Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 15	March 17 >

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 draftified, take this to MFD if you wish to pursue deletion. It appears to be a simple article not quite ready for main space, which was created by a student editor. It has been draftified. (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Thibert

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

Incomplete article ImperialMajority (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Digital marketing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimarketing

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, discussion on Talk:Wikimarketing produced a slew of self published or otherwise unreliable sources, and reliable sources that did not mention Wikimarketing directly, or only in passing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Digital marketing as explained here. An alternative is move to Digital_marketing#Online_methods_used_to_build_brand_awareness, explaining the topic in 3 lines with the best sources. It is a reality that this type of marketing using wikis exists, and there is a term (wikimarketing) since more than 14 years.--Cartago90 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no reliable sourcing, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search, so nothing to merge into Digital marketing. --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources aren't reliable Lewcm (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Digital marketing and/or Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Leaning toward redirect because, while the term doesn't seem to have gotten any lasting traction, at least some books around 2008 do mention it as being in use. (example). Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Burger King advertising. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Whopperettes

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

Procudural nomination: Malformed AFD placed in draft-space here by an IP stating Fails GNG, no references and barely any content. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Advertising. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (probably with a small bit of merging) to Burger King advertising - A commercial that does not appear to have gained enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Even the sources in the article that are from around the time period that the commercial was shown are mainly just rundowns of the Super Bowl commercials of 2006 in general. Looking for any sources created since then just turn up brief mentions as it being little more than a footnote in Burger King's history. The main article on Burger King's advertising campaigns does mention it, but a small bit of information from this article should probably be moved over to give it a bit more context. Rorshacma (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectper Rorshacma 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:9922:D01F:89F4:F2EE (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burger King advertising. No IS RS showing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promos, but nothing IS. // Timothy :: talk 06:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G11 - obvious spam SmartSE (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V7 Ltd

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

Not convincing. Two WP:TECHCRUNCH articles, one forbes which is based on crunchbase, so almost a company listing, one possibly in-depth bloomberg which I didn't have the subscription to check. Others are non independent. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Kingdom. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just realized this is a premature AfD, if there is more useful content introduced I will withdraw nom. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and reading through the article. I have added more substance to some of the story points to review if you find these acceptable:

- Details on the use by Merck KGAA of image tagging software in the chemical and health industry

- Details on NVIDIA's use of V7 in their product line.

- Details on a public NHS collaboration on open data from 2020.

I have also added a couple of more substantial references that aren't from press blogs like TechCrunch.

Thanks again Paradigm Shifting1 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep barely. I cleaned up some of the unreferenced material. I think this barely passes GNG, and will probably have more sources in the future. // Timothy :: talk 07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tlemcen 1330

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

Inadequately sourced item which has been moved to and from draft without improvement. The only source seems to point to a landing page for an Arabic bibliography. The recent return to main by the creator states 'no problem with article'; the community may differ and to avoid 'move-warring' a discussion is now warranted. 'Naive' search revealed no additional coverage. Eagleash (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- certainly a very poor article, with no dates, thus deserving such TNT. I would have expected there also to be sources on the history of Genoa cited if this was to become a worthwhile article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. A common naval skirmish. No IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The "source" in the article is not enough to support the cotnent in the article, nothing to possibly merge and I don't believe this is a good redirect. // Timothy :: talk 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.URALGAME (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isabel de Josa. Note: I have ignored the comments in Spanish, please use English on the English Wikipedia! Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Losa

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

Eswiki user Enrique Cordero says that this is the same person as Isabel de Josa, with false biography data. We, ruwiki users, has found this two articles during interwiki management, and when me and Ghuron tries to delete eswiki's redirect from one name to another, Enrique Cordero says this redirect is correct. See:

MBH (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also ping user:Zapipedia MBH (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pueden agregar para más informción es:Usuaria discusión:Zapipedia#Isabella_Losa. --Enrique Cordero (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. When a biography is of a person outside of the Anglo world, the nominator must search a bit wider. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is a duplicate, which I do not concede, this is the wrong place. AfD is not for moves and mergers. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Isabella Losa to become a redirect to Isabel de Josa. Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: where is the right place for moves and mergers to be considered? Dsp13 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Bearian, but I answered on your talk page, Dsp13. Joyous! Noise! 20:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source from the article says Losa is often confused with Isabel de Josa i de Cardona, a Catalan noblewoman, also said to have studied theology. The site cites another book ~~which doesn't appear to be available online~~. Ping me if a source is found to contradict this one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I've found a copy of the other book online, but it doesn't seem to mention the topic of this article. Instead, it's a bio of Isabel de Josa. Still, since there's a source that distinguishes the two, I think the article should be kept unless otherwise proven to be a duplicate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allá ustedes, pero nada de lo que dice el artículo es verdad: no existía universidad en Córdoba y no ha existido hasta 1972, el título de Doctor of Divinity no existe y nunca ha existido en España; las mujeres no tenían acceso a la universidad y, de haberlo tenido, no habría cruzado la península para irse desde Cardona hasta Córdoba a estudiar a una universidad inexistente, lo habría hecho en Lleida, que la tenía mucho más cerca y además existía. Convertirse de golpe en abadesa de una orden religiosa femenina tras enviudar solo se le puede ocurrir a quien no sepa nada de cómo funcionan las órdenes religiosas: antes tendrían que haber hecho votos, profesado... y sería abadesa de un convento concreto, no de la orden en su totalidad. Y el hospicio de Vercelli lo fundó Isabel de Josa. Las fuentes que utilizan son terciarias y bastante malas, como lo es esa última que invoca Presidentman para sostener que son dos personas distintas, ¿de verdad esa fuente vale lo que una tesis doctoral?

Lecturas recomendadas:

Martín Nicolás, Vanessa, «Isabel de Josa, el impulso femenino en la fundación de la Confraria de la Sang de Barcelona (1536)», en Autoridad, poder e influencia: mujeres que hacen historia, coord. por Asociación Española de Investigación de Historia de las Mujeres; Henar Gallego Franco (ed. lit.), María del Carmen García Herrero (ed. lit.), Vol. 2, 2017. ISBN 978-84-9888-793-8, págs. 635-649
Sáez García, M. Ángeles; Jiménez Sureda, Montserrat, Isabel de Josa: una insòlita dona catalana del segle XVI, Trabajo de posgrado, Dipòsit digital de documents de la UAB, 2015.
Sáez García, M.ª Ángeles, Creure, somniar, lluitar: Barcelona en femení i l'aventura espiritual d'Isabel de Josa (1490-1564), tesis doctoral presentada en la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2018. Director: Ricardo García Cárcel.

Saludos, Enrique Cordero (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect based on the sources and explanation provided above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The Project Continua source is tertiary or, at best, secondary. As Enrique Cordero says, the University of Córdoba didn't exist before 1972. The El Reto Historico source [1] convinces me pretty well. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Also, the Catalan pages corresponding to the two English articles both use the same image! DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anindita Ghose

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

Most of the references are written by Anindita Ghose herself. Some reference about her book The Illuminated review. Written only 1book, no indepth coverages about her, she is failing WP:NAUTHOR Nomadwikiholic (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Book reviews, more than 2 satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Here is [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. These are all for one novel, "The illuminated". She has another novel which is not included on the article. There is enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, you mention another novel, and I looked for it, but only found works by a different author with a similar name. Can you add further information about the other novel? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beccaynr: Will do. I'll take a look. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: She mentions here that she has second book but hasn't published it yet.

[9].

Its been a year almost since she mentioned it, but it could much longer before it is published. She mentioned details about when she did the Hawthornden fellowship in 2019 in an interview but I can't locate it. I dont know how that colours the argument. It is more than borderline for somebody that has so many reviews on her first book. scope_creep^Talk 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, scope creep - from my view, her saying I’ve begun to work on my second novel. What I can say is that it is set in Bombay—a city I know most intimately seems too WP:CRYSTALBALL at this time, and because it is her talking about it in an interview, it also seems promotional. By contrast (not precedent), at the time of the Akil Kumarasamy AfD, that article noted she had completed her next book and secured a publisher [10]. Other differences between the two articles include that there was no book article for the clearly notable book, Kumarasamy had won 2 awards and was a finalist for another award for her first book, her previously-published work had received some critical attention from one review, and substantive biographical information was available. With regard to WP:AUTHOR#3, because this standard asks for reviews in addition to one book being significant or well-known, I interpret this as an indication that several 'best of' lists, a micro review, and six full reviews [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] only supports the notability of The Illuminated at this time. This article often links to her own work to verify career information, e.g. this [17] is used to support text that says she joined the editorial staff at Vogue India (it does not). I think this can be a redirect with possibilities, but is not clearly possible enough at this time to support an article that so closely duplicates the book article and otherwise relies on primary sources to verify biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Very cool analysis as per. I didn't actually see the book article, the book is notable. I noticed she does write and interview folk for various journals which has been mixed in somewhat and doesn't add much. It could be redirected quite happily as there is not sufficient standalone coverage at the moment to make the author notable. Changing to Redirect. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to satisfy AUTHOR with the reviews of the novel above, some are better than others as sourcing, but we've got enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone write one Novel and if the person gets enough coverages then the person is meeting WP:NAUTHOR ? Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read third criteria of WP:AUTHOR which says "creating a significant " not more than two significant. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: as WP:SK#3. Very clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR as she created major role in creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @User:Nomadwikiholic She fails WP:GNG but passes WP:NAUTHOR and please note WP:SNG is not WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know the difference. Nice to meet you and learn from your experience. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~obviously~~. Additionally, while the nominator might well be correct about the COI, the article seems to be neutral and well referenced. pburka (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a merge into The Illuminated. pburka (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Illuminated. Multiple reviews of a debut novel supports notability of the book per WP:NBOOK, but there do not appear to be independent and reliable sources supporting WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability beyond this one event. This article appears to be a nearly duplicate promotional article for the author due to a lack of multiple reviews for a second book and a lack of support for the significance of the first book (e.g. major bestseller lists, notable awards, etc). See e.g. the Akil Kumarasamy AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is similar AfD. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed the comment above to Redirect. @Beccaynr: is right as usual. The book is certainly notable but I don't think the author is yet. Looking at the references, there is an interview or two but nothing of a WP:SECONDARY nature indicating true notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON as the books seems to be stellar and its only a matter of time before she becomes really well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by scope_creep (talk • contribs)
Keep as I'd say that the existing sources show that Ghose is notable enough to have a page. Those who say otherwise are sadly mistaken in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk about existing source then I'll say those existing sources are talking about her book not about her. Not a single source is in-depth. So I think this should be deleted or Redirected to The Illuminated. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable writer of India.Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page to address concerns of overlaps with The Illuminated page and added more references. FactChecker0301 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: Can you please write how she is notable. According to news coverages her book The Illuminated is notable. All the references are talking about her book, not about her. So need more in-depth news coverages about her to satisfy WP:GNG. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NAUTHOR says that a person is notable if he done a major role in creating any significant work (significant work means that these works should be subject of reviews and news articles) and in this case Ghose has done major role by writing the book. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728: According to those reviews the book(also the author) is notable but at same time with same reviews two topic can't be notable. So in that case only 1 topic should stay on mainspace and another topic should be redirected. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomadwikiholic Which guideline of wikipedia says that "at same time with same reviews two topic can't be notable" and "only 1 topic should stay on mainspace and another topic should be redirected"? 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is WP:AUTHOR#3, which requires more than several reviews for a single book to be "significant or well-known". The guideline says In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The WP:NBOOK guideline outlines what can support notability of a book, and while some of those criteria could help support "significant or well-known" in addition to reviews (such as major literary awards or bestseller lists), they are not demonstrated here.

Notability is more than WP:GNG or an WP:SNG - it also requires consideration of WP:NOT policy - and the policy "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion" appears to apply here, to exclude a nearly-duplicate article sourced with the same reviews, cites to her own work, and interviews without much secondary content (so no WP:BASIC notability, either), from the mainspace encyclopedia at this time. A redirect means the history is preserved and it can be restored and edited in the future, after notability is supported according to guidelines and policy. Beccaynr (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:BLP1E, Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article, although it is not clear to me that there is substantial content to merge at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The reviews also support the subject’s notability, which among other policies meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV by independent secondary WP:RS to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Ultimately, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR are met. If the subject failed these, then there might be grounds for deletion, but as I laid out in detail above, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR are satisfied as a policy based rationale for keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn Teller, how does she meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Beccaynr. I agree the lack of coverage in combination with NOT and BLP1E indicate a standalone on the author is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely passes the notability criteria. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Concerns about this article can be addressed through editing improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Desborough (game designer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either blogs, press releases, or from the subject. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, major award winner. And yes, Origins awards counts. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I figured WaPo was a safe enough bet, but do you think anything else that was removed from the article in these edits was worth keeping? BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, I hadn't seen all that. I don't see that the WaPo article directly bears on this subject, but I've stayed as far away from GamerGate as possible. It does look like there's enough edit warring over the article to suggest that an SPI might be in order, but I'll let someone more familiar with the topic report it if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As this needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This article is well-cited, and shouldn't have the "Needs Citation" template on it.

Further, those citing BLP are misrepresenting what it says. Citing information in a neutral manner isn't forbidden by BLP. Simply stating that the author was dropped from publishing platforms isn't "contentious", it's a simple statement of already verified source.

Literally, Don't Bite the Newbies. This new user really was being very fervent in their editing of a decade-old topic, and appears to be trying in Good Faith to present a balance of information. Going after the new contributor by using reporting violations the new user didn't even know they were committing, and calling *them* the disruptive one is just horribly, horribly poor form.

The repeated wholesale reversion of other editor's work with little or no explanation, based on minor issues with format, method, or knowledge of how to edit seems a whole lot more like just punitive hunting down of the editor. They literally went after the newbie going out of their way to have them banned when it's possible they didn't know where to even see the discussions about it.

From all appearances in the Edit History, this nothing more than a rude experienced editor who was Edit Warring with a newbie wanting to delete the newbie's page/work.

The proposer, in this case is **literally** the person causing the problem and Edit Warring. That's not only a conflict of interest, it's not Good Faith, and shouldn't be permitted.

This seems more like Deletionism, wanting to remove an article about a person with a bad reputation and who may be seen as a bad actor in the industry, and

There's not a valid reason arguing against Notability. The subject literally has major industry awards.

IcarusATB (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my reply to your talk page, other than to reiterate my request that you strike your personal attacks.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BubbaJoe123456 Is the edit summary on this revision accurate? If so, please explain why you believe it to be accurate. If not, please explain why it's not. Regardless, I'll note that this is the last edit prior to you nominating this article for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per all editors said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking into this myself, I actually find that the article subject meets WP:ANYBIO #1 as a major award winner. I’d also suggest that while the article could use more citations, the citations that are there make a strong case for WP:NOTABILITY and satisfying WP:GNG. If the article subject failed notability criteria, there would be reasonable grounds for deletion. However, notability is established as I’ve explained above. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I encourage editors to follow up with this Keep decision to address opinions that this article should be split. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of pagans

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

"Pagan" can technically refer to literally every person that isn't Christian or Jewish according to the Christian definition. What this article seems to be attempting to do is list every single individual who belonged to an Indo-European religion, which would make this list impossibly large. Its also deeply anachronistic to refer to people this way. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Religion. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It don't seem to be that large to me. And if that becomes a problem it can easily be split up in various sub-lists. // Liftarn (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the only or main problem, "pagan" can be anyone that isn't Christian or Jewish, I don't think its something people should be listed as.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a valid list if it were renamed "List of modern pagans" (cf. modern paganism), and only listed people who self-identify as such. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that could work, "Modern Pagan" is far better defined and people actually self-identify as such.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to call it Neo-Pagan then? // 31.211.241.121 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern pagans don't call themselves neo-pagans (see Modern paganism#Reappropriation of "paganism"). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the term "neopagan" is disputed many (not all of course) people do consider themselves as "pagan" in modern day even if they do also subscribe to a more specific identity of faith.★Trekker (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The list was never specifically about something Indo-European, but it originally only listed modern people. A better solution would be to remove the pre-moderns again and explicitly make it a list of modern pagans, as suggested above. Ffranc (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or split -- I am not sure of the merits of some of the sections, but bringing together the final pre-Christian rulers of European lands may be useful. Modern neo-pagans should certainly be a separate list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Peterkingiron. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into set index for articles that can be split/merged. I will take care of List of pagans#Slavic As it stands subject fails LISTN, mixes apples and oranges into a mess of unrelated items. // Timothy :: talk 08:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split the Slavic list entries into Outline of Slavic history and culture#Individuals // Timothy :: talk 08:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the most intelligent and logical step. I support this.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Serbs. There is clear consensus against keeping this. There is some support for merging the bare definitions, undercut by opposition to merging based on sourcing issues. I see no strong opposition to a redirect, and no opposition based in policy to adding a sourced version of the definition to the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serbians

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

This article was created in 2007 and has since then been repeatedly redirected and restored. There doesn’t seem to be any end to this pointless going and froing so I am bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate seems like notdict to me. (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my issues with this article are firstly that its core proposition is unsupported by any evidence, namely that the single word “Serbian” has two distinct morphological forms. It doesn’t, it’s just more ambiguous in its meaning than the equivalent term in Serbian itself is. Secondly most of the rest of the article doesn’t even discuss the purported topic of an English language word, and instead veers off to tell us about words in Serbian and Croatian. So there is a non topic - actually a false assertion about the English language - followed by discussion of different, tangentially related topics. In my view there is no basis for an article here at all, so I think deletion is appropriate, but at the very least I’d like a consensus to redirect so we can stop the pointless bickering over it. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect into article Serbs. To address the paragraph about "Croatian usage" in the article, the issue mentioned there is not existent in English; Srbijanci is an outlier in the native Serbo-Croatian language because you cannot equivalently refer to any other nations - there are no Hrvatijanci, Slovenijanci, Rusijanci (Croatians, Slovenians, Russians) etc. The word is most comparable to Bosanci i.e. "Bosnians", but the latter is typically self-identification as opposed to imposition by outsiders. It is typically utilized to avoid referring to anyone or anything as Srbin/Srpkinja (ethnic Serb) or srpsko ("ethnically Serbian", but has no different literal translation to "of Serbia" srbijansko in English), whereas everything and everyone from Croatia is referred to as hrvatsko (no equivalent "hrvatijansko" exists) regardless of ethnic affiliation. -Vipz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is interesting, yes, but not the topic of this article. There may be value in an article about how various groups in the western balkans refer to themselves and their neighbours, but that has nothing to do with the alleged meanings of an English word. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DICDEF, although longer, that's essentially what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, IMO this is a (badly organised) set index article because it links to two possible meanings that are both demographic groups. It should be kept as a list of notable items per the SIA guidelines. small jars tc 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These issues should have been discussed first at the talk page of that article, before initiating the deletion procedure. Sorabino (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Serbs unless someone can explain to me what the difference between the two is. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping so far, though given the apparent history we should try to come to a clearer consensus about what to do with the page instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed and especially to any proposal of merging with the article Serbs. I'll respond to @Stifle: what the significance of this term is and why in my view keeping the page is useful and needed. English speakers generally fail to see differences between the terms Serb and Serbian, using them interchangeably but native speakers and speakers of related languages use Serb as an ethnonym while Serbian is used as a demonym. In simpler terms, Serbs are an ethnic group while Serbians are people from Serbia, not all of whom are Serbs. Milorad Dodik, Nikola Tesla and Vuk Karadžić are all Serbs but not all of them are Serbians. Meanwhile, Vasko Popa and Bekim Fehmiu are Serbians but they're not Serbs. This distinction has a lot of cultural and political polemics surrounding it and it has been debated, misunderstood and attacked since at least the 19th century. Here's a Serbian news article from 2018 explaining the history of the term, the usage and perception of it. Vuk Karadžić's dictionary has a definition of it, it simply means someone from Serbia much like someone from California would be called a Californian. Serb nationalists don't like this term for example because they believe it creates artificial divisions among Serbs depending on where they live. English speakers are generally unaware of all of this and treat it like a synonym. Deleting the page would do a great disservice to this encyclopedia and I'd urge editors to look more into the term. Your very own perception of the term, even though clearly different from the native views, likewise adds valuable information. Indeed, the page starts with the two different uses of the term but I suppose the wording is not the best. P.S. Here's another article in Croatian from 2011 explaining the difference because it's a thing that pops up from time to time in the cultural sphere. There's even a politically derisive term Drugosrbijanci that's based on this word. This isn't even mentioned in the article, which upon closer examination really needs some cleaning by people who are familiar with the topic. The page needs better wording, more content and sources, not deletion. --Killuminator (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should not propagate a falsehood because it allegedly helps distinguish between the meaning of two terms. It is absolutely fine for us to say Serb is an ethnonym and Serbian is a demonym, but we don’t need two separate articles to do that, let alone one that makes up a non existent distinction between two alleged derivations of a word in English, and then discusses terms in other languages anyway (off topic). Mccapra (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a dictionary def, not an encyclopedic topic. There is not enough proper sourcing to merge content (strongly oppose merging poorly sourced content), a redirect to Wiktionary would work if someone wants to do it. // Timothy :: talk 08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands now, or redirect to Serbs. Any difference between the two terms can be handled there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

László Oláh

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

I've searched Hungarian sources but can't find anything to suggest that Oláh László passes WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The Hungarian Wikipedia article doesn't help us here either. Best sources that I could find were Behir 1, Nemzeti Sport and Behir 2, all of which were trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can provide sources for him to prove me wrong, I don't see this semi-pro player passing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergis Kyratzis

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

I can't find anything to suggest that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC and he does not pass WP:NTENNIS, since Davis Cup participation was removed from that guideline. Kyratzis has never even been close to playing at ATP Tour or Grand Slam level. Best sources in the Greek language appear to be Kerkida (translated) and Athlitika (translated). These two articles largely duplicate each other so do not meet SPORTBASIC's requirements to be intellectually independent. The coverage lacks the depth required also as it is just routine game coverage and Kyratzis is only mentioned a couple of times in the main text. I would also say that Ant1 is routine game coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per changes to notability guideline --Leonstojka (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atalanta Kercyku

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

Not notable. Simply being a Miss World contestant is insufficient to establish notability. The included sources are mostly interviews or her commenting on something or another and do not pass as significant coverage AmusingWeasel (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been reviewed. Mpsaharan8 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage other than pageant listings giving her height/weight and similar stats.

Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Komiljon Otaniyozov

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

I doubt the subject meets the inclusion criteria set for singers by WP:NM AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Uzbekistan. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO #3 -- he's listed in OʻzME. He's Uzbek and died in 1975; don't expect to find sources easily available online, especially English sources. The Uzbez WP has his obituary. Clearly he was notable in his time and place, and WP:NTEMP. Jfire (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified above such as an entry in the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan and a national newspaper obituary so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO and possibly GNG. Based on what is already in the article, a language sme could probably find additional sources. // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cook County Board of Commissioners#Commissioners. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josina Morita

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

WP:BLP of a county commissioner, not properly referenced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- at this level of political office, the notability test is not passed by using two or three hits of purely local coverage in the local media to verify the fact of her election, but by showing extensive coverage and analysis of the significance of her work in the office. But five of the seven footnotes here are primary sources (the county clerk's own self-published records of the election results and a press release from her own prior employer), and the two real media hits left aren't nearly enough to establish that she should be seen as more notable than most other county commissioners. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - as a Cook County commissioner, she has political power over a large, populated area. Please ping me if you can find more sources. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size of a local jurisdiction is not a notability freebie under WP:NPOL. Large county or small county, a county commissioner is still a county commissioner who has to be judged under WP:NPOL #2 on the depth and quality of her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cook County Board of Commissioners#Commissioners. Article should be deleted before redirect because it is a largely unsourced BLP. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anıl Ulaş Övençoğlu

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

Not finding evidence of notability after source search, does not appear to pass WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Recreated in mainspace after being moved to draft at Draft:Anıl_Ulaş_Övençoğlu with identical content. ASUKITE 16:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Turkey. ASUKITE 16:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage. Run of the mill business person. Many details can't be verified for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Feyder

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, unfortunately. I've done sources in several areas (Newspapers.com, Google, Google Books, NewspaperArchive) but was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. The best sources are this brief obituary from the Chicago Tribune and the Olympedia source; I'm not sure you could call either of those sigcov. Besides that, its just a bunch of brief mentions, for example [18] and [19]. Note that this from the American Paint Journal Company could possibly be sigcov, but even if so, its still unlikely this meets the notability guidelines. Propose redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United States of America. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something funny relating to Feyder: he was one of 110 US gymnasts (out of 119 total competitors) at the all-around event in 1904, but the US was not able to get top five! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bruce Nazarian. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Automatix

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

Local Detroit band that recorded a single album. Google search results show lots of entries in databases like AllMusic and Discogs, but little more than mentions-in-passing otherwise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Nazarian, as it is his band. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Nazarian where it is already covered, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Nazarian per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Power-Up version history

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

Ford Power-Up and its version history do not seem to be independently notable. None of the sources I found go WP:INDEPTH, and there also does not seem to be any WP:LASTING coverage on this subject. This article was previously PRODed in October by Drmies with the rationale of "The complete lack of secondary sources shows clearly enough that this is not a notable topic." which was later removed by Digitalhexcode with the rationale of "The sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, Transportation, and United States of America. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this page was previously earmarked for deletion, and it was kept online because "the sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree". I am assuming that perhaps this person clicked on the sources and read through them to see what was in there. If you do that, you will see the people confirming the updates validity are not just keyboard warriors on the forum. They are master technicians, Ford employees and software engineers that happen to be members of the forum and provide insight to members who don't know what is going on.

The link I wanted to use as a source in the teahouse today:

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/

The first post is a member reporting the update I was trying to source on the wiki page with a picture from his Fordpass app indicating he got the update with a date stamp and all. The second post is another member confirming he also got that update. The first post in the second page is me referencing a piece of the wiki page in question showing a similar update was previously released for a different Ford vehicle. After a few days of members on this and various forums reporting the update and everything being linear for everyone by verifying the update by inputting the VIN of the vehicle into Ford's proprietary dealer software for confrmation, I felt I had collected enough data from enough vehicles to update wiki page to reflect the update also going out to the F150 line of vehicles. Look at the verbiage on the screenshot from the Fordpass app (primary source) and then compare it to the verbiage I added to the wiki page under 4.2.1 where I added (F150) at the end to indicate that it is particular to the F150 only. It is the same almost verbatim. Rugedraw (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. When you remove the endless citations to discussion forums, there's hardly anything left. This never should have been created and is not an encyclopedic topic. This quite literally fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there are 74 forum posts cited in the reference list out of 98 footnotes. This is clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to me that the only person defending this wiki page will be me. The reason forums are the majority of the cited references is because Ford has not compiled a list of the updates they have pushed out to owners of 2021 + F150's, F150 Lightnings and Mustang Mach E which are the only vehicles capable of receiving OTA updates (so far). As a matter of fact, their OTA process has been nothing short of disastrous leaving many people in the air as to where their vehicle stands in the update process. Because there is no posted history on Ford's website or otherwise, a wiki was created to serve as a reference point for owners to see where they are in terms of being up to date with software versions. The reason the links to forums are referenced is because you can go in there are see multiple people reporting getting said update and posting screenshots that coincide with the revision numbers and what the update entails. This page has been a great help to many and continues to provide good and accurate info to this very day. This page also doubles as the only documented history of these updates available anywhere.

I went in the tearoom trying to see how I can update this properly, and I know now that what I mentioned above is not how wiki works. I know what the responses are going to be to my post. Like I said in the tearoom, I am very new to this, so pardon my ignorance. I can link a vast majority of the updates mentioned with links to NHTSA filings that Ford filed before they released the update(s). I will be happy to do so, but I will need time as I have a full time job that I cannot put on hold to update a wiki page that I did not create. I don't even know how to add a source to it. I tried and I was not able to get into the editor of that section. A lot of people have put a lot of time and research in compiling that list and ensuring its accuracy. If I am given some time to make it more wiki-able, I will gladly do so. Rugedraw (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit this violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG, then? You can make an entire Wiki about Ford updates or whatever on Fandom, but Wikipedia is not a place to host such materials. By the way, you're not the only one with a full-time job. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know with any certainty what it violates. I am not well versed in wiki politics. If it is being called out, I am sure it does violate something and maybe more than one thing. I have to digress to the experts on that. What I do know is that myself and others have spent months compiling the data that is on there. Unfortunately, I learned today that the sources listed are not considered credible, and I cannot use Ford itself as a source as it has to be a second party to verify the info and it is difficult to find second party verification to these updates because they cater to a small group of people. Like I said, I can link the NHTSA filings (some of the updates listed there do have the NHTSA filings as a source), but it will take time to do so. I can link some vlogs that posted to its communities of a new software update being released, but if this is going to be deleted either way, I would rather save the time for something productive and not waste it in a moot effort to keep this page online. While I am not the person who created this page, I have referenced it several times and have posted the link referencing other people with questions/concerns about these updates to this page. I cannot speak with intelligence as to what is supposed to be on wiki or not. All I did was ask how to properly document a source so I can add something to the page the right way, and all I ended up doing was drawing negative attention to the page that has been an great asset to hundreds, possibly thousands of people (and counting) that own said vehicles and are trying to keep track of where they stand in the update process.

Look at this page, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history

Microsoft Support is listed as the source for most of the updates. I am not understanding the difference between this and me citing Ford as the source for these updates.

I was warned by the moderator who removed my content today that wiki editing for new people is NOT an easy task. I see now what he meant. I also understand why wiki has things in place to ensure misinformation does not spread via its platform. However, the forums linked as sources all reflect many users reporting getting the update and then someone with inside knowledge from Ford (like myself) chiming in providing details on the update directly from Ford's technician system verifying it's validity and contents. If the point of the sources is verifiability and for someone with no knowledge of the subject in hand to be able to click the source and verify this update exists, then the sources listed meet the criteria, meet the timeline listed, and provide details that match what the wiki says. I don't expect wiki to bend the rules for me or for this page that as I mentioned before, is only relevant to a small populace. If what needs to be done is provide more credible sources, I can do that. I just can't do it overnight. Rugedraw (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10's version history is definitely notable and is well documented as well as Window 10 itself being notable. Ford Power-Up version history is not and neither is Ford Power-Up. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I see this as selective discrimination. I am at a severe disadvantage here as I keep getting thrown all these wiki stipulations that I am not privy to making it very difficult for me to plead my case. Everything seems to be very black or white, but with Microsoft being the sourse for Microsoft, there is a gray area allowed?

Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source. If this page stays up, I will gladly start replacing the cited sources with sources that are more acceptable to the wiki community. If it gets taken down, then we will host the info in the forums. Rugedraw (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're WP:CANVASSing. Starting to sound like you're WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how they keep Wikipedia from becoming too useful for specific communities (there are actually good reasons for that). Windows 10 version history is no where near as useful or notable as the controversial mess that is the Ford Powerup version information. For the last few years, Wikipedia has been the only place to find these resources referenced and organized in a useful way (as any Wiki should work) and it has been an indispensable source of information for those trying to understand where they are in the evolution of the Ford software/firmware update stream. We can't have that on Wikipedia. Too useful, unlike old Windows 10 updates that have no relevance to any ongoing technical need or any historic importance let alone their recursive self-references as sources.

That said, Wikipedia itself is probably the wrong place for this sort of information. While Wikipedia's recondite collection of gatekeeper requirements has grown more unwieldy than the CFRs that regulate the government (this is starting to inhibit the collection of useful information that is not related to quantitative sciences or well established histories and has become well known as a source of rumor for current bios, eg, and for enforcing its gatekeepers' biases on current events), the history of Ford Powerup versions should be housed elsewhere, if possible. I respect Rugedraw's efforts and would like to see them housed where the local HOA cannot wipe them out. DiacriticalOne (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be shocked to learn this, but this isn't some magical thing that has recently happened. The redirect WP:NOTCHANGELOG was created in 2011. Wikipedia has never been a platform for changelogs. I don't like the Windows 10 updates article either, actually, but that's beside the point. An encyclopedia has a certain scope, and plenty of "useful" things are outside of that scope. Whining about "gatekeepers" and the website being "unwieldy" isn't going to get you anywhere. We are almost all volunteers who participate because we want to build an encyclopedia. You are assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, without evidence. Of course, considering your last 50 edits go back to 2007, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to that one policy, of course. And no, I am not a WP wonk (I've never even tried to get someone's contributions excised because they violated a policy). As I said, there are good reasons for keeping this out of data out of Wikipedia, though they are not easily understood when reduced to the word salad that is WP. Not all of the policies are useful and, yes, some of the editors are just kooks, but when it comes to certain topics, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. The list of changes to Powerup is not appropriate to the site. We do not disagree (perhaps only to the extend that it is more appropriate than the Windows 10 changeling). DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ Merge with Ford Sync this article does have clear WP:GNG issues, but a few minutes searching and I was able to turn up regulatory filings with NHTSA that would replace the problematic forum sources. I see and hear the wp:notachangelog argument, but I think the argument that Ford Power-Up isn’t notable is problematic, as it is covered in media sources sufficient that I think it by itself would pass the notability test. Perhaps the issue here could be resolved with a middle path, incubating to allow for fixing the sourcing issues or merging the article with a a Ford Power-Up general article and fixing the sourcing? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind providing the sources for Ford Power-Up being notable? I looked and didn't really see much. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I have a vested interest in making this page right. I am just in waaaay over my head at the moment. Rugedraw (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

I found coverage in several automotive press outlets, including:

https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36412171/ford-launches-new-software-updates-called-power-up/

https://www.motor1.com/news/507133/ford-power-up-software-updates/

Coverage in several tech press outlets, such as:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/13/ford-is-bringing-significant-wireless-software-updates-to-its-vehicles/

I also found two specific updates via Power Up, one to the Ford Mach-E and one to the Ford Lightning, that themselves merited independent media articles, aside from the regulatory filings.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-f-150-lightning-ota-knob-update/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/

Major coverage in tech and automotive press should at least justify the Power Up topic itself as notable.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source you provided is hardly WP:INDEPTH. I'm looking at the others right now. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the weaker article, yes. I would argue the Autoweek and TechCrunch at least put the update system in sufficient context, if perhaps not the version history, discussing, for example, that updates for vehicles were not yet commonplace at the time of launch, and the articles go into reasonable detail about how the system works and it’s potential uses that it’s not merely routine coverage. I would go on to argue the subsequent coverage of specific updates suggests sufficient duration of coverage to be notable. As a result, I still lean towards preserve and incubate. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Motortrend source makes no mention of Power-Up (in fact they simply describe it as an OTA update) and isn't even close to WP:INDEPTH and the arstechnica source seems to just be a typical "Oh hey this new software came out." kind of post and is not WP:INDEPTH either. Source 1 seems pretty good and source 3 seems to satisfy the concerns listed at WP:TECHCRUNCH although I"m not entirely sure if it satisifies WP:INDEPTH, so at most you have 2 good sources which is below the 3 typically asked for to demonstrate notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This third source has a similar level of detail.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2021/05/13/power-up-ford-sees-potential-new-revenue-better-experience/5057572001/

I also found an article discussing Power Up in a general overview of the tech status of automakers, showing continuing coverage:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/american-carmakers-muscle-up-software-tech-keep-horsepower-wars-going-2023-03-06/

I also managed to find additional articles on several additional, specific releases or specific planned releases:

https://www.cars.com/articles/over-the-air-software-update-brings-additional-camera-functionality-to-our-ford-f-150-457554/

https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update-transforms-f-150-mustang-mach-e-models-for-hands-free-driving/

https://fordauthority.com/2022/09/new-ford-evs-will-add-video-streaming-apps-with-future-update/

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-bronco-and-f-150-to-get-full-screen-apple-carplay-via-power-up-ota-update-200670.html

https://www.teslarati.com/ford-power-up-3-5-3-software-update-release-notes/

https://fordauthority.com/2022/05/some-2022-ford-f-150-lighting-trucks-to-get-phone-as-a-key-soon/

https://www.autoblog.com/2022/11/14/ford-bronco-camera-recall/

The Power Up program is also mentioned in an article discussing how WV was considering a bill to ban OTA, I would argue as additional support for notability.

https://fordauthority.com/2022/02/ford-ota-updates-to-owners-could-be-banned-in-west-virginia/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as support for continuing coverage, I’ll also note there’s been podcast interviews about the system, and a number of major media outlets with weaker articles, such as

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/13/22432770/ford-ota-software-update-amazon-alexa

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ford-to-produce-30-million-ota-capable-vehicles-by-2028/

https://www.motor1.com/features/507419/rambling-about-cars-podcast-19/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you ever heard of WP:THREE? Nobody's gonna read 13 articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I separated them out and clearly marked the one that was for notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But for clarity, it’s that first article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reuters source makes no mention of Power-Up (although they did get a quote from Doug DeMuro which I found interesting but that's irrelevant). The cars.com source simply just talks about a specific update that happened and not about Power-Up. The automotiveworld source is about BlueCruise and simply mentions that Power-Up is how it gets to the vehicle. The first Ford authority source is about an upcoming update to add video streaming (not a good idea imo). Autoevolution fails WP:INDEPTH and just mentions about something that is coming. Teslarati isn't WP:INDEPTH and not really WP:INDEPENDENT since it is mostly made up of a quote from Ford and is about 1 specific update. The second Ford authority source isn't even about Ford Power-Up but merely an update for it. Look, I'm not gonna look any further cause it's clear to me that none of these sources prove it's notability. It kinda just feels like you're pulling any source that mentions "Ford Power-Up" anywhere in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. I was providing information about specific updates to show continuing coverage, not throwing spaghetti at the wall.

The Reuters article did mention Power-Up, by the way, I’ll quote a reference:

“Ford, which sells an electric SUV that wears the same badge as the Mustang, said its Ford Power-Up over-the-air software updates create an "upgradable ownership experience" over time.”

But what I wanted you to see most was that Detroit article at the top. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are meaning to provide useful sources, however it feels like you're throwing spaghetti on the wall. And while the reuters source does mention Power-Up, it's just a passing mention. I read through the detroit article and it does seem pretty good, altho I"m not sure how good it is in this case since Ford is from Michigan (altho that may be me looking too deeply into this) and the author only has ~2 years of experience. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed be looking too deeply at it at that point.

Detroit is the center of US auto making, and as a result there’s considerably greater coverage of the automotive industry than is normal in local papers elsewhere. I don’t think that falls into the local news coverage trap in this instance.

The author, Jordyn Grzelewski (the paper’s Autos & Business Reporter), has been with that paper since 2020, and has been a published journalist at lower level papers since 2014. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I looked at her bio on the Detroit News website and it didn't say when she had started journalism. As for me saying she's only been with the company for 2 years and not 3... that's just me being bad at math. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my take is I see three okay-ish sources for notability in terms of in-depth coverage, a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates (and other updates that can be corroborated, albeit by primary sourcing), and at least one article discussing Power-Up implications regarding a potential bill banning OTA updates. There’s decent coverage of what the update system does and how it works (including number of modules it can update, cell connectivity, etc) and relevance to the automotive industry confirming Ford is a relative early adopter with this OTA process, and confirmation of a large user base (since it’s installed in the high-volume F-150 for example). Yeah, there’s an update list issue here, and some of the updates do require primary sourcing for confirmation, but there’s no interpretation of those sources required as its purely factual material of content of the update. So I still lean that it’s notable and should be preserved, albeit with a need for substantial revision. I do acknowledge incubate may be a little late here, it’s not a 90-day article. However, there’s not a specific Ford Power Up article to merge with at the moment, and merging with Ford directly seems inelegant Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates" sources that aren't specifically about Power-Up don't really help show continuing coverage. Excluding the reuters source what is the most recent one in your list above? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several other articles also cover that update, such as

https://electrek.co/2023/01/06/ford-finds-unique-knob-control-solution-in-new-mach-e-ota-update/

https://www.thedrive.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-es-physical-knob-can-now-control-hvac-thanks-to-ota-update

With discussion of relevance to the automotive industry, that OTA updates were providing ongoing vehicle improvements.

Yes, the article is about the update, but it’s coverage of a Power-Up update. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Mind answering the questions at WP:NOPAGE here then? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does other information provide needed context and do related topics provide needed context? Not really, on both. There is currently no article this information would fit better into. It would needlessly complicate the main Ford article. It’s included in multiple models, so inclusion in specific vehicle model articles would pose a scope issue. The article on OTAs as a general topic is primarily mobile phone focused. There is currently no main Ford Power-Up article, only this list.

What sourcing is available now we’ve already been discussing.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I think about it, this article probably should be merged with Ford Sync since they’re related systems and the topics are inextricably linked. Power Up is used to update Sync, and the user’s primary interface with it is via Sync 4/4a. There is certainly enough notability here to justify a section in Ford Sync. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that would be an appropriate place for info about Ford Power-Up but not this article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first portion of the article providing information about Power Up is probably salvageable. The update history might clutter the Sync page and be confusing since Sync has its own update versions. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory filings are not secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not, but I am arguing above there is sufficient secondary sourcing for notability, and the primary sources aren’t necessarily for interpretive support, only for factual information about content of an update. Several of the updates are also backed up by secondary source coverage in automotive press. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed with merging, if action has to be done. I get the "not a manual" complaints, but it's genuinely useful information, and plenty of other articles have changelogs for major version revisions. Shadic (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete junk. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? AfD isn’t a mere voting process. We owe it to the community to elaborate on why an article does or does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been copied and pasted out a manual and Wikipedia is not a manual per WP:NOT. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A high level timeline of feature introductions might have a place in the main SYNC article, this is deep into trivial details for service technicians and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —dgies^t_c 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the value and disagree that this level of detail is focused towards service technicians. Being that this article relates to safety features of the best selling vehicle in the United States, the best selling vehicle produced by Ford, and the best selling pickup truck in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles), I could envision owners and potential owners being very interested in this information. The value and utility of the information should not be confused with the availability of sound references. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically an argument to keep anything and everything that relates to popular products. How do you square your argument against the policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? —dgies^t_c 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the argument that this page goes into too much detail, but I think that to completely delete the page would remove useful, relevant information. Additionally, Apple's iOS pages have a similar level of detail in reference to sub-minor version updates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_9#Version_history). If we remove the popularity of the product from consideration as you suggest then how do you justify the level of detail provided on iOS versus here? 75.10.167.166 (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, details on version history belong in the parent topic article, in this case Ford Sync. —dgies^t_c 03:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While Ford Sync is related, the topic of this article extends beyond the scope of Ford Sync, as described here: https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/ford-technology/software-updates/what-are-ford-power-up-software-updates/. Perhaps this article would become more relevant if it was updated to better reflect this? For example, in https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/07/28/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update.html, Ford Power Up software updates have included aspects such as BlueCruise, which are well outside the scope of Ford Sync. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Ford Power Up really deserves its own article, it will need to say more than the version history. Is an OTA firmware updater really notable? —dgies^t_c 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for all the reasons above. Completely fails GNG and PRODUCT by failing to have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. First part of the article is promo, second part, Wikipedia is not a directory of version releases WP:NOTCHANGELOG. // Timothy :: talk 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article is a useful Encyclopedic Entry. The list is useful and it is convenient to have the list directly accessible. Some comments refer to 'notability', which seems to be a contentious criteria for subjects such as this. The list is current and useful and as far as I can tell not accessible elsewhere. CanonymousBob (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a longstanding Wikipedia policy. The fact that the information is useful to some and not available elsewhere should not override core policies like What Wikipedia is Not. Anyone is free to host this data on their own website. —dgies^t_c 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, no matter how useful it is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comoros at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athoumane Solihi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comoros at the 2016 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Housni Thaoubani

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No evidence he meets any SNG or WP:GNG. He lost his only match at the Olympics in the round of 64, is ranked 337th in the world, and lost his only match at the African championships. The only sources are databases, which fail to provide significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics] per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Walling

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some newspapers.com coverage at [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and [25]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 350 appearances in English professional football, caps for St Kitts at International level, and the coverage to support it, see also this and this and this as well as stuff above. Everything I have found is from a very quick Google search. Nominator has not even tried. Giant Snowman 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know I didn't try, like lol? Can you prove it? This is pretty rich coming from someone who also copies and pastes the same comment on almost every AFD, asking to be pinged if there are sources found. That implies YOU also have no tried. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a normal response (which would have been 'sorry, I couldn't find the sources in my search, happy to withdraw'); that is the response of somebody who didn't do any search whatsoever. If I see it again I'll seek a topic ban for you from AFDs. Giant Snowman 20:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This player with this amount of games will clearly be notable. Sportsfan 1234 If you're completely unable to do any form of WP:BEFORE, article improvement, don't bother nomination articles like this for AfD. You're just wasting everyones time here. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know I didn't do WP:BEFORE? Can you prove it? Absolutely not, so please stop wasting people's time with your comments. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources were provided above and I'm sure more was out there. He played hundreds of games in pro leagues and won Team of the Year honors.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that he passes WP:GNG with some of the above sources found by BeanieFan11 and GiantSnowman. I've added several of those sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the newspapers.com coverage alone is sufficient for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Lord of the Rings

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

No reason for this to have an article yet. In addition, the article peddles fake news, such as Peter Jackson returning to write and direct (not confirmed), and Andrew Lesnie being the cinematographer (he has been dead for 8 years). --Quiz shows 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the coverage is speculative and its not even clear that they're talking about a single movie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't really say much, and as the nominator states, what it does say isn't verified. It seems like we're a long way from WP:NFF's threshold of starting principal photography and there's nothing else notable in the article. --Mgp28 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Immediately fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. And on top of that, the title is in the wrong format (missing "film"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that the requirements of WP:NFF are met. WJ94 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another 'maybe/maybe not' thing sourced to an earnings call; let's have the studio actually announce this news before we get an article here, not just shareholder pipe dreams. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: The film is not filmed yet. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFF, and there is no need to draftify since we already have "Draft:Untitled The Lord of the Rings film". {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) -2pou (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saint Patrick's Day. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy not patty

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

Non-notable website, the "movement" does not seem to have gathered much critical attention in media. Plenty of discussion about how to call the holiday, none of it is about this website however. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just wanted to point out that the article is not specifically about that PaddyNotPatty website. Instead, the article states that this 'movement' originates from that website (which I doubt, but that's a different topic). Not gonna vote on this particular entry since I'm very new to AFD's, but I did find a decent amount of articles related to this subject after a 'Paddy not patty movement' google search. Pizzahut69 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: The website is definitely not notable, and while the movement could be notable, the article should definitely not revolve around the website (or even mention it in my opinion). I think it would be better to be merged into Saint Patrick's Day, with references of the website removed. Without this, I don't think there is enough information to warrant its own article. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't quite consensus to salt the title, but I will not provide a draftspace copy (as I usually would be willing to do in WP:TOOSOON cases) unless and until the creator shows they are here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lauter

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

Per WP:YOUNGATH, High School athletes generally are non-notable. None of the sources listed meet the requirement of "substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I don't consider him a college athlete because, as the article says, he has not yet played any college games. Bensci54 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some coverage, e.g. this and this, but considering he hasn't even played in college yet, I'd say its likely WP:TOOSOON. I'd be alright with draftification, as it seems he has good potential to be notable at some point in the future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification has already been attempted but the article was moved directly back to mainspace by the author. I do not have confidence that the same would not occur again. Bensci54 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing interested in this article. I really appreciate your insight. I have conducted months of research on this student athlete and I feel that I have found enough information that demonstrates his credibility. I only have presented a high school photo in the article because I feel that it gets the point across that Danny is a up and coming athlete. Also, with the entire Name, Image, and Likeness culture that athletes are presented with today, I feel that this page creation is important. Throughout his athletic career, Danny has gone viral with millions of views granting him the right to be represented on this platform. Also, he was recruited by a lot of notable schools and I found that some of those schools included Colorado, UCLA, Northwestern, Vanderbilt and the list goes on. He is currently battling for the starting job and has a great change of changing the Hoyas program around. Also, Danny is continuing the tradition of playing Division One Football. Multiple members of his family have played at the highest level. Once again thank you for your help! WalterKlaus3 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is possibility of him becoming notable, it is way wp:toosoon. The sources only mention his protentional and seem quite promot-y. I would also like to mention that the images, last I checked, lacked a license from the school or Lauter. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 20:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:YOUNGATH. In order for a player to merit a stand-alone article before he's even played the college game, he needs to be a top-tier recruit. Lauter was a mere three-star recruit (four- and five-stars are the elite recruits) and was not ranked among the top players either at quarterback or from his home state (see here). Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:WalterKlaus3 moved the article to draftspace following the nomination. Nonetheless, the AfD should proceed, and the result IMO should be to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the proper procedure here? It looks like from WP:AfD that moving a page that is being discussed is not forbidden, but Drafts also aren't valid targets for AfDs. Does that mean we need to take this to MfD? I am surprised that we don't have coverage for this sort of activity in our procedures somewhere. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates that a user cannot avoid the outcome of an AfD (one that is already leaning "delete") by simply unilaterally moving their work to draft space. The AfD should run its course, and if the outcome is "delete", the outcome should apply to the draft. Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further note. The creator/mover (User:WalterKlaus3) appears to be a WP:SPA whose only substantive edits are to this article and the article on Lauter's high school. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His user page suggests he is editing with a motive to help Lauter to obtain name, image and likeness funding: "I also support student athletes with the opportunity for support in the new NIL culture." Sorry, but that's not a valid reason for creating a Wikipedia article on an athlete who hasn't even played college ball. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-draftify and temporarily salt mainspace title until 1 August 2023 (it is highly unlikely the subject would do anything to become notable before training camp at the earliest). Subject does not meet GNG or YOUNGATH as he is yet to play a down of college ball. Though very possible he could become notable down the road.Frank Anchor 15:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have this moved back to main space until this AFD is closed and reposted the AFD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete CSD G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasindu Kumara

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

PROMO. Gsearch goes straight to social media sites. "Well-known" without any media coverage. Flowery text as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, i found this person made huge amount of contributions for Sinhala language and helped many Sri Lankan people to read with native language. Wikipedia is nothing without users or articles and i think this article should not be deleted. 112.134.166.186 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please give sources to prove that. I can't speak the language and can't find any in my native language either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reliable sources for searches "Pasindu Kavinda" or "Pasindu Kumara." This has been WP:Speedyed previously under the name Pasindu Kavinda Kumara. Delete and salt both names, please. Chanaka L (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO. There are no reliable English or Sinhalese secondary sources to confirm notability. It is likely that there is a WP:COI and/or WP:SELFPROMOTION. I would also question whether U:112.134.166.186 is in fact a sock puppet of the articles creator, User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද (which literally translated means "Who is Pasindu?"). Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this person needs promo here when there is plently of articles in newspapers? In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses? There is a full page article about him in local newspapper Lakbima > https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf See page 17. Those who can't speak Sinhala language, please use google translate to convert Sinhala text to English. Back in 2014, there was multiple radio stations referred this person's name. For example Lakhanda radio was one of the radio stations in Sri Lanka mentioned his name for the effort to make Sinhala available to milions of Sri Lankan People. පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Media coverage should be google or other search engines only? Local media and newspapers not counted?

Why this person needs promo here when there is plently of articles in newspapers and radios? In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses?

Question for All English users asking to delete this article: If articles or media coverage not in English, articles should be deleted? If Yes, then how other millions of articles which are not in english not deleted yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@පසිඳු කාවින්ද: Dude, I speak Sinhala. I could not find any worthwhile sources about you. See for yourself.

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

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

Radio or print interviews do not testify for notability, I am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying notability is only exist in search engines and above sources right? If Radio and Newsapappers exluded, please go ahead and delete the article because i think your only goal is to delete the article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @පසිඳු කාවින්ද: the issue is whether the article satisifies the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Essentially it needs to demonstrate that there is significant coverage about the individual in multiple independent secondary sources. Radio or print interviews are considered primary sources and are not independent or reliable. A number of editors have conducted searches in both English and Sinhalese and can't find anything to verify your claims. Dan arndt (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Pasindu Kumara and Pasindu Kavinda Kumara. Clear failure to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. No WP:RS demonstrating any notability and it is simply a translator doing their job. Previous deletion and recreation by a user whose name suggests an undisclosed COI is reason enough to salt the pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my comment: the page creator's talk page has a comment by himself, referring to himself as Pasindu Kavinda. This definitely looks like an undisclosed COI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a translator doing their job? may be for You. This person have contributed more than 50,000 translations for free to make Sinhala available for Facebook according to meida. Just doing their job right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, translating is what translators do. Not sure what the issue is, we need reliable, extensive discussions about the subject in non-related media. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favour? Just search Pasindu Kavinda in Facebook search and tell me how many results have you found, please. Is it 50 or 100 may be more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another newspaper mention: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10204416742441330&set=a.1778605147619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fbsin.jpg

Note: Image included by පසිඳු කාවින්ද

I am wikipedia user since 2007 and i saw there were good admins by that time, let's see how admins react to this discussion not based on their personal feelings like people here desperatly want to delete every article, but like a true wikipedia user :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete and Salt: It seems this qualifies as unambiguous promotion and G11 material. The only editor who has made any substantive edits to the article is clearly the subject of the article, as evidenced by the private message shared, and there appear no reliable sources supporting notability, as stated by others in this discussion. Jguglielmin (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the user from Sri Lanka here User:Chanakal wants to delete the article badly it seems no support for Sri Lankan people here, please go ahead and delete it i have no regread :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion and G11 material, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS. BLPs need clear and reliable sourcing for content and notability. // Timothy :: talk 10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the given references, i have found the person named Pasindu was featured in Sri Lankan mutiple news sources for the project Facebook Sinhala. Also there were mutiple radio and television programs back in 2014 refered to his work. It seems https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf was valid newspaper article and radio conversation also clearly mention his name in Sinhala. Proudsrilankan (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)— Proudsrilankan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manmeet Kaur.

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

Technically no longer eligible for BLP PROD as sources have been added since. I'm not seeing enough notable roles for WP:NACTOR nor anything that meets WP:NMODEL. Article's author admits to using Wikipedia as a platform for their self-promotion, which is not acceptable. User:Khorang endorsed the original PROD. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/hindi/check-out-new-hindi-song-music-video-dil-se-utar-gaye-sung-by-raj-barman-featuring-paras-arora-manmeet-kaur-and-shubham-matta/videoshow/90535337.cms		~ WP:TOI	Just a music video, not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/lifestyle/manmeet-kaur-might-be-an-accidental-actress-but-she-is-enjoying-her-ride-both-in-bollywood-and-pollywood-340813			~ Very little actual independent content in this article. Just a quote from her with little further commentary or analysis.	~ Partial
https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/exclusive-shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-begins-prep-her-next-focuses-low-carb-diet-889617?amp	Marked as an advert	Marked as an advert		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/hindi/watch-shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-dances-on-tip-tip-barsa-pani/videoshow/88035901.cms		~ WP:TOI	Apparently a video of her dancing	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/hindi/shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-shares-her-experience-of-meeting-kargil-war-martyr-captain-vikram-batras-family-with-sidharth-malhotra-and-kiara-advani/videoshow/85349279.cms?from=mdr		~ WP:TOI	Apparently a video of her speaking, not usually sufficient for a notability claim (the video doesn't work for me)	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/i-kept-it-a-secret-till-i-shot-for-my-part-manmeet-kaur-101630260941660-amp.html?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ht_AMP			~ Almost all of the article is just a long quote from her	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could have sworn we just saw this one. I see they've added a period after the name this time, to try and avoid detection. SALT. I don't find any mentions of her, there is an interview in the Hindu from 2019, but that seems to be the extent of recent coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Khorang 05:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TokuMX

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

Not notable, and no longer exists: Github repo. last updated in 2015; sources are mainly SPS, and the latest is from 2014; domain leads to Percona, who discontinued support for the underlying engine in v8.0.28-19 of their product. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem independently notable outside of Percona.

—dgies^t_c 00:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hyper p

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

Unknown blogger. Poorly written. The original contributer has a very similar name to the article. Does not meet any notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperialMajority (talk • contribs) 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Something went wrong with the automated steps in this nomination, as the article has both a PROD and this AfD, and both are attributed to ImperialMajority. The PROD can probably be removed for housekeeping reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's likely that was simple human error, as I can't find an automation tag. I'll remove the PROD. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional article. --hroest 14:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Internet, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found for this person, hits on the word "hyper" are too broad to worry about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promoting article and not-notable. Pizzahut69 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A beginner who is trying to make his blog about his favorite songs look like an influential international music industry platform. Neither his "company" nor any of his own songs have generated any media coverage, and his own self-promotion efforts should not include a Wikipedia article that he clearly wrote himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an unsourced non-notable autobio. Cabayi (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is non-notable and fails all of our notability criteria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo United Royals

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

Restored article without WP:BURDEN. A WP:BEFORE search only popped out 1 source about the subject which is from Panay News. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and then salt. Fails WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with nom and Hueman1. Salt after restoring redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per nom. I currently oppose salting as there was never formal discussion to redirect this page prior to this current AFD, however would support that if there is continued restoration of poorly-sourced content. Frank Anchor 17:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per modifications made by Alvaldi and Howard the Duck. Now a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 12:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only one source? I found several, including from the The Philippine Star, Daily Guardian, Fastbreak.com.ph, Tie Breaker Times. Alvaldi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion and keep. Expanded it, and should already be good enough for DYK, I guess. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG. I have no idea what kind of searching OP did, but I found a lot more with the same search - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iloilo+United+Royals%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=lpcUZJTcMu2pptQPnoCPkA0&ved=0ahUKEwiU_8Sws-P9AhXtlIkEHR7AA9IQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Iloilo+United+Royals%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIFCAAQhgM6CAgAEIAEELADOgcIABAeELADOggIABCGAxCwAzoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBULIHWKMWYKsYaAFwAHgAgAFdiAHjAZIBATOYAQCgAQHIAQPAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lucasfilm Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LucasArts Archives

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

While I am not certain where it should go if anywhere, this compilation does not seem independently notable or critically/commercially important. They consist only of previously released games that all have their own articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some sources to the article. Timur9008 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While definitely an attempt, it doesn't convince me that there is significant coverage out there, much less anything differentiating the compilation from its games. It seems trivial coverage is trivial coverage regardless of whether it's in print or on the internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lucasfilm Games. Based on the meager available secondary sourcing, this content would fit best within context of the parent article about the developer. czar 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Lucasfilm Games barring more coverage in sources. The sales tidbit (in Reception) can at least be merged, regardless of how the list of games relates to WP:NOTCATALOGUE.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lucasfilm Games. I did a search for additional sources and didn't come up with anything else that notable here. The only piece that seems worth merging is that this release happened and the sales note, otherwise I would have marked this as a redirect. Nomader (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Bevan

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

I've found coverage ([26][27][28][29][30][31]) about a photo of Bevan holding a goose, perhaps enough to justify an article about the photo, but nothing about her as an actor or a person. The coverage of her films is also slim so I don't know about an NACTOR#1 pass. QuietHere (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Photography. QuietHere (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per WP:NACTOR#1. She was a leading actor in multiple silent films and stage plays. It's difficult to find significant coverage due to a combination of scant digitization for that period, and many, many hits that are just cast lists. pburka (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes to the point I made initially where the lack of coverage means we can't really guarantee these meet "significant roles in multiple notable films". I know the standards are awkward around classic films because of the lack of digitized contemporary coverage, but despite that I don't think we can just assume notability must exist because the sources that presumably exist just aren't readily available. QuietHere (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The films listed on her page appear to be notable, unless you're challenging their inclusion, too. And she had starring roles in all of them. I do think it's reasonable to assume that sources exist for prolific major studio film stars, even if they're not easily found on-line. pburka (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she passes WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The British Film Institute lists six films where she is one of the top three featured artists in five of the six. The national portrait gallery describes her as "the English Constance Bennett", repeated in for example, Australian newspapers and "Her likeness"..."Noel Coward personally selected her to be one of the bridesmaids in the New York production of "Bitter Sweet.". There's more coverage in Subscription archives, for example Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 27 February 1936..."ISLA BEVAN First Film For Three Years" and Daily Mirror - Saturday 15 August 1936..."Love Changes Star with No Use for Marriage" Piecesofuk (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is surely significant coverage which somebody with access to a library with archived periodicals could find. Ther will be reviews. I do not know if American Equity's rules were as harsh then as they are now,, but if they are the fact that she appeared in Bittersweet's Broadway production is a strong arguement for notability. As id the fact that the National Portrait Gallery have a portrait. Of course if she was a rapper with one record at number ten in the Kazakstan charts there would be loads of guff on the net and would be deemed notable; Wikipedia is frequently absurd.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above rapper comparison aside, this looks convincing enough to me, and clearly the votes are going that way anyway so I may as well end this now. Consider this withdrawn/kept or whatever you wanna write for it. QuietHere (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israfil Bek Jedigar

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), Poland, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:OR does appear to be an issue here as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe article does not seem to contain any claim to notability of any kind, such as service awards. Am I missing something?TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the incorrect interpretation of reading historical documents, Azerbaijani historians Shamistan Nazirli and Nasiman Yagublu got confused Israfil Bek Jedigar and Israfil Israfilov. The importance of this article is precisely to put an end to this confusion. You can look at the Russian and Georgian versions of this article to make sure that it contains notability Yousiphh (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the incorrect interpretation of reading historical documents, Azerbaijani historians Shamistan Nazirli and Nasiman Yagublu got confused Israfil Bek Jedigar and Israfil Israfilov. Only after creating this article and correcting errors in article on Israfil Israfilov, there may be a chance to correct a gross mistake. Yousiphh (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yousiphh The problem is that Wikipedia's goal is not to fix such mistakes, it is to cover notable topics. However, your work can still be useful. For example you could submit it as a paper to https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Humanities _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't have any sourced notability, fails GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Izrafił bek Jedygarow is mentioned in passim by some Polish sources, but without indicating any kind of notability Marcelus (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTABILITY isn’t apparent in any WP:RS. A thorough search on my end turns up nothing that would come close to satisfying WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton F.C.

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

Brand-new club at the lowest level of Scottish football, not notable (just some very local coverage, just like nearly every organisation, club, ... in a village will have). Looking for "Sammy Taggart" (the coach) plus "Eglinton" gives all of 8 Google hits[32], looking for "Eglinton FC" gives 31 hits[33] (identical results for FC or F.C.). Perhaps a redirect to Kilwinning#Football, and a short addition there, could be a solution? Fram (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice try but there doesn't appear to be any coverage in secondary sources, which you need to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia rules (see WP:GNG). I oppose any redirect to Kilwinning#Football, as there isn't any info in the Kilwinning article right now about this Eglinton FC, and based on ProQuest results, there is a football club in New South Wales also called Eglinton FC which appears more notable. (And in Scotland, don't forget Cronberry Eglinton F.C. and Ayr Eglinton F.C., which may be responsible for some of the other Google results.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, this article is way off base for what constitutes GNG guidance. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bimble's Bucket

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

Although it will be a shame to lose the timeless prose of the wholly unreferenced plot summary which forms the majority of the content in this article - said article wholly sourced to primary sources (and with nothing else evident out there in terms of RSes), this children's TV series signally fails WP:GNG. I remain unconvinced that, although in its own quirky way delightful, "A witch called Dolly Clackhanger would try to steal the bucket from Bimble, many times, for her queen, Kak. She usually sent her gang to steal it. They consist of two Sleazians from Sleaze City who look like punk rockers called Bilge and Oiler, who usually go around on motorised pogo sticks." is the stuff of Wikipedia at its best. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search for sources on Google Books, Google News, JSTOR (along with some other library databases), and Newspapers.com only came up with some TV schedules that isn't helpful here (was really expecting at least a few larger-scale articles). No online sources or reviews that I was able to find either. I feel like if this was a show that came out ten years later, we'd have a plethora of sources... alas, it didn't. Nomader (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I could see draftifying as a solution, but I don't expect that would eventually produce anything worthwile in the long run. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An episode guide has been put together using newspaper sources. Oddly, not even Toonhound has a page for this toon.2A00:23C6:D88E:8901:B82E:E4C8:BB1A:3BA3 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Battle of Łódź (1914). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian offensive

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

Basically a stub that is a different name for Battle of Łódź all material already covered there in more depth and much better sourced. Gugrak (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Gugrak (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Germany, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Łódź (1914). Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dabify. Too ambiguous to be a redirect. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect as suggested, but we do not seem to have a Battle of Łowicz, which this article refers to. I note the dates of the offensive and Battle of Łódź are the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate, plus ensure that the targets mention the term. I'll note that pl wiki does not have an article about the Battle of Łowicz for that time frame, either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Shwabsky

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 2 third party sources are small mentions of Shwabsky and not in depth coverage of her. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Egypt, Lebanon, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. References don't provide more than a trivial mention about Shwabsky. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Donetsk

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

The article is about a non-notable browser and mobile game created in 2015 which was highlighted in Russian sources like Sputnik ([34]) and RT ([35]), along with an International Business Times article ([36]), all of which are blacklisted per WP:RSP (in ways they weren't back in 2015). A Ukranian-language DW article ([37]) is just a straight interview with the developers and a small Popular Science blog post about it ([38]) exists too -- neither are enough to pass full muster at WP:N in my opinion (although I could see an argument to keep if more sources were found).

There was no coverage in anything from WP:VG/RS (actually no hits, which is surprisingly rare), no newspaper coverage, and nothing in Google Books. Nomader (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ukraine. Nomader (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a single quality source. Clearly non-notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team. Sandstein 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayka Zima

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources do exist such as [39] and [40], however they are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of those "trivial" sources establishes a claim to notability: the first Tahitian to compete in the Federation Cup.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Redirect? Another tough one. First Tahitian in Fed Cup. Two Bronze medals in the same international tournament at the 2015 Pacific Games. Usually when looking at a tennis career that might be enough. The only problem is in looking at her full pro career it's a blank slate. Per the WTA she played no events ever. Per the minor league ITF Challenger level I see no events played. Per the minor-minor league ITF events I see no events ever played. Did they lose her records or did she never play anything other than Fed Cup and the Pacific Games those two years? All I see is some junior results from 2008. Did she get injured and retire? Did she die? Because she did absolutely nothing else I would lean towards Delete but perhaps a better idea is to redirect this to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team where her name is in a list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply for being the first Tahitian to play in that particular tournament as described. This would also help combat "Western nation only" bias on wiki, where anything and everything from a western nation gets noted, but hardly anything from elsewhere on the planet does. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also coverage in French from Radio 1 Tahiti we can use to flesh out the article. [41] Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether there are or are not multiple reliable and independent sources which cover this subject in reasonable depth would be helpful in determining notability. Tangential discussions of "first", "western", or the like are generally not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect Happy to go with emerging consensus below. WP:BEFORE shows an almost complete lack of SIGCOV. Routine match listings, incidental mentions in a few news reports that lead with Carol Lee. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team with no prejudice towards recreation if Tahitian sources are found that cover her more in depth. I found absolutely nothing on normal searches of Google and Newspapers.com, but imagine there could be local sources that we're somehow missing here. Per WP:NTENNIS, she doesn't meet the mark right now but it seems oddly strange that this is all she ever did. Nomader (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Want to explicitly note here that Oaktree b's article is a great find, but I don't think it's enough significant coverage to pass muster. A note should be added to the talk page with links to the few references we have for her. Nomader (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other mentions are on a site called Tahiti Info, [42]. I suppose it's RS, appears to be a news website. Sports Tahiti [43]. This about a match from a Saipan newspaper, [44]. Radio New Zealand [45]. A Tahiti Newspaper [46]. There isn't much else. Are these decent-enough sources? Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tahiti Infos is a news site, and its the source for pretty much everything in French Polynesia. Radio1 and TNTV are also good sources for French Polynesian content.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about a redirect to the Pacific Oceania team that competed, there plenty of coverage about the team she played with? Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which I mentioned and linked to in my post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And which I also listed above. Per the sources that Oaktree found, they're all... kind of passing mentions of Zima herself, but really terrific information about the team at large. It honestly reinforces my !vote towards redirecting. Nomader (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team as per Nomader as an ATD. Also preserves history, and if more sourcing can be found in future, no prejudice against recreating. I think Fyunck(click)'s analysis is spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress campaign for the next Indian general election

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

Delete: The article contains extravagant information which is irrelevant to the topic. Besides many items of information are not cited with reliable sources. I hope the administrators will take proper decision based on policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be only one article containing campaigns of major political parties in India. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article falls under WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two major sections - Political Affairs Group and Task Force-2024 contain no citation. Besides the items of information in this article are different from campaigning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs WP:TNT and as all of the materials in the article are off topic, the article should be properly rewritten and should be merged into an article Campaigning for 2024 Indian general election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst it might seem WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'm not sure there is really a valid reason to delete. There are lots of high quality sources, presumably they are only going to increase. I don't like the title fwiw, and I don't envy anyone trying to write about this in a neutral way. JMWt (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the article seems as WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no valid reason to delete it as source there is WP: Reliable. I think that the article needs some improvement.

Thank You! Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no opinion on the AfD, but will note here for transparency that XYZ 250706 appears to have approached at least two editors on their talk pages regarding this AfD: Special:Diff/1144227404, Special:Diff/1144227430. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan I have told them to put their neutral opinion. Besides one of them (a member of Wikiproject Indian politics) has edited this page several times before and other editors who actively takes part in such discussions and is a renowned Wikipedia article reviewer. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @XYZ 250706: re: canvassing, you're new to AFD so you should get some grace on this, but what you did above was canvassing. It didn't impact the AFD, but this should not be repeated for any reason. Your intent may have been innocent, but you crossed a line regardless of your wording. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to an appropriate page title. I rm the unsourced content, BLPs should be listed as members of political groups, committees, etc only with clearly RS to prevent abuse. Its too soon for the article, but it will be probably be notable at some point. A keep here shouldn't reflect on any future AFD, if the article is not expanded and properly referenced, it should be deleted and an unnesseary fork. // Timothy :: talk 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But if we see the current condition of the article, it is not ready to be published in Wikipedia. Should not we add or merge it to an article which will contain campaigning of major political parties in India? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There are lots of stubs with just a paragraph. Its an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion here. It's early, certainly, and I wouldn't waste my time writing about this; but there's coverage and the eventual notability is not in question. I'm not seeing a problem with the title either; when the election date is confirmed, moving makes sense, but not before. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Ashplant

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

Refbombed spam for non notable film maker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notable productions. No major awards. Refbombed with primary sources, routine announcements, reproduced PR, student publications and local interest puff. Constructed by three now blocked tagteaming SPAs and a bunch of Guernsey IPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyond WP:GNG (which we fail - the Durham Student Newspaper and other sources presented here not being RS and there being virtually nothing more out there in the great wide world), WP:NACTOR directs us to: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." We do neither of these two things. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic nominees for governor of California

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

WP:LISTN, cites no sources (all citations are actually just notes), no sourcing on the group as a whole (as in, all the Democratic nominees). I think it would be best to redirect them to Governor of California, much like how Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky redirects to Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky.

I think the same could be said for List of Democratic nominees for Governor of Illinois, List of Democratic nominees for Governor of Kentucky, and List of Republican nominees for Governor of Kentucky. reppop^talk 03:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. reppop^talk 03:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not appropriate for a standalone list, especially since parties currently do not nominate candidates in California elections. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, literally nothing more than an inaccessible list, which means it could be a category, and in fact I'm sure already is. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:LISTN as a stand alone list and serves to illustrate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Scales Harris

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

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. The vice mayor of Murfreesboro is not elected, but chosen by their fellow city council members. Novemberjazz 03:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she was chosen rather than elected, that does NOT effect notability. In any case, existing sources appear to support notability, and I feel that this AfD is wrongheaded in more ways than one.Historyday01 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ No policies cited ^ And it is affect. Novemberjazz 05:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources simply confirm she won the position; rest are primary sources and gov't websites. Nothing I'd call GNG-worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vice-mayor is not an "inherently" notable position at all, but the referencing here isn't adequately establishing that she would clear WP:NPOL. Very nearly half of it is primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, and the other half is merely run of the mill local coverage of the type that every vice or deputy mayor of any city would merely be expected to have in the local media, not really evincing any strong evidence that she should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm. In fact, other than verifying the mere fact of her election to city council and her selection as vice-mayor, the sourcing is being used almost entirely to support career and family background that has no bearing on notability at all — whereas the notability of a city councillor or vice-mayor actually depends on showing career coverage about her work in the role, demonstrating a significant political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content like that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert College International Model United Nations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted following a discussion in 2010 and speedily in 2012. I'm restarting it as a discussion in case anything has changed in the intervening decade, but I'm still not seeing anything that meets WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. There are no independent reliable sources cited on the page that provide any in-depth coverage of the subject, nor can I find any in an English-language search of Google. There are a few blogs and Model UN guides that refer to this event, but none are WP:RS. In the absence of reliable sources then the answer must be deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, Schools, and Turkey. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I successfully found a CV for someone who participated in it once ([47]). I found a student news article about their delegation in the US to a conference, but that's about the club not the conference. This one's clear, and the article should be salted to avoid recreation. Nomader (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert College: Furthermore, if one is to look at any MUN conferences on Wikipedia, there is not a page for any of them. So, I agree with 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco; but I think that salting is unnecessary and instead it should redirect to the relevant subtopic under the Robert College page. kdk (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could also feel that redirect to the college could be appropriate, but it feels like a very odd search term that would be rare (and people typing it would literally be typing in "Robert College" at the start of it already? Really the article Robert College shouldn't have a completely unsourced Model UN section in it either, and it's clear there's good reason that it's a delisted Good Article. There's just no significant coverage of this club and it takes a completely WP:UNDUE portion of the college article as it is here. Nomader (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and any secondary sources. Aintabli (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt. As others have mentioned, there's no secondary sources. Salting is appropriate due to repeated disruptive recreation after deletion. 174.212.224.32 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. I would also suggest WP:SALT to avoid recreation. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Uwadi

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable blogger and journalist where the only sources are articles he wrote. A WP:BEFORE search revealed nothing pertinent. First AfD ended in a delete too, but I came here before a potential speedy to see if there was any potential to save. No opposition to it being tagged as such. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was all ready to support a speedy deletion per G4 and possibly even G11, but it's clear that the versions of the article prior to its previous deletion are different enough that it can't qualify for a speedy here IMO ([48]), and we can't be sure if the author was the subject themselves (although it sure seems like it?). Either way, this is a clearly non-notable person according to our standards and my research hasn't popped with any significant outside coverage that I've found. Nomader (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you've got no citation for "Kenneth Uwadi is popular on social media. He has accounts on various social media sites, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram" you're in the weeds. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flowery text and iffy sources. Non-notable blogger person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Simply serving as the coordinator of a non-notable organization and criticizing a governor are not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the WP:BEFORE assessment. I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV that would establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottesville Fashion Square

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Nearly all of the sources are business news and press releases on the mall. Being a WP:HNE target should also be considered. Mizutani The Pokemon (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Virginia. Mizutani The Pokemon (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are all WP:ROUTINE, insufficient signficant/depth of coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A possible redirect/merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Petkovich

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

Fails WP:BIO. Coverage including in Australian search engine Trove confirms Petkovich translated books rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (!voting after improving article) as I think she passes WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 as she played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work with specific regard to her translation of Seven Terrors which is a notable book, and a work that she played a significant role in. Further to that, her translation was shortlisted for Science Fiction & Fantasy Translation Awards in 2013 as well as being nominated for and getting other accolades as evidenced in the citations in the book article CT55555(talk) 16:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that translating a book is the same as "co-creating a significant or well-known work". LibStar (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion specifically needs for the person to have "created or played a major role in co-creating (emphasis mine) and I am sufficiently confident that she meets that definition. CT55555(talk) 04:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can depend on the translated work and the secondary coverage - in the Yasmine Seale article, the reviews and other secondary coverage include a nontrivial focus on her role co-creating a collective body of works. WP:NBOOK notability does not necessarily mean a work is "significant and well-known", and the available sources to support the notability of Seven Terrors appear to be limited according to that guideline, and seem to weigh against assessing the work as "significant and well-known". Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also edited the article but have not yet searched the WP Library for sources. In the meantime, Seven Terrors appears to be a barely-notable book, and the awards shortlist and longlist do not appear sufficient to establish the translated version of this book as significant or well-known. I am reminded of the Yasmine Seale AfD, which identified multiple reviews that discussed her work translating multiple works to support notability per WP:CREATIVE#3. For this article, this author has written two works and translated two works, but one authored work is supported by a review from a blog-style website, and the other by what appears to be a PR announcement (I removed the paid-for review from the article). I added a review for the other translated work but currently only have partial access to it, so I have not been able to assess the depth of attention given to Petkovich's translation. I am hoping more can be found at the WP Library to help support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the Wikipedia Library, so this is a review of sources, including ones in the article:

"SEVEN TERRORS", The Independent 09 Mar 2014: 20. ProQuest 1505312828 - this is a two-graf review, and the only comment on Petkovich is "and has been rendered into graceful English by Coral Petkovich."
Seven Terrors by Selvedin Avdić – review (The Guardian, 5 Feb 2014) - the only mention of Petkovich is "and, as far as I can tell from its readability, very well translated by Coral Petkovich, too."
"What to Read Now: Horror in Translation" World Literature Today Vol. 93, No. 1 (Winter 2019), pp. 8-9 (1 page) (JSTOR) - this is a two-sentence capsule review with no mention of Petkovich.
In the Seven Terrors article, a review of another book by The Irish Times is included in the Critical reception section with a brief mention of "Selvedin Avdic's Seven Terrors, which wittily and surrealistically explores the postwar communal trauma of Bosnia" and no mention of Petkovich; the two grafs of a Sydney Review of Books essay on another topic that focuses on Seven Terrors also does not mention Petkovich.
"Memories of bitter Bosnian war persist 20 years after Dayton peace deal: Awful events have been powerfully captured in fiction and non-fiction", Irish Times 14 Dec 2015: 10. ProQuest 1748503812 - there is a brief mention in a series of examples of various works about the war - "Uneasy peace In Selvedin Avdic's witty and surreal Seven Terrors , translated by Coral Petkovich, in which the depressed narrator holed up in a smelly flat somewhere in Bosnia, laments his failed marriage and becomes caught up in an investigation to find a missing journalist."
Impac longlist goes further than other prizes (The Guardian Books blog, 14 Nov 2013) - "the Impac longlist is not like other longlists; it is not a handful of carefully selected books that will be further winnowed to achieve the shortlist. Rather, it is a full list of the books competing for next year's prize: every single title nominated by 110 participating libraries across the world. [...] The shortlist will be announced next April" - there is more at International Dublin Literary Award, which seems to indicate the shortlist would be more significant support for notability.
ISFDB database entry verifying the 2013 Science Fiction & Fantasy Translation Awards shortlist, which according to the article, ran from 2011-2013 and awarded "a trophy and a cash prize of $350" to both the author and translator; secondary coverage of this award would help support its significance.
"Hair Everywhere", World Literature Today Vol. 92, Iss. 2, (Mar/Apr 2018): 76-77 ProQuest 2212658771 (JSTOR) - this source focuses on the work of author Tea Tulić, translated by Petkovich, but offers no comment about the translation.
Tea Tulić i Daša Drndić u finalu prestižne britanske nagrade za stranu književnost (tportal.hr, Sept 10, 2018) - I translated this website post with Google Translate - the Warwick Prize for Writing article only covers shortlists through 2015, but the tportal website says "Croatian authors Tea Tulić and Daša Drndić are among the 15 finalists of the British Warwick Prize, which the university of the same name awards exclusively to foreign authors for the second year with the intention of popularizing international female literary voices in the English language. Tulić entered the wider selection with the translation of her prose debut 'Kosa posvuda' ('Hair Everywhere')...", discusses others on the longlist, and "The Warwick Prize was established by the University of Warwick in 2017" and "The shortlisted finalists will be announced in early November". Petkovich is only mentioned in passing: "'Kosa posvuda' by Tee Tulić was translated as 'Hair Everywhere' for Istros Books in 2017 by Coral Petkovich". (and the prize is £1,000 "shared equally by the author and the translator")
A review of Ivan: from Adriatic to Pacific by Coral Petkovich Compulsive Reader, October 9, 2008 - this looks like a blog, and there is not much on the about page of the website to bolster the reliability of the source.
Coral Petkovich Releases Mother's Memoir Broadway World Jan. 20, 2015 - I referred to this above as appearing to be a PR announcement, and it appears to be a copy of Author Coral Petkovich Releases Centenarian Mother's Memoir (PRWeb, Jan. 20, 2015) with only the addition of a byline from a Broadway World writer, so it should be removed from the article.

I think due to the limited WP:SECONDARY coverage from independent and reliable sources about Petkovich (i.e. her work as a translator and author) that appears to be available at this time, and the lack of major literary award recognition, a redirect to Seven Terrors seems supported, while a standalone article does not. Beccaynr (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I would support a redirect to Seven Terrors. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per User:CT55555. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the article has been notably improved. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Clemence Gordon Brown

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

Unreferenced stub for 15 years. Fails WP:BIO. Those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual sources. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find much in newspapers, besides this photo and small caption [49]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've found the following sources on Newspapers.com ([50], [51]). Basically just notes that he was appointed with zero detail. A part of me would say "Redirect to Canada–Democratic Republic of the Congo relations" but it's so far gone back in the day that I don't think we can argue for that. Per WP:DIPLOMAT (which IMO is a well-formed coherent argument and essay), a head of mission is not inherently notable, and it seems clearly that our friend John Clemence is not. Nomader (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to make clear that I searched Google Books, JSTOR, and just searched all over in general and came up with nothing. Would kill for some Congolese sources here... Nomader (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the person who created this thought it would qualify under WP:NPOL as an "international office"? I don't think it does. Nweil (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and dived into the 2014 discussion on this which created the text at WP:DIPLOMAT so you don't have to (trust me it is very meandering). Suffice to say, there was originally a carve out at WP:POLITICIAN that specifically excluded ambassadors. This was removed as being too strict (not precluding the creation of articles about them), but instead WP:DIPLOMAT rightly notes that if a specific ambassador doesn't meet the notability requirements, they can be redirected to that country's relations page. Only problem being... our friend here has been ambassador twice. Luckily I think that in this case, the notability (or lack thereof) seems to be very clear, and I think that we're safe with a straight delete, due to his not very notable stature. Nomader (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article subject fails WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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