organistaions.I have carefully mentioned all the sources and the page should not be deleted ,its in the similar category in which Mithila(region) , Bhojpuri region,Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand lies. Biharpro7252 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies with original research to push a perticular wp:POV and utter disregard for wiki policies including wp:rs and wp:v. Thank you— Mikeanand (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biharpro7252 and @Mikeanand - thanks for working together. I suggest you move your discussion now to Talk:Anga (region) and get agreement on sources, etc. there.
Mikeanand, you're a more experienced editor -- I encourage you to shift hats, for now, from "gatekeeper" to "coach". For now, try to help Biharpro7252 figure out how to build a real article if it can be done at all. This will also be good training for you if you decide to become an admin someday.
Biharpro7252, work hard to understand what Biharpro7252 has been telling you. Take 2 hours to read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOTE really thoroughly and digest the content. If your article is to survive, it and its references have to follow these rules.
When the article is further along in a few days, we can take another look here at deletion.
I care a lot less about keeping or deleting Anga (region) than I do a motivated new editor! And developing potential leadership.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: I take your advice positively. Biharpro7252, I think we should work together to try and improve the article. I have made certain changes and started a talk page discussion on article talk page. You are free to ask any questions there. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I too want -Thank you Biharpro7252 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too take your advise positively. Thank You Biharpro7252 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After recent expansion, the still the issue is that most of the reliable sources and content added refer to the language Angika, the historical region Anga, and various cultural, cuisine and religious things that are already covered in stand alone articles or articles on administrative divisions. What is necessary for establishing WP:GNG is to have WP:RS, especially WP:SCHOLARY sources that explicitly describe the modern "Anga region" in quotes, which is not the case here. Skimming through Google-books, I couldn't any. Most of the sources talking about "Anga region" or "Anga Pradesh" are unreliable blog or Wiki-like sources. It is better to "draftify" it and improve it there. Ping @A. B.:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look nicely to the source3 its all about ang culture Biharpro7252 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. The source "SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECT OF ANGIKA" is wholly about the Angika language. The article title and the abstract clearly says it - "This paper aims at exploring the socio-cultural aspect of Angika, a language spoken in Bihar". It only makes a passing mention about "Ang Desh" only once (while talking about 'geolinguistics', the latter will serve better in the existing Angika language article), as well as the historical Anga kingdom. This source would serve better in the . Anyway, calims of a supposed "Ang Desh" needs to be widely covered in WP:RS sources. Which is why I'm in favour of dratification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Angika is the linguistic language of Anga Region and Socio-cultural aspects of Angika refers Anga Culture. if you do not agree , refer to refernces 5 where it is clearly mentioned Bhagalpur(Anga Region) that is to say about whole Bhagalpur region which inc. Purnia,Kosi,Munger,Bhagalpur and Santhal Pargana Division (Modern days) and about Anga Script the prehistoric script of Angika language. Biharpro7252 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biharpro7252, please read wp:or carefully. We cannot use own synthesis of sources. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see nicely it is not an original research. Reference 5 is an ultimate source Biharpro7252 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference 5 (this) is the only source of any value that mentions "Anga region" out of all the others you have added in the article, though I'm not sure about the reliability. Should consult at WP:RSN for WP:HISTRS. Anyway, the terms "Anga region" or "Anga Pradesh" should be widely covered in reliable sources (not one or two) for notability, independent of the language Angika and the historical kingdom of Anga. Try finding "Anga region" in books from reliable publishing houses like Oxford, etc. as well as university journals. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like mithila can never be complete without maithili same is with Anga too.Anyway I will add more sources to it. Biharpro7252 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Request to end this deletion for Anga (region) more than 50 sources are added and some people are continuously targeting the page. Biharpro7252 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the major changes to this article. At this point though, with the viewpoints expressed, it seems like Draftification might be the way to go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Demands of languages for inclusion in the Eighth Schedule angika is one then
- Proverealbiharhistory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-: Reference 8 Jharkhand Sahivalye JGGLCCE Main Exam book clearly mentions that Angika a recognised additional official language of Jharkhand is spoken in Present time Anga region of Bihar and Jharkhand .here Anga is indicated as a region Biharpro7252 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biharpro7252: The cited source fails wp:rs. Regards. — Mikeanand (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nope it does not Biharpro7252 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-: reference 41 Outlook is a weekly general interest English and Hindi news magazine published in India,It too has described Anga as seperate region or Angika-speaking region Biharpro7252 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biharpro7252 Not sure if it is acceptable as per WP:HISTRS. Regards— Mikeanand (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2023 (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 Winter (indie rock band). Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Blue Dream

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I can't find any in-depth coverage or reviews about this album in reliable and independent sources. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winter (indie rock band): Nothing additional turned up in my search either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:53, 12 August 2023 (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 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusnelvis Espinosa

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

The subject has made at least seven appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2023 (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 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayamis Chinea

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

The subject has made at least two appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2023 (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 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merolyn Sali

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

The subject has made at least two appearances for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2023 (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 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Balamus

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I found WP:NOTCATALOG most helpful for assessing the opinions expressed here. Readers can go to the manufacturer's website for this type of information. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beretta 92 models

List of Beretta 92 models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is little encyclopedic value in listing every single variant of a particular pistol that has ever been produced, many of which have minimal changes between them. Loafiewa (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems like a legitimate WP:LIST on the different types of firearms, serving essentially as trivia. If this was just a collection of blue links, I'd agree, but there's also specification information as well. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I hesitated between delete and keep as it does present little encyclopedic value but at the same time lists such as List of firearms (B) exist so it seems that a more specific list in a similar vein would be justifiable per Spiderone. Darron4 (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia:NOTPROMOTION. Beretta is a for-profit maker of firearms. This reads like a catalog listing, for selecting the model that best suits you. While the editor is no longer active, their editing history seems to be specifics of individual weapons, often with a link to the manufacturer's website (Glock Ges.m.b.H.) — Maile (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, mostly NOTPROMOTION doesn't apply, as a list of stats does not advocate their superiority, value, reliability, or award-winning qualities. Really, this is a list primarily of specifications, which are uncontested but unreferenced, and mostly seems to be a series of links to the same page, Beretta 92. I don't see why this should exist as a standalone list rather than within the Beretta 92 article itself. I'm also suspecting it would be reasonable to merge the various other articles that exist (92R, 92G-SD/96G-SD) into the main Beretta 92 article as well. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this would be eventually deleted and from the beretta 92 article and made back into a standalone list, so it seems like a legitimate WP:SPINOFF DarmaniLink (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no crystal ball to know this. Regardless, if it's merged into the main article and then trimmed, the data will still be in version history. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The vast majority of these links go directly back to the main Beretta 92 article as already noted, and that article doesn't contain any pertinent information about some of the linked models (I noticed this especially with the various Brigadier versions). Not seeing any real value added here, especially if someone starts on that list looking for specific model information. They're not going to get it in most cases (of the 55 pistols on the list, one is a red link and only 7 have unique articles). Intothatdarkness 23:23, 12 August 2023 (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! 00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Farrell

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2023 (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! 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal McLaurin-Coney

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR as an actor and former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_12&oldid=1171229170"