Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 23	November 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to The Lockdown Sessions. Legoktm (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to Fly (Surfaces and Elton John song)

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

Only further coverage I can find is further announcements of the song ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), some of which are from likely reliable sources but are mostly just stating the song exists and including the same quotes which are already in the article. uDiscoverMusic article is no good here as the band's record label 10K Projects is owned by Universal Music Group. Charting is not very significant. I think there's enough here that'd be worth a paragraph on the band's and Elton's pages but not quite enough for its own article. Merge what's keepable and redirect to The Lockdown Sessions. QuietHere (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, England, and Texas. QuietHere (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: QuietHere, I mean no offense, but is there a reason that you didn't just merge/redirect the article yourself? It doesn't appear that you're looking for the article to be deleted. Joyous! | Talk 13:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joyous! 1. I prefer the concensus-gathering process of the AfD 2. I probably didn't think of a merge until I'd already written the rest and just threw it in there 3. Never know if there's something I missed and maybe the article is keepable after all, and it's easier to invite other editors to double-check rather than just make the move myself and upset someone who worked to gather what's already there. QuietHere (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Lockdown Sessions per WP:ATD. This single is not independently notable. ✗plicit 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. List has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hostage crises

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

Seems to be a completely arbitrary list without any commentary or clear criteria for inclusion. A list of every hostage-taking in history (or even just hostage situations that have articles) would be so impossibly broad as to be useless (per WP:SALAT) and there's no suggestion that this arbitrary selection has been discussed as a group in reliable sources, nor even that the hostage-taking is the reason many of these events are notable. This is essentially a category in list form but would be more useful as a category in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prune the ones without articles or in some cases no mentions in linked articles (e.g. Taft Avenue). The corresponding category appears to be Category:Hostage taking, but the list provides more information, such as duration (no. of hostages, deaths, etc. would also be welcome), and a rename to List of hostage takings seems appropriate, as "crises" is rather vague. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with HJ that this is too broad for NLIST. On a cursory GBooks/GScholar/ProQuest search, I find very little that you can interpret to be talking about hostage crises as a general topic of focus versus specific hostage crises, or (the closest I could get) the evolution of crisis negotiations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: this could be a useful list, but its current form is unclear. Like, what's the point? Why is only one situation cited? Can we userfy this? Can we move it as Clarityfiend suggested? Bearian (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - leaning towards "per clarityfiend" (with the pruning, adding information, etc.). Certainly the inclusion criteria can be tightened, perhaps limiting just to those events notable because of taking of hostages, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list does not attempt to include every hostage crisis in history, only those that meet the notability requirements. I agree that the article should include more information, but that is an argument for expanding it, not one for deleting it. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It includes many that don't have their own articles. But even just those hostage takings that have (or could have) an article has got to be thousands of possible entries. It's impossibly broad, and there's no real literature covering every hostage taking ever. We couod move it and completely rewrite it as suggested above but how is that meaningfully different to deletion? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent pruning by Clarityfiend. BD2412 T 01:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There does not appear to be any consensus on whether the list of characters is notable and should be standalone or not, however it is clear that the article needs serious cleanup. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters

AfDs for this article:

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

Excessively long, unsourced, and fanwanky. Some parts could possibly be merged into the main article as an AtD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entry is longer than the Gahoole entry for the entire series. One series and a few books, I'm sure this can be covered over at the main article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup since there's both a book and a film adaptation. Ideally, the bits that would be duplicated in both articles should be here. No objection to serious cutting, but a single characters article for a notable fictional franchise is not excessive or unwarranted, and neither the book(s) or movie would be an ideal merge target as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing much point in even redireting this unreferenced fancruft to Guardians of Ga'Hoole. Yes, the main work should have a section about characters, but unless someone wants to verify this... well, I guess a redirect won't hurt much, still, no references, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying after the relist: V for fictional elements is met by references to the primary source in accordance with WP:PRIMARY; that is, obvious things are obvious, implications and conclusions need a secondary source. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per the claims that were made out by @Jclemens:. We have to have their bios mentioned somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A short section w/ a sentence or two about each of the main characters would be sufficient. I've been through a few AfD's for other character articles and they've ended up w/ some form of merge into the main article. This isn't a fan wiki and we don't need Harry Potter levels of detail. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant coverage to preserve or merge. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NLIST. Jontesta (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Jclemens. A list of characters is valid for a notable series. A merge is an option in theory but Jclemens is right that there are two valid targets and a list allows it to work for both. Archrogue (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Potentially notable list here, but it must be rewritten and therefore none of this content is usable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see two irreconciliable groups of editors and it appears that both camps believe a Merge is not a good idea.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a merge. Seems fine Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge where? There's books and film--so where does it go? Those arguing for deletion have failed to establish that this couldn't be trimmed to be an appropriate article, as no one is arguing the fictional world isn't notable. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an historical curiosity, I appear to have made this exact same argument over 10 years ago in the first AfD, linked above. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bastardolomey

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

nothing to indicate notability / fails WP:GNG ---FMSky (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion not possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable band, couldnt find anything on google.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find sources that indicate any of the criteria in WP:NBAND have been met. Rupples (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice James Woulfe

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. I can't find any in-depth coverage of this person. The current two sources are a non-reliable website, and a family memoir by one of his descendants. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing in Jstor or Gscholar, I think he's just an interesting bit of local lore. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to find anything about this man, and the website and self-published memoir used as sourcing don't add up to much in the way of indicating notability. Joyous! | Talk 22:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:ANYBIO. The only sources linked (and indeed the only sources that seem to be available in general) are self-published "family history" works. Both written by the same person. An apparent descendant of the subject. Both sources contain effectively the same text. One self-published on a family history website. The other self-published via lulu.com. Neither meets WP:RS or WP:BASIC. (It is worth noting that, to my read, not only do the sources not support notability, they don't support much of the text. Including the "claims to fame" about "considerable land purchases in the south west of Ireland" or "few recorded Irish centenarians of the 17th/18th C".) My own WP:BEFORE efforts have identified no other reliable/independent sources. Either to support the text or to support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Guliolopez, Spleodrach and my own digging at the National Library , cannot find any broader backing for the claims. Almost a pity, but as Oaktree b said, at best a bit of local folklore, maybe. SeoR (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gardner (actor)

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

Non-notable actor/producer. Google returns a lot of results for a sound designer of that name (all of which appear to themselves be too sparse to cite for an article on them), but virtually nothing for an actor or producer. (String: ["Jeff Gardner" actor]) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with nominator regarding Gardner. Adding WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. MurrayGreshler (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched Proquest but the best I found was ProQuest 2384587916. S0091 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting as article suggested as a redirect has been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short track speed skating at the 2022 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, China, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, a subaspect of a youth tournament with little independent coverage. Fram (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Fram. Minimal independent coverage. Could not find anything significant to add to the page for it to meet WP:GNG standards. HennSw123 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this event article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and 2022 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games is also up for AFD, so not much point redirecting there. Redirecting up to Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games would be inappropriate, as this specific event is not mentioned there (plus not 100% convinced that article is notable either). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to include content from this article on a list to be created in the future, let me know and we can revisit this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tatanagar-Godda Weekly Express

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

Non-notable train service. Best I could find was [7] (though that's still more than the article's creator did). I could not find any obvious redirect targets. The article itself has no citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the article doesn't have any inline citations, it does have two references so that part of the nomination is incorrect, but they don't establish notability and the nominator's link suggests its likely too new to be individually notable. Listify and redirect, although I can't find an existing list, a look at a few random articles in Category:Express trains in India suggests there are many articles of similar notability that should have their encyclopaedic information merged to a list and then be redirected there (although I suspect there will be a need for multiple lists given there are over a 1000 articles in the category, the folk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways will likely be best placed to determine the best organisation, I'll leave a note about this discussion there). Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I found were schedules that included this train, not articles that establish why this train is notable. TH1980 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: Mail/Express are the train which run at very high speed and there are only few this types of trains in India so it can/might be notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 08:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not based in any sort of policy or guideline. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unnamed train (the "name" is literally "[TERMINUS A]-[TERMINUS B] [FREQUENCY] Express"), and I can't see how unnamed trains would be notable. Fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, and for that reason I would also oppose a redirect or listify. Jumpytoo Talk 20:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Individually I agree its not notable, but a List of express trains in India would be notable, given that "express train" seems to have a specific definition in India so the objection to listification doesn't make sense. Also, not that it is relevant to my arguments, it seems that this is a named train, that the name is descriptive doesn't change that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonti

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

Tagged for notability for over two years now, likely fails WP:NMUSIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep: His albums have been reviewed by publications such as Pitchfork and PopMatters and he was nominated for an AIR. Edit: This full-length Guardian article, too [8]. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources listed above particularly the Guardian. Also there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and AllMusic also has two staff written album reviews for them. Overall there is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp per WP:HEY. I've added the refs to The Guardian, Pitchfork, PopMatters and AllMusic. Seems ample coverage for GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY and excellent efforts of recent editors.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article cites no secondary sources and other sources found do not satisfy WP:GNG. Found essentially two articles in ProQuest citing stats from the 2012 NECBL All-Star Game: the Tribune Content Agency had a one-sentence summary which was syndicated to Buffalo News and other newspapers, and there was a passing mention in the New Hampshire Sunday News about Rob Kelly's 400-foot homer in the game. Not enough to write an article or establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NECBL playoffs

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NECBL playoffs

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NECBL playoffs

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NECBL playoffs

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing this as Keep, in part because it appears that the nominator has withdrawn their deletion rationale along with new sources located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Lerner

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

I fundamentally can't find sigcov outside of the cited introduction to The Spoken Word Revolution Redux that would establish notability. This has me quite confused. Hopefully I'm missing something. If not, seems that there is not enough coverage to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I've been able to find are a handful of copies of his books in some academic libraries, and the proof that the Zeitgeist Press, a small poetry press, existed. Unless quite a bit more comes to light I'll !vote delete. Note, however, that I find some confusion in his dates, since this says that he died in 1997 (as does his VIAF entry) yet a book published in 2010 gives a bio of him with no mention of his death. Lamona (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, but I'd be willing to let this be userfied. It needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After researching this subject I believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Lerner was a so-called outlaw poet who founded and helped lead the influential Babarians poetry group in San Francisco. Among the other poets associated with this group are Julia Vinograd, Bruce Isaacson, and Alan Kaufman. Lerner's poetry has been reviewed in critical journals and he's also been the focus of detailed profiles of his life and poetry in anthologies such as The Outlaw Bible of American Poetry and The Spoken Word Revolution Redux (with the profile from Spoken Word Revolution Redux reprinted on the Poetry Foundation's website). Lerner and the Cafe Babar scene he ran are also evidently profiled at length in Visions and Affiliations: A Literary California Timeline, Volume Two: 1980–2005 by Jack Foley but I've been unable to locate a copy of the work. I have added a good bit of information to the article along with these and other citations, including reviews of his poetry from reputable books and journals. Based on all this, I believe the article should be kept.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that Notability, within his niche and memorialized through published works, was established on a historic basis and thus carries forward to today.Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access all the sourcing, but SourthernNights work would seem to (when viewed in summation) establish some degree of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Serbo-Croatian origin

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

Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:OVERLAP with Serbo-Croatian#Words of Serbo-Croatian origin, this list is and will remain short because there are not that many notable English words of Serbo-Croatian origin. Vipz (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Vipz (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub list already covered elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No such user (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, China, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. ProofRobust 17:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting as article suggested as a redirect has been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short track speed skating at the 2022 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, China, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, a subaspect of a youth tournament with little independent coverage. Fram (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Fram. Minimal independent coverage. Could not find anything significant to add to the page for it to meet WP:GNG standards. HennSw123 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this event article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and 2022 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games is also up for AFD, so not much point redirecting there. Redirecting up to Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games would be inappropriate, as this specific event is not mentioned there (plus not 100% convinced that article is notable either). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better Democracy

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

I cannot find any support for this article, or support to improve this article. There is no indication that this lobby group had any historic reach. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources either. (A ProQuest search found a fair number of results, but they were mostly just mentions in op-eds/letters to the editor written by Baron—nothing independent or in-depth.) Fails WP:NORG, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not see the article is sustainable enough to stay on Wikipedia and the entire article is unsourced. Villian Factman (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2023 Winter World University Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace once the event actually happens, it'll likely pass WP:GNG, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON for an article, as almost no information is known. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that the page creator and other editors can add more sources and publish closer to the actual event. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 kilometres. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Bertrand

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

Non-notable cyclist. A WP:BEFORE search revealed nothing on the subject besides a couple of typical stats pages. Curbon7 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and France. Curbon7 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 kilometres as a good alternative to deletion. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. He's mentioned as finishing 4th in that event. Rupples (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mariner Project

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

Article about a science fiction novel, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for novels. The only notability claim being made here is that the novel exists, and the only footnote present is a purely tangential source that verifies a fact about the science itself without mentioning this book at all in conjunction with it.
Simple existence is not in and of itself enough to get a novel into Wikipedia, especially given that the writer doesn't even have a Wikipedia article at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything on this book beside a page on GoodReads and the possibility to purchase on various websites. It does not seem to be notable.Spiralwidget (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks to be your typical self-published book. It released, but gained no coverage in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. The page creator is long gone, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of the author creating the page, given the dearth of coverage in the book blogging world as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sri Lanka Navy ranks and insignia. Even if the IP comments are not all from the same person (which seems likely), they mostly make the same argument, that WP:ITSIMPORTANT – an argument not generally accepted as a good reason for keeping articles. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain (Sri Lanka Navy)

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

I merged and redirected a number of nearly identical articles on ranks in the Sri Lanka Navy to Sri Lanka Navy ranks and insignia. These were reverted as "unreasonable and unconstructive", so we have this discussion. My proposal is to reinstate the redirects and readd the merged content, as the separate articles are very short, very similar stubs where the readers are better served with one comprehensive article without too much repetition.

Also nominated for redirection are

Commodore (Sri Lanka)
Rear admiral (Sri Lanka)
Vice admiral (Sri Lanka)
Admiral (Sri Lanka)
Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka) Fram (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. Fram (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article Sri Lanka Navy ranks and insignia provides only a general overview of the ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Navy. The separate articles which have been created for the aforesaid Navy ranks, provide more specific details about the the functions and holders of the rank. The Sri Lanka (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

None of them provide additional information though. Fram (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. None of these ranks have significant coverage enough to merit separate articles. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As things stand, there is insufficient content to justify standalone articles. Our readers are served better with a single article covering all ranks together. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sri Lanka Navy ranks and insignia: It's the obvious choice. They're short stubs that, as 331dot mentioned, don't have enough significant coverage to merit having their own separate articles. It's also easier to navigate between the ranks if they're all listed on the same page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the page Lieutenant colonel (Sri Lanka) was created after this AfD was posted, and appears to be in the same vein as the ones nominated above. Sellyme^Talk 07:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While the Army ones probably need the same treatment as the Navy ones, I would rather restrict the AfD to Navy ones for now, to avoid making things more complicated. But thanks for bringing it up, it indeed has the same issues. Fram (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Separate articles have been created regarding each of the military ranks in the Armed Forces of several countries and also of the Sri Lanka Army. So far, it has not created confusion among readers, but has provided more specific information and further access to various sources. In fact, it avoids confusion as military ranks differ from country to country (the functions of a Vice admiral in the Sri Lanka Navy are different from those of a Vice admiral in the Royal Navy or Indian Navy), and even among the branches of the Armed Forces of the same country, although they have the same name (Captain in the army and Captain in the navy). The aforesaid articles have been expanded, and will continue to be expanded with time, as more information will be provided by the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

That other articles exist about a similar topic has little bearing on whether or not this one exists, each article is judged on its own merits. The article about similar ranks in other countries may have more coverage in sources. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you have surveyed all Wikipedia users to know that they aren't confused? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, I have added three references in Rear admiral (Sri Lanka) page, in the Sri Lanka Navy the rank of rear admiral is very important and when a man in this rank gets any appointment the newspapers (in the country) publish news about them, e.g. this news. 119.30.41.71 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The rank of 'Rear Admiral' is highly important in Sri Lanka Navy, this rank holders are 'Chief of Staff of the Sri Lanka Navy', 'Deputy Chief of Staff of the Sri Lanka Navy', the 'Eastern Naval Commander' etc. See this news, this news and this too. 37.111.206.56 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Rear admiral (Sri Lanka) page now have more than five reliable references. 37.111.210.185 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, Rear admiral (Sri Lanka) page should be kept as the rank is very important in the country. 37.111.207.216 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, Vice admiral (Sri Lanka) is the rank which is held by the navy head of Sri Lanka, this is very important rank, I think this article should be kept. 37.111.198.97 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, @Fram:, @331dot:, I think Captain (Sri Lanka Navy), Commodore (Sri Lanka), Admiral (Sri Lanka) and Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka) should be deleted or merged with Sri Lanka Navy ranks and insignia, but Rear admiral (Sri Lanka) and Vice admiral (Sri Lanka) should be kept as regarding these two ranks there are enough references (reliable) which have been added to the articles. 37.111.210.100 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, The articles Rear admiral (Sri Lanka), Vice admiral (Sri Lanka), Admiral (Sri Lanka) and Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka) now contain enough reliable references. I think these articles should be kept as these ranks are very important and have enough media coverage in Sri Lanka. 103.253.44.157 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the ranks are notable, Navy is very important in Sri Lanka. 116.58.205.108 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sri Lanka's navy's ranks are notable and now ranks from rear admiral to admiral of the fleet have enough reliable sources to prove notability; Captain (Sri Lanka Navy), Commodore (Sri Lanka) - these two articles have been tagged as military rank stubs. 103.253.45.38 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please keep all ranks (from captain to admiral of the fleet) as these are very important for Sri Lankan readers and at present the articles have good sources. 43.245.123.32 (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single article covering all ranks. No need for separate articles. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article creator has been blocked, and this AfD protected, because of lots of socking here (basically, all keep votes and comments come from the same person). See here. Fram (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per above noms. None are sourced well enough for independent articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India International Insurance Pte Limited

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

Deprodded without significant improvement. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also did not find support for WP:NCORP/WP:GNG notability, e.g. there is churnalism of content marked as a press release by the Laotian Times and widely reproduced online by a variety of websites, and a company profile in APAC Outlook that substantially relies on statements from "CE and MD of III, Mr Ravindra Kumar", and these types of sources fail WP:ORGIND. There are also brief mentions in a 2021 Indian Express article about another company, and what appears to be a brief mention in a 2001 annual report from the India Ministry of Finance that both provide insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's so little said about this firm that we can't satisfy WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pam Jenoff. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kommandant's Girl

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

Article about a novel, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for novels. The notability claim on offer here is that it was nominated for (but did not win) a defunct minor literary award -- but that's completely unsourced, which is a problem because authors' PR agents frequently whitewash the distinction between "nominated in the sense of having been submitted to the awards committee for consideration" (which is not a notability claim at all) and "nominated in the sense of actually making the committee's shortlist" (which is a potential notability claim, but still depends on the importance of the award and the GNG-worthiness of the sourcing that can be shown to support the statement). And the only footnotes present in the article at all are the author's own self-published website about herself and a deadlinked review on a non-notable blog, which is not GNG-building coverage.
So an unsourced assertion that the book was nominated for a minor award is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a book from having to have any secondary sources, but even on a Google search I'm still just finding bookstores and blogs rather than GNG-worthy reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is very weak, I don't see how this meets WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) PS. I've expanded on my rationale a bit lower and changed my vote to weak delete for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is notable, but there's little coverage for this debut work. Most of the coverage I can see is of the "This author's new work is great, oh yeah, she also published those books". Looks to be your typical case of someone achieving notability slowly over time, but not enough to where people go back and review their early works. At most this could redirect to the author's article but I don't know that this is really something that would be a common search term. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The current sources are a nomination for a minor award (failing WP:NBOOK criteria 2) and blogs, insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. My WP:BEFORE found a couple of trivial mentions while discussing newer books, e.g., 1, though I did find two reviews, 1, 2. The first ref's review page states that All of Jewish Book Council’s reviewers are volunteers, though tere are some submission policies here and about page. Still, the review leans on the shorter side and debatably qualifies for RS. The latter seems to have limited editorial policies, though it does have a Wikipedia page as well at Historical Novel Society. Piotrus and ReaderofthePack, are the two references WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV in your opinion, which IMO are debatable? Nevertheless, even if these two references are reliable and SIGCOV (which probably is, as these reviews exceed 100 words and are not excluded per WP:GNG as minor news stories or routine coverage), notability still seems to be borderline at best, so I'm at weak delete. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Good finds. Whether JBC reviews are subject to any review is a question (note that it ends with the out of place word "Acknowledgements", suggest copypaste of some form that wasn't proofread?). It also is so short it reads like the book's official plot summary and contains next to no analysis. The second review seems better (lenght, analysis) and it appears in a magazine that seems to have a review process, so I think it's fine. So right now we have one ok source (a reliable review), and one weak review. Can anyone find one more good source? I'd reconsider my vote then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. Since the series (the book is first part in a series of at least three books?) is set in Poland and was translated to Polish (as "Dziewczyna komendanta"), I checked for reliable Polish reviews but I couldn't find anything better that user/blog reviews. I found a passing mention in one academic work ([9]) but that doesn't meet SIGCOV, the book is just mentioned as part of a genre. This English source, according to a snippet view, states the book "was an international bestseller and nominated for a Quill Award", but that fails SIGCOV, at least, in the snippet I see. Few other mentions I saw were snippets too. Weak delete for now (since VK found one ok-ish source). Or maybe redirect to author's biography, better than hard deletion. Do ping me if anyone finds more good sources and I'll reconsider my vote. PS. I also looked into the Quill Award, which doesn't strike me as very significant - it lasted just three years, and the book was just nominated for it. The author's biography mention that the book was nominated for that award, and that is pretty much all we can say about this entity at this point, I think. We can add the reliable review VK found as a source to the author's bio and move on, unless more sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO redirect is plausible, though User:ReaderofthePack's point that the title is not a common search time might also be valid. Pinging them and User:Bearcat as well for their opinions on the sources. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive opinion on Blogcritics, mostly because I tend to avoid using them. They have an editorial staff and vetting process of some sort for writers, which is good, but I'm just leery of them for some reason. Probably the word "blog" in their title, but the broken html in their contact page doesn't really give off trustworthy vibes. I prefer not to use PW because they're kind of borderline. They're still considered to be a RS at the moment, but they're not the strongest possible sources. If it were say, Booklist or Horn Book Guide I'd be more likely to endorse those since those tend to have a bit more oomph behind them. (Booklist is run by the ALA & HBG is known for being pretty choosy.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to use PW because they're kind of borderline- as in Publishers Weekly? It is certainly WP:RS but the reviews, like the ones from Kirkus, does lean on the shorter side at e.g., 100 to 200 words; and their reviews are less selective compared to major newspapers. Nevertheless, I personally think these reviews borderline meet WP:SIGCOV but I get that everyone's interpretation is different. VickKiang (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Keep. I'm going to close this one early because of the irregularity in submitting it almost immediately after the close of the prior discussion. This doesn't preclude bringing the article back for discussion later. Joyous! | Talk 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Joyous! | Talk 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Away (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD closed as no consensus just from the number of keep votes, but I'm not convinced they had it right. Of all the sources found through that process, the only one I'm convinced by is this Loudwire article. Everything else was stretching for mentions. And yes, as many including myself said in that discussion, it seems strange that there's not more coverage readily available for such a successful single. But WP:MUSTBESOURCES doesn't solve the issue here. Either we really dig deep and find more solid coverage, or we redirect to the album. QuietHere (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. QuietHere (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's generally frowned upon to renominate directly after the first one closed, after multiple re-lists, with essentially nothing having changed. I think you usually generally want to let some time pass and come at it from a different angle. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, had a feeling that was the case and I was hesitant to jump back in, but I think this is a different angle because it's clarifying an issue I had with the first AfD which was that several people voted keep based on sources that I couldn't in a million years see as supporting notability. I said as much multiple times in there but it didn't drive any further discussion. I wanna hear specifics as to why this should be kept based on what was presented. In the interest of fairness, I'm gonna tag SBKSPP, BD2412, and Chagropango so they can go more in depth on their keep votes. QuietHere (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is irritating when editors find sources in response to a nomination for deletion, but these sources fail to make their way into the article. I have now added the Loudwire source, which also supports the proposition that the song charted. BD2412 T 14:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: No, you don't get to instantly renominate an article for deletion, not fifteen minutes after the close. This is not a "different angle" -- this is that you didn't like the outcome. You might certainly disagree with the POV of the Keep voters, but they were not required to secure your approval in order to validate their stance. Being what the detractors call a deletionist, I sympathize with the concept of sloppy Keep votes, but none of us get vetoes over deletion discussions that don't go the way we'd prefer. Ravenswing 15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep 15 minutes after closing seems a bit quick. I'd allow at least 7 days, better at least 30 days before going to AfD again, but that's just my opinion with no basis in policy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep The AfD was held, re-listed multiple times, and the article was kept. More time would need to pass, preferably more than fifteen minutes, before re-nomination for deletion would be reasonable. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The gist of the discussion seems to favor keeping one merged article, but with only two participants after multiple relists, it is hard to declare that a consensus. No prejudice against going through with a merge if the interested parties want to do that – no endorsement from AfD is required. RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Research Society

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

Sources consist entirely of primary sources. Searching on google finds no sources its notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is associated with the topic and has no sources at all.:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Carolina. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sea Research Society for sure. Leaning toward !merge for College of Marine Arts. @Onegreatjoke: Keep in mind that if an organization has a long history, you can't expect to find everything through basic Google searches. This organization goes back to 1972, so by definition you need to check books and other databases for more information. (Not sure what it takes to get Wikipedia Library access these days but something to work toward for sure.) Anyway I'll keep working on it, but Sea Research Society is both notable and fixable in my book. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I didn't find sources for sea research society but I guess I didn't search hard enough then. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting story with an article that was in terrible shape, so when all is said and done, it should result in a positive outcome. And you're probably right about College of Marine Arts, but it probably makes sense to have it point to Sea Research Society. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, for this two-part AfD nomination, I am proposing:

Keep Sea Research Society
Redirect College of Marine Arts to Sea Research Society

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear: Flight to Liberty

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

Article about a novel, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for novels. As usual, every novel is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to pass certain standards of achievement and sourceability to qualify -- but existence is the only notability claim on offer here, the novel was "published" by a print-on-demand house rather than a commercial publisher, and three of the four footnotes here are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all: two Q&A interviews from user-generated content sites in which the author is talking about himself in the first person, and one blog entry which glances off the book's existence in the process of being about a collection of photographs rather than the book as a book. And while the last footnote, a short review in Kirkus Reviews, is fine, it isn't in and of itself enough if it's the only GNG-worthy source on offer.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this novel from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found beyond seller sites, no JStor, no GScholar, no newspapers. zip found. It was even hard to determine if this was a work of fiction or non-fiction, based on the scant information online. Not close to GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbar Sangrur

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

~~No Notable work Visiable on this Page WP:GNG Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although they are related, notability of an artist is not nesscesarily measured by the notability of their works (especially for articles about theatre actors and small authors). And there is credits listed here, wikilinked, in the paragraph. I admit this stub is in poor shape, but Sangrur seems to meet WP:GNG (for example, seems to be WP:SIGCOV on The Indian Express, listed as reliable on WP:RSP). — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~How he seems to meet WP:GNG? It requires multiple WP:SIGCOV. Yandeńo (talk)~~ 12:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: As Vortex3427 said. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, this article fails WP:GNG. Yandeńo (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the 9 sources listed as of the time in writing, Source 3, Source 5, Source 7 and Source 9 merely referenced the subject for one or two quotes; Source 6 and Source 8 did not provide the same family name as the subject in question, so it's unclear if they're actually referencing the subject of this wiki article; Source 1 read like a promotion and did not demonstration the significance of either the artist or his work; and the other two sources from the Indian Express are behind paywall, so the extent of the coverage of the subject is unclear. Sources where the subject is covered in a greater extent would be needed, including but not limited to: More significant and exclusive reporting/interview of the subject; Articles that demonstrated the significance of the artist's work (viewership, reviews, revenues, etc.); Profile page of the subject in a credible and independent film-related sites; Or the official inclusion of the subject's name as the recipient of some notable awards. Otherwise, this article does not meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by Tutwakhamoe. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete socks are out again I see. Agree with the source analysis by Tut. I don't find much of anything for sourcing, but the name hits on many variations of it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sources analyses performed here. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gulf Breeze, Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Breeze Library

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

No evidence of any notability, just routine coverage for this local town library. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Gulf Breeze, Florida - does not meet a standard for separate coverage (WP:GNG or any other). —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gulf Breeze, Florida. Joyous! | Talk 19:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me or WP:REFUND if page creator wants this content userfied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parasadi Estate

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

No evidence found for a "Parasadi Estate". The source given states "made their clan centre at Parasadi", nothing more. Similar claim here. There are no sources of you combine "Parasadi" with "Kunal Prasad" (given in the infobox as the location of it)[10]. As it stands, the article is unverifiable. Fram (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and India. Fram (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't delete this page this is the very rare information of the zamindari of saran plains in Bihar Region. I am A New Wiki Editor And Want To Do Many Things For Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorybro (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Moved contribution and reformatted per intention. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Until more verifiable sources can be found and cited. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "rare information" is a reason to delete, not to keep. Tis appears to be some sort of run of the mill building. I would not in this case oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Rare or not, we need sourcds. Oaktree b (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya Chaudhuri

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

Currently, there is not a single coverage about her from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up any either, so he fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. Khorang 11:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is an Emerita Professor at Jadavpur University, there was independent secondary coverage of her in the article at the time of nomination (in the External links section), and I have added additional reviews of her collective body of work. WP:NPROF#5 and WP:AUTHOR notability appear supported. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Beccaynr has added enough published reviews (including three in major newspapers, one of them outside India) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. (Also on a minor point, the nomination misgenders the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as she is a well accomplished publisher. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEY, while I understand the rationale of the nom, the article now passes notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drink while you think

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

Unencylopedic entry, non-reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Initially PRODed but creator removed and attempted to improve. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As well as failing WP:GNG, this also fails WP:NOTGUIDE. ProofRobust 17:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word chain. --Belbury (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated by EchidnaLives Joyous! | Talk 19:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. All of the sources does not count to WP:GNG, I could not locate more refs contributing to GNG per WP:BEFORE. The article also violates WP:NOTGUIDE; I oppose a merge/redirect, there is nothing here sourced to reliable sources that are worth preserving and this is an implausible search term. VickKiang (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmedal Electricals

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business and operations news. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article features dubious references, particularly a "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" article published 4 years before this company began. (That methanol poisoning article seems to have been placed in articles on a wide range of unlikely subjects, for example 10,000 metres world record progression and Shred-it.) AllyD (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that dubious ref. I can't get hold of it to examine it. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you for pointing out that ref I have removed it since its not related to the Goldmedal, I may have mistakenly pasted it I was doing some other work as well while looking for the ref on google. also added two more. and more to it since I'm the creator would like to KEEP it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharayugawai (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Lets examine the references:

[11] Profile. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS Non-notable trade award.
[12] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[13] Press-release. Routine annoucement.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[14] Listing of the companies products. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[15] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[16] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[17] Profile.Press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND.
[18] Press-release. Routine annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[19]] Press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Out of the 9 references, 7 are press-releases, one is a prodcuts listing and one is small insignificant news article from this UPE. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 20:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in concurrence with User:scope_creep's source analysis; this company is not notable and the article is a promo. FalconK (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa Wikipedia

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

Discussed in only one source; everything else is primary/user-generated source. Typing "Xhosa Wikipedia" into Google returns basically zero results. DecafPotato (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DecafPotato (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it doesn’t show up any searches on google doesn’t mean it should be deleted. --AllanWiki123 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh no? That's a very good reason for it to be deleted since that means no sources exist for it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't match the criteria for WP:N 𐩘 Datapass ^{talk ⌇ contribs} 17:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable enough to be a stand alone article. BogLogs (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MetaVRse

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV. When I checked this on Google, there are some PR Wire news sources on this. This is confusing Metaverse. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Canada. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've also been featured in venturebeat by a verified reporter: https://venturebeat.com/games/themall-aims-to-have-100-floors-and-100m-square-feet-in-the-metaverse/ 2A01:4B00:E41F:1000:C441:11D:C47B:DF67 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some coverage [20] and [21]. And also in foreign languages [22] and [23]. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metavrse was formed before Metaverse, coverage in Forbes, Adello Magazine, Mastercard, CEO Magazine, Canadian business, Harvard Business review, technology review:

Forbes

@[24]https://7037127.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/7037127/Adello%20Magazine%202022/Adello%20Magazine%20%2325%20EN%20-%20Revolutionary%20%20Mess%20of%20Top%20Tech%20Innovations.pdf

[25]https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/06/27/1054974/metaverse-open-for-business/

[26]https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-brands-can-enter-the-metaverse

[27]https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/ecommerce-metaverse-augmented-mixed-reality/

[28]https://www.canadianbusiness.com/ideas/metaverse-real-estate-homes/ Harranah (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes contributions are not generally reliable. Adello magazine doesn't seem to be an established source. MIT one is sponsored. Harvard Business Review only had a passing mention. Mastercard is self published and has no significant coverage. Yes, I looked at these. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puzciew. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 18:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, also fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I think IP 174 meant A7, the outcome is the same. Star Mississippi 03:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Music Institute

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Couldnt find anything that talks about the institute on google. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Schools, and India. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands, this could be speedy deleted g11. No meaningful sources found in BEFORE. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SNOWBALL User4edits (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kiribati#Communications and Media. Star Mississippi 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications in Kiribati

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

An updated section containing communications and media exists within the very comprehensive kiribati entry. (fyi a diminutive republic located on many atolls). This entry is therefore unnecessary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oceania. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kiribati#Communications and Media would be for the best. I agree the content there is preferable and is more likely to be maintained. No need for deletion, indeed I do not favour deletion because it would be appropriate to keep the existing categories in the redirect. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LANcouver

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

The article describes a Lan party that at its peak had 200 attendees. The article is not notable, has no sources, and most likely will not be updated. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero citations in the article, almost certainly promotion. Even their website hasn't been updated since 2015. All I find is a twitter that's also gone dark since 2015. No sources found.Oaktree b (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find any significant coverage of the event. Fails WP:GNG. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pbrks Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. For those who consider coverage of the article subject not to be balanced, please work on improving the article as the rough consensus here is to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Shyu

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

This article doxxes the YouTuber "TechLead," and Wikipedia should respect the YouTuber's privacy and pseudo-anonymous name.

Further, the YouTube channel is a satire channel built around a fictional persona, and so should not be confused with the real name of the actor. For instance, the paragraph about the person being "sexist" is factually incorrect - this was a satire tweet (later deleted and apologized) as an over-exaagerated commentary on "wokeism" culture, which unfortunately some people mistook for being real. For Wikipedia to publish this without the context might be considered not only defamatory, but it's unfair and lacks context. TechLead has in fact published multiple videos in support of women and mothers in tech, and his commentary on tech being "hostile" towards mothers is not an attack on women, but an attack on the industry for parent rights rather. TechLead has published 300+ videos, a mix of which some are useful & inspirational, while some are intentionally controversial or provocative to gain attention for the YouTube algorithm. To create a Wikipedia page about 1 or 2 satirical videos of a fictional character, and to then portray them as fact in a negative manner using the real name of the person is inaccurate and out-of-context.

The character might also be considered "not famous enough," as there are far far bigger YouTubers.

I would propose to simply delete this page. If disagreeable, an alternative would be to fairly portray the subject matter by summarizing the 300+ videos and not just cherrypick a few subjects, and to publish this under the name "TechLead, YouTuber" rather than the doxxed name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not really doxxing when they have media pieces about him. The sources used are fine for GNG. His name and handle are used here [29], not useful for notability here, but it takes about 5 seconds in Google to find out about him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC piece mentions his real name and links to the youtube page of his persona. This isn't hidden info, we're able to mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC piece illegitimately doxxed the YouTuber without consent, and Wikipedia should continue to respect the privacy of individuals who choose not to be doxxed. Techleadhd (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the subject of the article? You have to respect WP:COI if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have already named the article subject by his real name, so there is no "doxxing". To the contrary, the subject's public self-promotion makes him a public figure. The channel doesn't identify itself as a satire channel in its bio, and none of the reliable sources cited by the article describe it as satire. The article can't include a summary of all the channel's videos; that's original research, which is not allowed. This nomination, from an account with the same name as the article subject's Twitter handle, strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, specifically the "This makes me look stupid!" argument in the list on that section. White 720 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's doxxed himself by giving interviews if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His real name, photo, and YouTube persona all appear on the home page of Tech Interview Pro, a commercial venture that appears genuine (i.e., not satirical) White 720 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same bio appears on DeFi Pro, which ~~he just launched this month~~ he launched earlier this year. White 720 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the contents of the online course DeFi Pro can be attributed to the individual, the contents of the YouTube and Twitter handles are published as satire under the pseudoname and should not be attributed. A distinction should be made here because YouTube content is typically created for the Algorithm to gain attention, and so it is typical for YouTubers to disassociate their real names from their channel names. Techleadhd (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Shyu linked his YouTube channel directly from his bio on his online courses. Irrespective of what YouTubers typically do, this particular YouTuber has chosen to link his channel with his businesses. White 720 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well he doesn't disclose anywhere on youtube that it's satire. I doubt that statement. And his name is linked directly from the About on his YTube page going to Tech Interview Pro, about your instructor. It's not hidden. We can't ignore it here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the AfD opened, I added some additional information to this article, including comments about projects he has launched. White 720 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or Facebook. The article cherrypicks a few negative opinions about a YouTube persona and publishes them under the doxxed name in a non-representative manner as if this were some sort of biography. Wikipedia should not be publishing about non-notable individuals.

Techleadhd (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Struck duplicate vote, this is the AF nominator. Primefac (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the same person as in the article, just tell us please. That helps the deletion discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom is by a WP:SPA who also opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_Shyu. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff, User:Techleadhd identified himself as Patrick Shyu. White 720 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a COI. I think we have to strike all his !votes above, if I'm not mistaken. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are; the subject of an article is allowed to make their case on an AfD page. The only real restriction (and it's not even a policy, just a guideline) is on them editing the page directly. Primefac (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that WP:GNG is met. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new information added seems balanced and NPOV. We're simply reporting facts available to the public; I can understand if the individual perhaps wants to hide from the more negative information, but we aren't here to hide information. Criminal or not, it's easily found on the internet and repeating it here helps to balance out the narrative. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the sources I've been able to find and that are in the article for this person are of questionable reliability or likely unreliable, such as Business Insider, Candor, ShethePeople, Benzinga, The Quint, and Reclaim the Net. Those really aren't good sources. The best quality ones, CNBC and Times of India are both about comments he made about working at facebook, which I don't think is exactly encyclopedic content, and isn't enough to indicate notability. So I'm not seeing the notability here. --Tristario (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (speedy). Withdrawn by nom, no outstanding delete !votes Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Todd (journalist)

Withdrawn by nominator because references have been added where there were none before. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

At no point in time, from its creation in 2004, has this stub article had any references. Fails GNG. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added some sources including book reviews. He is a National Newspaper Award winner and his book, The Taste of Metal, was nominated for the Governor-General's Award so meets at least WP:CREATIVE. Pinging @David notMD: for their consideration. S0091 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas J. Ayala

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL businessperson. Coverage is largely interviews, press releases and churnalism articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any reason to keep this article about a WP:Mill businessman without significant profile coverage other than some minor commenting and interviews. He does not appear to have achieved WP:Notable standards and I therefore vote to delete this article. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 02:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. Armour & Company

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources found, and therefore qualifies for deletion. JTZegers (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JTZegers (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching historical newspapers shows there was a company of that name, but almost nothing was ever said about it, even what it did. FalconK (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Corduwener

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

Excepting for a link to its own YouTube channel the article is unsourced. WP:BEFORE found non-SIGCOV routine announcements, interviews, or questionably reliable sources, 1 (generally unreliable per WP:RSP), 2 (blog), 3, 4, 5. Most of the coverage on numbers of languages spoke might also fall under WP:BIO1E. VickKiang (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most sources are just hype. "Wow! [x] did [y] in [z]!" Sungodtemple (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also redirect to Multilingualism#Hyperpolyglots per WP:CHEAP. Do not merge per above. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As this is a promotional piece about a BLP I’d be wary about redirecting. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rats & People Motion Picture Orchestra

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

The band definitely exists; the entry was most likely created as marketing. The article lists individual performances. 1) have not found a frequency of coverage 2) The genre or niche would be "silent music accompaniment" In general terms the topic is discussed in silent film. 3) There is one article (announcing an event) here https://www.stlmag.com/culture/Rats-and-People-Motion-Picture-Orchestra-Are-Releasing-a-New-EP/ I don't know if there is enough to support a Wikipedia page? I would say no looking at music notability guidelines. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Japan–South Korea relations

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

We already have Japan-South Korea relations, and the table does not reflect current situation of the article. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to duplicate the existing bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Japan–North Korea relations

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

We already have Japan-North Korea relations, and the table does not reflect current situation of the article. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to duplicate the existing bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Matteucci

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

Not yet notable by WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Only minor or uncredited roles so far, and I can find no significant coverage from reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Claim of "best actor" award won is vague and unsourced. Storchy (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit parts, ACTOR not met. Well from his website "Dan Matteucci is currently the most notable actor, model, and an influencer in the American Entertainment industry " my emphasis. He's more notable than anyone else apparently. Or this nugget on influencive.com/commit-to-be-fit-a-guide-by-dan-matteucci/, which has been blacklisted and won't let me post the website link. This is far from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was planning to AfD this after tagging notability but Storchy beat me to it. The roles are minor and obviously fail WP:NACTOR, whereas GNG/BASIC is also failed. The references cited are databases, non-RS, promotional, routine non-SIGCOV press release-like piece, and a piece Dan himself wrote. My WP:BEFORE did not find sources contributing to GNG/BASIC, only trivial mentions. VickKiang (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A blacklisted source was a new one for me in AfD, guess that's another red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not had a single significant named role. I see no evidence of notability after a search.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significance, no real coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raindropss

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

Fails WP:ORG no significant coverage. Only the first hit in gnews could be considered indepth coverage but nothing more could be found. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Motor Sports Club

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews and 1 hit in gbooks. The supplied sources are not in-depth. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Motorsport, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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