Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 08	February 10 >

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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 23:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flybridge Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Refs are routine funding, investment news, career annoucements scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources are all what NCORP explicitly calls trivial and nothing found online would support notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is a clear consensus that "trivial" corporate announcements covered, like "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts, ... hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital," etc. as exists currently in the article. Consensus can change, but ping me to convince me. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article amount to trivial coverage, insufficient to establish notability per NCORP. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:37, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 23:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karmic Power Records

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

Non-notable US record label. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 9 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 23:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Nursery, Primary and High School

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

I can't find anything even close to showing a passing of WP:NORG for this school. The best I can find are generic database profile pages like Creta Class and India Study Channel. I can't find any detailed coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 16 February 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 Skiereiland Commando. The overwhelming consensus was to redirect this article. There were some darn good arguments for each direction of the redirect. I felt the decision edged in the direction of redirecting toward the Afrikaan title, but only just barely. Please consider this closing indicates the consensus for a redirect, but should not be considered binding as far as the direction. If more involved editors want to reverse the direction of the redirect, I have no problem with that. Please take that discussion to the talk page(s). Joyous! | Talk 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Commando

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

There is already a page Skiereiland Commando. Peninsula is simply the English name for Skiereiland. A redirect replacing this page would probably be the best solution. BoonDock (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BoonDock (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the need for redirect, but since English and Afrikaans were both official languages, why not redirect from the Afrikaans to the English name? I found some references to "Cape Peninsula Commando" on Google Books (older) and "Peninsula Commando" (newer). The name Peninsula Commando matches WP:CRITERIA better, and it would be preferred, unless there's strong evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME was Skiereiland Commando. The term Peninsula would, to most English-speaking people familiar with South Africa clearly indicate the Cape Peninsula, while "Skiereiland" would leave most scratching their heads. Park3r (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there are de jure "official" languages in South Africa, the de facto languages vary by region. During most of the time that this unit was in existence, the only two languages were English and Afrikaans officially, but that region (Cape Province/Western Cape) is a primarily Afrikaans speaking area and the name was primarily the Afrikaans one. Cape Town itself is almost an English enclave in that region. I don't have a personal preference for either, but common usage was definitely for English and Afrikaans alike to refer to the unit by its Afrikaans name. BoonDock (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to establish a common name for this unit due to lack of authoritative sources. This 1977 book uses "Cape Peninsula Commando", this 1950 press digest uses "Peninsula Commando", and this 1990 miliaria book uses "Skiereiland Commando". In this situation, I consider WP:ENGLISH should be applied, and therefore the article should be at "Peninsula Commando", and "Skiereiland Commando" should be a redirect, so should "Cape Peninsula Commando" which is a feasible search term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One request is that the current English page (Peninsula) get's blanked, and the current "Skiereiland" page becomes the new Peninsula page. BoonDock (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are about the same subject then one should obviously redirect to the other. I don't think that AfD is the best place to decide which should be the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skiereiland Commando. That article is older so just to keep it simple, make the newer page a redirect to the older one and if the name is "wrong" then start an RM if necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 08:50, 10 February 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. Participants agreed that that a topic along similar lines might be suitable for a stand-alone article, but there was a consensus that this topic in its current framing and with its current sources (or the lack thereof, leading inevitably to OR) should not be included in Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the nineteenth century

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

All or most of the article appears to be original research and it seems unlikely it could ever achieve a standard of verifiability.

The vague sources cited at the top of the list section do not provide this data. It looks like it might be based on the "Maddison Project", but even when looking at the full documents there the numbers can't be found (which means they were somehow decided by editors), and the project itself says that its own data cannot be taken at face value (see link). The "Methodology" section of the article, especially the last paragraph, clearly reads as an explanation of the article's own original research.

Even if a properly sourced list is possible, it would require a completely rewritten and re-sourced article, which seems unlikely. As there are no precise and reliable records of GDPs in the 19th century, any such list would be necessarily incomplete and the data itself subject to academic debate, so I would question whether it belongs on Wikipedia at all. R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Lists. R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all kinds of wrong with this article. There are some sources, most I find are estimates, mostly for the big powers at the time. Most of what we have now is OR and we'd have to blank the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is potentially a valid topic but the detailed data relates to 1879/80 so that it should be List of countries by GDP (PPP) in 1880. The situation of countries in 1880 may be quite different from that in 1800, particularly where considerable industrialisation took place in the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now: Potentially helpful and suitable list for an encyclopedia, but the sources just aren't there for Wikipedia to provide a definitive, scholarly answer. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just googled this subject because it was a genuine question I had for other research. If the sources are bad, remove them. Deletion is not cleanup. I think we can explain in the text the problems of calculating such a figure, which would explain why the list is rather short. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the entirety of the sources are bad... then everything is unverifiable and unsuitable for mainspace. Deletion is not cleanup, but WP:TNT still applies. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One (problematic) number per country for an entire century? Really dubious. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaptainEek. NYC Guru (talk) 12:22, 14 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by K. S. Chithra

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs isn't as notable - fact is the majority of films are notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially the same reason as before. This is a huge structured list which virtually no effective references. 9 references in the whole 80k article, all to the films. Completely unfiltered, no way to know what is notable and what is not. No historical value. Content has been copied unfiltered from Wikipedia and streaming sites and clickbait/discogs style sites. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:V and WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14. It is essentially a click and paste article scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per User:scope_creep. BD2412 T 02:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that the intersection of Malayalam songs and K. S. Chithra is a notable one; see WP:CROSSCAT. No evidence that the topic itself has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject; see WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. No evidence that the list is anything other than original research and appears to be largely unverifiable; see WP:V and WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:34, 12 February 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) 13:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly notable as a list, nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. If by then no sources are found then I believe the right course of action would be redirecting it to the main list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it so happens that the nominator has decided to carry out a massive deletion of most lists of songs recorded by Indian singers with the same message, but I do not understand why they were not at least grouped then into one AfD. I see that the following articles are nominated as well:
We have now a few dozens of Indian lists nominated for deletion. Is there any admin here who can help with this messy situation which will confuse everyone and will inevitably create varying results? Maybe Liz could help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Combined WP:BLP and LIST article. The BLP may be notable, but the list fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. No effective sources on the list. It is an unfiltered copy and paste article. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these lists of songs of notable Indian singers are acceptable but the lists badly need reformatting, information and sources. I would be in favour of having condensed lists of more notable songs with emphasis on the songs rather than the films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Artist doesn't have an article either. SBKSPP (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: What do you mean? K. S. Chithra. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Dr. Blofeld and Vanamonde. Chithra is a notable singer; this does meet NLIST; NDATABASE doesn't apply; AfD is not cleanup. Ingratis (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by K. J. Yesudas

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly notable as a list, nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't quite understand this nomination - the list is sourced, and is not as excessive (considering the fact that sometimes the claim was that are too many of them). WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here. It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective sourced. Indiscrimate list of information that fails WP:V, WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV. Copy and paste article. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been sucked into this mess, I decided to research one of the articles being discussed. Here, I am a keep and prune to sourceable entries. The singer is, by all accounts, a household name: he has received India's second highest civilian award. More importantly, his music as a body of work has received plenty of coverage, this ~~and a "History of Indian Cinema" by Renu Saran (I'm unable to link to it because the spam blacklist appears to be blocking a google-books result)~~ being just the quickest examples I could find. LISTN is met. Furthermore, K. J. Yesudas discography is a large article, and merging this there isn't reasonable for length reasons; so keeping this is the only option. That said; there are probably 30-50,000 songs being discussed here, and I'm not sure that listing all of them is reasonable, per NOTDIR; so I would suggest restricting the scope to songs that can be sourced to non-database sources. Even with that restriction, individual entries should not be difficult to source; the music of major films typically gets substantive coverage in the news media. Finally, if the list is pruned and it turns out length is not a barrier, I don't object to a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Striking source found to be unreliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are taking all this too seriously. These "discussions" have nothing whatever to do with whether the information (or part of it) can be included and so improve the encyclopedia. It is simply people taking pot shots at each other in a way that seems to me pretty harmless. Whether the articles get deleted or not will be mostly arbitrary but this will make little difference to anything overall. These discussions simply do not matter. Thincat (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you saying editors shouldn't do research when participating in discussions at AfD? Why are you here, then? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't saying that but, on your second question, my remark wasn't constructive and it would have been better if I hadn't said anything at all. These days I hardly ever contribute at AfD. When I do it is when there seems to me to be a significant issue. Thincat (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per User:scope_creep. BD2412 T 02:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These "list of songs recorded by (artist)" articles are supposed to function similarly to WP:NAV templates, so when you've got a massive list of songs with no article of their own, and little context, it defeats the purpose. The article is 100% unlinked song titles and about 99% unsourced, so it lacks much of a function beyond name dropping a ton of songs titles without any real context. Not opposed to draftifying if someone plans on taking it on, but I don't particularly expect that to happen organically in the article space, considering how stagnant it was in its 6 months of existence, and now its primary contributor and creator is indeffed too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - largely as per Vanamonde. I wasn't going to !vote here but the above is so odd that I feel obliged to. Yesudas is an extremely notable singer; this does meet NLIST; NDATABASE doesn't apply; AfD is not cleanup. Ingratis (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion on the notability of Yesudas though, it's a discussion on whether or not this unsourced, poorly conceived list article was necessary. Your stance as is veers into WP:NOTINHERITED territory. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: It is definitely not inherited notability; we're not arguing for the notability of individual songs, but of his body of work, which isn't in question. I'm recommending pruning this list to entries for which context can be provided, but the list itself is quite appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as this looks like it'll be kept, it might be best to merge this article with List of Hindi songs recorded by K. J. Yesudas into a new article called List of songs recorded by K. J. Yesudas with all of the unverifiable stuff removed, which will be the majority of it. My concern is WP:V. Where did the people building this article actually get all of the content from and was the source reliable? We don't know. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a merger. If we are pruning to songs with verifiable information from secondary sources, as we should, length should no longer be an issue. If it is, re-splitting shouldn't be difficult. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It'll be hard to justify conceptually keeping some of these lists and not others when they all seem to have the same arguments for and against them, and really only varies slightly in participants. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Geeta Dutt

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly notable as a list, nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable artist. She is known to atleast 25% of the globe's population. Has sung over 1,500 songs across the languages. One of the 50 most prolific singers of all time and mamy of her songs are available and traceable in the internet, databases such as hindigeetmala.org or muvyz.com. Abbasulu (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:V, WP:SIGCOV. A copy/pasted article with no historical or enclyclopedic value, merely an indiscriminate list of entries with no effective sources. Fails WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14. For the average reader it is impossible to tell what is notable and what is not. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per User:scope_creep. BD2412 T 02:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Artist doesn't have an article either. SBKSPP (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense - see Geeta Dutt. You are clearly not looking hard enough... Ingratis (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wasn't going to !vote here but the above is so ridiculous that I feel obliged to. GD is a (very) notable singer; this does meet NLIST; NDATABASE doesn't apply; AfD is not cleanup. Ingratis (talk) 12:36, 16 February 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. The WP:V concerns clinched this for me. Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil songs recorded by K. S. Chithra

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs isn't as notable - fact is the majority of films are notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "no consensus", with the following closure statement. I believe this statement still applies, but rather than waste community time there just to reopen these, I'm relisting it. I'm copying my closure statement as I feel the commentary is relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence to suggest that this is a relevant intersection worthy of a Wikipedia article (see WP:CROSSCAT). Also worth noting that the list is contrary to WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has less participation than the others, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Spiderone. The article has three sources, one of them (The Times of India) being situational per WP:RSP and the other (Filmibeat) being unreliable (it's considered to be non-RS per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, so I doubt it would be reliable for music-related content). My WP:BEFORE could not find additional sources to meet WP:NLIST and WP:V for this article. VickKiang (talk) 22:16, 9 February 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 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election. Joyous! | Talk 21:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Trussell

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

Almost all coverage is in the context of their failed run for Illinois lieutenant governor; not notable outside of that so should be redirected to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election with any relevant details merged. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election Fails WP:NPOL. Candidates are not notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge and redirect to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election, per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, so a standalone article is not justifiable at the present time. Sal2100 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, the nom is not describing a plain redirect. If you are agreeing with the nominator, you are suggesting a "merge." They aren't the same thing. Joyous! | Talk 06:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting. I have modified my !vote based on your clarification. Sal2100 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively as suggested. Easy way out. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Finch

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

Fictional character with insufficient sourcing and significance to have an article separate from the existing content at List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. BD2412 T 17:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. BD2412 T 17:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, and there is no sourced content to merge. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Barnes (Upstairs, Downstairs): Article's subject fails WP:GNG and doesn't warrant a standalone article, but the "List of..." article is a reasonable redirect target. - Aoidh (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Barnes (Upstairs, Downstairs)

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

Fictional character with insufficient sourcing and significance to have an article separate from the existing content at List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. BD2412 T 17:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. BD2412 T 17:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, and there is no content that comes from independent, reliable sources to merge. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Article's subject fails WP:GNG and doesn't warrant a standalone article, but the "List of..." article is a reasonable redirect target. - Aoidh (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Worsley

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

Fictional character with insufficient sourcing and significance to have an article separate from the existing content at List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. BD2412 T 17:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. BD2412 T 17:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, and there is no referenced content to merge. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Barnes (Upstairs, Downstairs): Article's subject fails WP:GNG and doesn't warrant a standalone article, but the "List of..." article is a reasonable redirect target. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 10 February 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 Web browser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Browser synchronization

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

This should fail notability. All (but one) sources are primary sources, and I sincerely do not think this topic is significant enough to gurantee a standalone article. Milky Defer 11:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Milky Defer 11:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a very minor feature nowadays since it's in every web browser; not exactly cutting-edge. Support redirecting without merge to Web browser (nothing worth merging). DFlhb (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 19:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the definition sentence(s) to Web browser. The phrase "sync service" is there, pipelinked to the article in question, but the idea isn't actually explained. Joyous! | Talk 18:21, 11 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Kyriakou

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

Played 2 games of football eight years ago but has done nothing at the professional level since. My searches failed to establish WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find are 24sports, Lemesos in Sports and Phile News, all of which are transfer/loan announcements with very little detail and nothing that can be used to expand this beyond the stats stub that it currently is. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Just not notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 19:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Pietroszek

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and academic, not properly sourcing any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for filmmakers or academics. The notability claim here is that he and his work exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him and his work -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Poland, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how he meets WP:NBIO. Just someone doing their job/having some career, but not yet at a level to be written about in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails all criteria of WP:ACADEMIC for notability and no other claim to notability either. Jeppiz (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:11, 15 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 19:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Portrait (upcoming film)

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

A film with same title was just announced so I was checking Wikipedia to see if page exist or as a draft. I found this film page that was written in 2016, and still is "upcoming". No proof that filming has occurred and if so, I do not feel it meets the notability criteria. It was once PROD back in August 2022 by an IP user, but did not fill in a reason for deletion. So it was removed and now only eligible for AfD. Mike Allen 18:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 18:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing suggesting film has been or will ever be released. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still described as "upcoming" in Elena Vladimir Baranof's website autobiography: [1] over 6 years after principal photography was scheduled to commence; this falls under WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreleased film lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore not passing WP:GNG at this stage, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Homes Realty

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company, article has been deleted twice (previous AFDs). Does not meet CSD criteria because the sources have changed since the last deletion. However, the new sources provide no support for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Summary of the refs at the time of nomination:

PR release from company, not sigcov of it
About Don Logan selling his property, not sigcov of the company
PR release from company, not sigcov of it
Real estate listings of properties for sale
No mention of company
No mention of company
No mention of company
No mention of company
Brief mention
Real estate listings of properties for sale

If this AFD results in deletion, I also propose WP:SALT. Schazjmd (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible CSD G4?): An article by a new 11-edits-then-create-in-mainspace WP:SPA covering the same ground as the articles deleted twice before. As I said in the July 2022 nomination, I can't see the July 2020 deleted article, but the current instance looks similar to last summer's and falls under the same points covered in that deletion decision. No reason to overturn these past decisions about lack of notability and WP:SALT would seem reasonable at this time. AllyD (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. —Alalch E. 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was nothing notable last time and still nothing. Salt as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and Salt as per nom. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. This clearly, based on the analysis of sources, that this is just spam. I am in accord with deterring for-profit sales persons and companies from using and abusing our not-for-profit status. It's 2023, and everyone knows what we are and are not. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recommend close — not much of a debate here. My reasoning for deletion is similar to the other editors above. No need to artifically draw this AfD out. KlayCax (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tough call, but ultimately non-notable by GNG and NCORP guidelines. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:31, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 18:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamos Chatzigeorgiou

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

No evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC has been presented and nothing found in searches in Greek. Google News has 2 hits, both of which are trivial mentions in lists of footballers in Kerkida. Please note that I am rejecting any coverage from Anorthosis24, or other Anorthosis fan sites, as SPORTBASIC says that [fan] sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. With this in mind, the best sources that I can find are Sigma Live, which mentions him twice, and Kerkida, a basic contract announcement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator that no SIGCOV is available online, and article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:29, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 18:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay

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

Fails WP:GNG.

Apparently known for attacking Muslims on Direct Action Day, the article on Direct Action Day makes no mention of this person.

Unreliable and partisan sources from 21st century apparently provide trivial coverage about this person but they appear to be looking for a folk hero than providing any actual fact-based coverage about the person. Editorkamran (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hinduism, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. Editorkamran (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than trivial coverage comes from blacklisted unreliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the nomination fails WP:GNG, and no significant coverage. QueerEcofeminist🌈 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete this article. Its true event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.123.2 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 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 Unsure. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and apparently action has already been taken on this article, rendering a closure moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Woods

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

Proposing a merger between the Bryan Woods and Scott Beck articles. The two seem to work together exclusively save for Woods' first credits on Her Summer, and coverage in both articles reflects that exclusive relationship. Both articles are already mostly verbatim copies of each other anyway; it looks like the only big change would be the title (I'm thinking Scott Beck and Bryan Woods since sources consistently order their names that way), lead, and having multiple infoboxes or a combined one. QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iowa. QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not how you normally propose a merger. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the number of times I've proposed a merger on an article's talk page and seen it go nowhere for months, it just doesn't seem like a viable option. And since this technically would involved redirecting both articles to a new one it maybe kinda counts a little? I know that's a stretch, I'm just tired of seeing discussions languish simply because of the venue they're held in. QuietHere (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend withdrawing this nomination...and then being BOLD and proceeding with the merge. Yes, redirecting to the newly merged page would naturally be a part of that BOLD move. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest with you, I had assumed the merger process would involve more than just copy-pasting and didn't want to try and learn a whole new procedure, but now that I'm looking at WP:MERGETEXT it looks much more doable than I had figured. Gonna give it a try now and if it works out then I'll withdraw. QuietHere (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, article is now live at Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. Came together nicely methinks. Guess that means this is withdrawn now. @Emir of Wikipedia @Cielquiparle thanks for showing up! QuietHere (talk) 16:59, 10 February 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!} 02:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cocktails named after New York City boroughs

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

New York trivia. I don't think coverage by Secret NYC is sufficient to establish the notability of the topic or WP:LISTN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and New York. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I love New York trivia, unfortunately this topic may not be encyclopedic per WP:CROSSCAT. The list is already pretty short, as there are only five cocktails named after New York City's boroughs, four of which already have their own articles. The fifth borough, Staten Island, is without a cocktail that bears its name directly, according to the article itself. I should note that, per WP:NOPAGE, I'd be inclined to keep this list if the cocktails didn't have their own articles, since at least two of the cocktails clearly pass GNG; this is why I'm only !voting "weak delete". The Staten Island Ferry cocktail isn't notable on its own, but I assume it's listed here because of WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also apparently neighborhood-named drinks, see [2][3]. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 15:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a couple listicles, but this isn't really a thing that needs grouping as a notable relationship. Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this information is already covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drinks_named_after_places so it is duplicative

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:06, 9 February 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) 17:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjitha Menon

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject seems non-notable as she has never done a lead role, as i noted. Most of the references are Non-RS. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has acted in more than 3 films so far and had acted as heroine / lead role in 2 movies namely Saajan Bakery Since 1962 ^[1]^[2]and Pathrosinte Padappukal ^[3]^[4] as per the news articles referenced in the article. Her role in the movies are critically-acclaimed in movie reviews as well. Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Jehowahyereh CT55555(talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does doing lead role in Some of the films makes a person notable? --- Misterrrrr (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Speedy delete: Article was draftified earlier in the day, then copy-paste recreated by primary editor. Small edit war followed, then AFD. Copy-paste is an unacceptable response to an article being draftified. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post that, the draft should be reviewed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the editor who draftified it and tagged speedy delete after draftying it, so moving back to the orginal page was not possible,so I did manual revert. and there was no edit further for an edit war. The person who draftified it is relatevely a new editor who started his account in 2022 and did the wrong thing. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't have to do that. There are other procedures (such as WP:RM/TR) to effect those changes. Copy-paste is never the correct response to this. When confronted by "I can't do this", the best recourse is to ask someone else who might know how to get it done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okie, so is there any request that can be given to reinstate the edit history? Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The process would be to delete the article, and put the draft up for review. Continue editing on the draft (are the references and assertions of notability above in the draft?) and I expect the draft will be accepted, and that will resolve everything. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, like I'd mentioned, WP:RM/TR. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is based on the false premise that she hasn't performed a lead role. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Subject passes WP:GNG? --- Misterrrrr (talk) 14:06, 13 February 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta

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

I can't check that this subject even passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. He is a son of notable politician, but notability isn't inherited. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Asia, India, and Gujarat. Misterrrrr (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Dear sir, the subject is the president of a registered political party of India. Subject have contested many elections including 3 Parliament constituency elections and 4 Assembly constituency elections and also the subject is an author of a book therefore in my opinion subject is notable so i request you please do not delete this page. i will improve this page by adding more references. Info.apsharma (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a COI regarding this article? being president of a political party doesnot establish notability in any way, either he have to pass Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:NPOL. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have COI regarding this article. I have added new references of reliable media sources about the subject so please check them. Subject have a significant coverage of reliable and trusted media which can be verified therefore it passes notability norms of wikipedia. Info.apsharma (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidacy does not qualify under WP:NPOL. WP is not a forum to promote a candidate. When the subject is elected to an international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, resubmit the article. Rhadow (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Please check new references added by me. Subject have a significant coverage of reliable media sources therefore it passes the notability norms of wikipedia WP:NPOL Info.apsharma (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced for a politician's biography. It has 19 references which clearly tells everything about his notability. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Valiaveetil, references has to pass Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:NPOL --- ~~~~ Misterrrrr (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ok. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)~~ (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: Being candidate of any election doesn't passes notability. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Subject is not only a candidate but also a president of a registered political party of India. Subject is also an author of a book. Subject is campaigning for more than two decade to get more rights to the citizen of India and have a significant coverage of reliable and trusted media sources. Please check new references added by me. therefore subject passes the norms of notability. Info.apsharma (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Info.apsharma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Please check new references added by me. Subject have a significant coverage of reliable media sources which can be verified therefore subject passes the WP:NPOL Info.apsharma (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Info.apsharma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta is a well known politician, he is founder/president of a political party. Also he has been covered by various news outlets so in my view he passes the notability criteria(Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]) to get a wikipedia page.

Newslinks

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/this-iit-graduate-makes-right-to-recall-his-poll-plank/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/karnataka-government-drafting-right-to-recall-bill-for-rural-voters/articleshow/45268938.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErKapilBishnoi (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page with the name Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta is an authentic page with all correct information and must not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatnaamKaur1983 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Comment moved from top of page by Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is well known in activist circle and even mentioned by several national news portals thus passes the notability criteria by common logic. Also number of views on the article in such a small span of time shows the people's curiosity and interest in him.Jatin1219 (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Jatin1219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Misterrrrr (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep :~~ As the Subject has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Therefore it passes notability norms of wikipedia WP:NPOL Info.apsharma (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Info.apsharma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has significance in Indian politics and press coverage. Which can be easily verified. I think it should be on Wikipedia. Because it is as per general notability (GNG) guidelines. 150.242.75.51 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — 150.242.75.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~:- 10 indipendent national media articles are enough for a person to be considered notable according to WP:NPOLITICIAN policy. Jatin1219 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Jatin1219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Jatin1219 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check new references and citations added by me about the subject Info.apsharma (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. I am also concerned by the number of times Info.apsharma has offered their opinion that their work be retained. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to you subject don't passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. But can u check that subject passes the general notability guideline WP:GNG as it have a significant media coverage of reliable media sources which is independent of the subject. in my opinion subject passes WP:GNG. Info.apsharma (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta passes criteria for general notability because he has received coverage in various independent and reputable news outlets^[1]^[2]. Also he has been cited in the technical paper on how Indian EVMs can be hacked^[3].— Preceding unsigned comment added by ErKapilBishnoi (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: ErKapilBishnoi (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "This IIT graduate makes right to recall his poll plank". The Indian Express. 2010-10-08. Retrieved 2023-02-11.
^ Aji, Sowmya (2014-11-25). "Karnataka government drafting right to recall bill for rural voters". The Economic Times. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2023-02-11.
^ India EVM, India EVM. "India EVM" (PDF).

User:ErKapilBishnoi cast two bolded votes (1, 2), which is inappropriate. However, unless I'm missing something, User:Jatin1219 then proceeded to remove my strikethrough per this diff, in addition to casting double votes. Jatin1219, could you please have a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta is an Good Law Knowledge Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkumar141014 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Sumitkumar141014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦[reply]
Comment: This discussion has been plagued by duplicate !votes, and by single purpose accounts. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErKapilBishnoi is in progress and will close soon, but the work of the CU shows no direct linkage. I have done my best to flag the SPAs and the Duplicate Votes. I apologise to the closing admin if if have missed any 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons in the nomination. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply.

you have stated that it fails WP:NPOLITICIAN but can you please check people can still be notable if if they meet the general notability guideline as stated in WP:NPOLITICIAN

section. So I request you to please check the subject on this parameter WP:GNG as the subject have a significant media coverage from different reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks. Info.apsharma (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG also in my view. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be WP:BLUDGEON behaviour by editor Info.apsharma. If they continue on this path it will be visit to the WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he passes WP:GNG since he has received significant news coverage, for ex:

1. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/this-iit-graduate-makes-right-to-recall-his-poll-plank/

2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/karnataka-government-drafting-right-to-recall-bill-for-rural-voters/articleshow/45268938.cms

3. https://www.news18.com/assembly-elections-2022/gujarat/ghatlodia-election-result-s06a041/

4. https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-gandhinagar-lok-sabha-constituency-candidates-for-2019-ls-poll-past-results-all-updates-2741265

In addition, he has also been featured in [another wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend#Citizen's_dividend_proposal_in_India). Vinamrsachdeva

(talk) 09:23, 16 February 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 Revelation. Joyous! | Talk 16:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completed revelation

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

The article is very short, and only concerns two denominations (the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). And the Eastern Orthodox part is not even present in the article. The respective opinions of those denominations is could be treated at their respective articles. This article is not useful, nor does it meet WP:GNG.

Therefore, I propose the article be either deleted, or BLARed to Revelation. Veverve (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Revelation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate topic, but not worth preserving in its present state. Merge to Revelation. Jahaza (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revelation as not enough content and coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 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. Majority of participators believe it should be kept, with one weak delete vote. Timothytyy (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Cole (architect)

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

Previously an unsourced BLP, it now has a source, but I can't find anything substantial that would allow this person to pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Though he was president of the RSUA he appears to have been an architect in the Civil Service, so unlikely to have been creating notable works of architecture during his career. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. Sionk (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CBE, so meets WP:ANYBIO #1. We have generally considered that anyone with a CBE or above meets that threshold. Honours at this level are not common (about 200 are awarded every year in a country of 66 million) and clearly indicate notability. Plus, as president of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects he is clearly a very notable architect. Also an honorary professor at Queen's University of Belfast, which adds to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see how WP:BASIC is met. Perhaps because the subject's name isn't especially unique, but my own WP:BEFORE did not return significant reliable/independent biographical coverage of the subject (almost everything I can find is in press releases or CV-like summaries from organisations/sources with which the subject appears to have an association). In terms of WP:ANYBIO, while the subject was seemingly recognised with a CBE in the 2013 Birthday Honours list, so were dozens and dozens of other people (or hundreds and hundreds if we include the 2013 New Year Honours). These many hundreds of people (or many tens of thousands over the years) are not all automatically notable. Not absent the significant biographical coverage in independent/secondary sources. (Per ANYBIO, "meeting one or more [examples] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote your edit summary: Being a recipient of a CBE doesn't automatically confer notability. If it does, many tens of thousands of charity workers and soup kitchen coordinators and sports administrators and business people and civil servants are automatically notable. And I don't see how that follows... No, about 200 CBEs are awarded every year. Many more OBEs and MBEs, which are lower honours, are awarded, but nobody is saying they're notable per WP:ANYBIO. The CBE, however, is much more unusual. As I have said many times before, it does help if you actually understand the honours system before commenting on it. These people are awarded the CBE because they are considered to be notable people who have done notable things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure why you're picking up my throw-away edit summary comment, rather than my actual !vote recommendation, but if 200 CBEs are awarded every year, and they've been awarded annually for (what?) 100 years(?), that's still 20,000 or so awards. In any event, regardless of whether I understood "the honours system before commenting on it", what is relevant here is Wikipedia policy. Rather than the UK honours system. And, per WP:ANYBIO, receiving a notable honour/award doesn't make for automatic notability. Per the policy, "meeting one or more [of the 'additional criteria', like ANYBIO] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The 'additional criteria' (like ANYBIO) may contribute to notability, but do not establish it automatically. BASIC/SIGCOV still, surely, needs to be met. And I'm not seeing that it does. As all the coverage I can find is from sources with which the subject appears to have a connection. Otherwise, in all honesty, I really do not understand the apparent implication that, when a CBE is awarded, it automatically makes the recipient notable under this project's notability criteria. (John Keelty [of HMRC], for example, was named alongside Cole in the 2013 "Birthday" CBE list for "services to Improving Tax Systems". Is Keelty automatically notable? Because ANYBIO is met? Certainly not to my read of the entirety of WP:NBIO.) My recommendation remains unchanged. And won't be until additional independent sources (including those found by the WP:BEFORE efforts of those contributing here) are surfaced. And ideally added to the article. Or here perhaps. Guliolopez (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CBE should be a high enough award for notability. He's also regarded as an expert in his field, for example: respected construction and procurement industry expert and procurement industry expert Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Necrothesp. Recipents of CBE meets WP:ANYBIO#1. Shoerack (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather poor article, but a CBE is enough for notability. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Unless Consensus has changed, I think it's precedent that CBEs are notable. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CBE clinches it. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:58, 15 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfio Bruno Tempera

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Having worked as a property master in film is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about his work in that role -- but the only notability claim attempted here is that he won a lifetime achievement award at a minor film festival whose awards still aren't "inherent" notability clinches without sourcing, and the article has been tagged for referencing problems for a full decade without ever having any references added.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Italy. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:25, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joerg Steineck

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. The notability claim here is that his work exists, and the article claims absolutely nothing (e.g. major film awards) that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability, but the article is completely unsourced and has been tagged for that problem for over a decade without improvement.
As I can't read German and don't have access to databases of archived German media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have access to such resources can find sufficient coverage to salvage the article -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, and the lack of an article on the German Wikipedia (where a genuinely notable German filmmaker would clearly be expected to have an article) doesn't fill me with much hope. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like glorified resume and the only semi-notable work is the documentary on the Swedish band Truckfighters, which is far from satisfying WP:BLP and with it being unsourced for a decade, I really don't understand how this can be salvaged. It looks like some more fancruft was added in January mentioning a documentary on Joe Scofield and two upcoming movies, though, again, without any sources. Assuming that sources in German are found, they still will need to verify WP:GNG due to lack of inherent notability as mentioned by the nominator. Strong delete. Ppt91 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm fixing the German Wikipedia entry of the filmmaker atm. Is there any way to "re-animate" and source the previously existing page? Or do I have to recreate it?- I'm pretty new here, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks! Geeker7 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 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 and redirect to The Spelling Bee Ghana#List of winners. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N’Adom Darko-Asare

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

WP:BLP1E of a young woman with no strong claim to enduring permanent notability. The notability claim here is that she won a spelling bee competition, which is not grounds for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia as it fails the ten year test for enduring significance -- and while there are a couple of genuinely reliable sources here, the article is also heavily reference bombed to a lot of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And we also have an established rule that due to the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm to its subject (e.g. becoming a magnet for vandalism or attack editing), we have to be especially vigilant and strict about the notability of children.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article at all as of right now. It isn't our role to necessarily keep an article about every single person who gets their name into the current news cycle at all — we consider enduring and long-term notability, not just recent newsiness, and winning a student spelling bee is not of any enduring long-term significance in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thanks for the information above. daSupremo

15:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no durable notability with WP:REFBOMBing galore. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even looking at the refs used in the article, there are PR news relesaes, the Ghana Oil Company (?) and some coverage. I'm not seeing GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Spelling Bee Ghana#List of winners. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The young woman ticks the notability and relevance boxes. She won in the 2022 and historically wins the 2023 edition of The Spelling Bee Ghana competition. She represents Ghana at the international stage and this can be compared with other outdoor activities where young people [athletes] represent their countries in the international front like the Olympics.

On issues about citation overkill, that can be easily revised. The references provided are basically reporting on the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uprising Man (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this young girl meets the basic threshold of notability, the spelling bee is one of the world's notable event for young spellers. There can be improvements made to the article yes but it needs to stay.Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who, ten or twenty years from now, is going to be looking for information about past winners of spelling bees? Again, like I already said, our role here is not to indiscriminately keep an article about everybody who gets their name into the current news cycle at all regardless of the context in which they did it — our role is to consider the enduring historic importance of people's accomplishments, and to create articles only about the people whose accomplishments cross the line into enduring significance. Officeholders, not unelected candidates; writers who win major literary awards, not every writer whose book merely exists; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as per Clarityfiend. Clear case of BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Spelling Bee Ghana#List of winners. Joyous! | Talk 15:59, 16 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emantras

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP - sourced to press releases and interviews. KH-1 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP - the external links are merely examples of trivial coverage. This reads as spam. I am tried of folks claiming they don't know that not a web host, which is untenable in 2023. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. Obvious advertisement. Good quality, reliable, non-self published sources are near-nonexistent. KlayCax (talk) 21:07, 14 February 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!} 02:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anob of Armenia

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

Anob is not mentioned in any of the cited sources, or indeed in any sources. Most of the article has nothing to do with the subject. Revolution Saga (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Armenia. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find significant coverage. Carpimaps (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these are the same person, discussed in context of the Roman or ancient Greek world [4], [5], [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources highlighted by Oaktree din’t discuss the subject at all, they just mention him. A bio article can’t be based on such sources, especially when practically no details of his life are known. The fact that he had notable relatives doesn’t make him notable. (The first and third of Oaktree’s sources are the same book in any case). Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything to suggest notability. CT55555(talk) 01:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lonsdale

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Armenia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found coverage on PanARMENIAN.Net: [7][8][9][10] and Media.am [11]. In addition to that I found coverage on other Armenian websites as well: [12][13][14][15][16] including the official government websites: [17][18]. Carpimaps (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied by the evidence found by Carpimaps. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:40, 14 February 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!} 09:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Marschall Jones

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Article also has one reference which is not third party. Uhooep (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure that being a British diplomat is automatic grounds for notabilit. I have not found reliable sources for the person.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Armenia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find reliable sources for this person. Tried newspapers.com, Jstor, Google, etc. Carpimaps (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 10 February 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!} 09:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cantor

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Armenia, United Kingdom, and Paraguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a diplomat and per poor sourcing I cannot find the reason for keeping the subject on Wikipedia. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:52, 13 February 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!} 09:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese International School Manila

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL or better to redirect to the List of Global Schools Foundation schools. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Global Schools Foundation schools. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per above arguments. Nothing found during a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined to go for a weak delete, especially when comparing this school against International School Manila, British School Manila or the Eurocampus Manila which are arguably the more established and more notable international schools in the Philippines. There are a handful of international schools in the Philippines, but are probably not as well known even in the country. I can also see a counterargument that this should be kept just because the president is the wife of a well-known celebrity, but I'm not convinced of the value of that argument in favor of a keep. I'm also not sure of the redirect, as it doesn't seem that this school is a full member of that group, it's only listed as a "partner school". --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found [19] and [20]. However, the first source only says two sentences about the school and the second source is very promotional in tone and it looks like what it says about the school is a slight modified version of the school's about page. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:27, 16 February 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!} 09:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight School Seoul

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL or better to redirect to the List of Global Schools Foundation schools. RPSkokie (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Korea. RPSkokie (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 16 February 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!} 09:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regents International School Pattaya

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL or better to redirect to the List of Global Schools Foundation schools. RPSkokie (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Thailand. RPSkokie (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 16 February 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!} 09:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regent International School (The Greens)

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL or better to redirect to the List of Global Schools Foundation schools. RPSkokie (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United Arab Emirates. RPSkokie (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Article lacking independent sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 16 February 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!} 08:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Indian International School, Hyderabad Campus

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL or better to redirect to the List of Global Schools Foundation schools. RPSkokie (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 16 February 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 Virgin New Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-Consuming Fire

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

I've tried to improve this article as much as I can, but I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, almost every reference to the book is a trivial mention (talking about the crossover element of the story). The only source that appears to have significant coverage is Doctor Who Magazine. Since there's only one source, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin New Adventures. ISFDB lists two reviews that are not yet cited in the article. The one in Dragon is accessible here and it's a capsule review. Presuming the other is as well (I couldn't find it online), I don't think there's quite enough to justify a standalone article, but the non-plot elements could be incorporated in the series article. Jfire (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virgin New Adventures. I dont think there are enough sources to pass GNG, but this book has good reason to be merged.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:18, 14 February 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. SpinningSpark 15:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalapathy 67

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

Upcoming film that does not meet the requirements of WP:NFF. No reliable independent coverage of the film production yet, only announcements. Does not have a 'confirmed' release date either.

Propose to incubate in draft until it meets the notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:NFF, Films have to be confirmed by reliable Sources and principal photography should've begun before Creating its own Article.

Film has been confirmed and the official cast list has been released https://www.moviecrow.com/News/31651/thalapathy-67-mysskin-gautham-menon-arjun https://twitter.com/Dir_Lokesh?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/thalapathy-67-character-artists-details-revealed.html And With the Movie Pooja Shooting has begun officially. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tamil-cinema/vijay-trisha-come-together-for-pooja-ahead-of-thalapathy-67-shoot-fans-react-101675262440943.html https://twitter.com/UrsVamsiShekar/status/1620762831145811969?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet KCCian24 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFF goes onto to say "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This has not been demostrated either by the article, nor the sources.

Merely writing a line 'Principal photography commenced on 2 January 2023' does NOT meant the criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the film may not be "notable" yet, it seems inevitable given its well-known cast that it will be noteworthy upon its release. It'd be silly to delete the article knowing that it will have to be re-created soon. I propose the article be left intact and improved as new information is released. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

may not be "notable" yet- Indeed, please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's self-evident that the movie is noteworthy (see the updated information released since this discussion begun). It would be silly and counterproductive to delete an article that we all know will have to be re-created. Let's not allow a word-for-word literal interpretation of policy interfere with basic common sense. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policy exists for a reason and we cannot make exceptions at our will. Also, there's no need to delete and start over. We could drafting this and submit it to AfC once ready. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Et tu, ~~Brutus~~ Ab207? Yes, the article isn't in the best shape, but it can benefit from more sources. And a Vijay film is definitely the most high-profile and therefore satisfies WP:NF. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point as well. Articles like these need to be developed in the draftspace, not mainspace. "definitely the most high-profile"-ness must be shown in the article, not just said. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If shooting has began (as it suggests), then it satisfies WP:NFF.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the NFF carefully, confirmation of shooting is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The production itself should be notable to satisfy NFF which is not demonstrated here. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Countless errors and issues in the page. Please delete and start fresh after the title has been revealed tomorrow. Or at least give some protection on the page as everyone is vandalizing Wallflower2048 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep arguments are weak, fail to take proper consideration of notability guidelines, and rely on speculation. The keep arguments have all been rebutted solidly, using actual, policy and guideline based arguments. This was definitely way WP:TOOSOON. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad Wiki isn't a paying job or way of life for numerous editors who may not have noticed this article. Hopefully they will notice when the title releases today, and they will increase the article size then. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More size ≠ more notable.

The non-delete votes are still based on such reasoning as "wait and see if it becomes notable", "per the reliable sources", "merge based on some speculation from Instagram". None are yet to address WP:NFF at all, which is the relevant notabilty criteria here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing we are looking at a relist here. By "none are yet to address NFF at all", I meant: None have properly addressed the actual requirements of NFF. Some have addressed it, but have avoided parts which would challenge the notability of this article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has 20 sources. Is that not enough? Or are more details needed? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the official producer of the movie - the movie has been titled Leo (and the article's title changed as a result. A 2 minute 49 second promo has released confirming the film and release date. Another update a few hours earlier confirmed the second schedule of filming. All signs are on to it being a noteworthy production (as shown by the 571k Youtube Views announcing the title in 10 minutes as well) and if we can further contribute to the production tab under the present article, I think we could easily convey the same. Athu1 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above points contribute to notability. We need WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, not official info. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And YouTube views do not determine notability, unless it happens to be the most viewed video on YouTube (this one has still got a few billion views to go) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, do you have some coverage in reliable sources to provide here? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - title is now "Leo – Bloody Sweet" - per this article. Someone should change the article title. Lots of coverage on this, and even an official release date (19 October 2023). Wes sideman (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, at least one reliable source covering this film. @Wes sideman: Got any more? And does that meet the requirements of WP:NFILM? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, @Mako001:, you know how to do this. Wes sideman (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman: And does this meet WP:NFF? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - upcoming film of a superstar which is significant and big budget. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM doesn't mention "superstar" or "big budget" as criteria for notability. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film has not been released yet, let's wait and see if it goes well at the reception, keep up, you have enough sources. GeogieTax (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lokesh cinematic universe as it is speculated to have relations to "movie:vikram" though it is not confirmed
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoPnV7OB-XI/?igshid=NjcyZGVjMzk= Nkwp321 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more discussion about whether there are sufficient reliable sources for an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count 20 references to 9 different sources. I think we'd all agree that more are sure to come. I propose that the article be kept. And if there's a problem in regards to sources, it can be addressed in the article's talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies the criteria of WP:NFF. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:07, 16 February 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. While mass shootings in the US are regrettably a dime a dozen and it is as yet unclear whether this will get sustained coverage (unlikely in my opinion) There is clear consensus to "keep" this article. No prejudice to re-nomination should it become evident that there is no ongoing coverage. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normandale Park shooting

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

WP:EVENT notability does not appear supported. There was an initial burst of national coverage (and The Guardian) in February 2022, but this has not developed into a high-profile WP:NCRIME, and there appears to be no effect with a significant or widespread impact supported by in-depth coverage. There also appears to have been some sensational coverage, and there are WP:BLPCRIME issues that even if resolved, do not seem to add support for notability due to the local coverage of a low-profile criminal case. Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Oregon. Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: What are your thoughts on merging/moving the content to Normandale Park? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems WP:UNDUE in that article, because the coverage does not appear to be about the park, it is about a mass shooting that happened near the park. A redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, where it is already listed, seems more appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems fine. The shooter was killed, I don't really know what more they can publish about it; there won't be a trial. No long-term effects from what I can see. It got lost in the news cycle and soon forgotten about. Do we really need an article for every shooting in the USA? Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged shooter was injured, and there is a criminal case that has received some periodic local coverage, but the case appears to be low-profile and without a significant or widespread impact. While some United States mass shootings may be notable based on available coverage, notability for a standalone article for this event does not appear supported by the WP:EVENT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Beccaynr. One dead and five injured. Commonplace, sadly, in the 21st century US. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - precedent shows that mass shootings with with any fatality meet WP's notability criteria. It's not a daily occurrence and there are plenty of articles about events that rarely, if ever receive coverage these days. Sourcing is also adequate. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident made the national news (Wash Post, NY Times) and occurred during a protest against police violence making it atypical. There is sufficient non-local coverage to demonstrate notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WaPo on Feb. 20, 2022, the shooting occurred "near the site of a demonstration planned to protest police violence". There was a brief flurry of national attention, which does not appear to have continued beyond The Guardian report on Feb. 27, 2022 about these types of events generally, that also includes corrections to initial statements from police published in the early sensational reporting, as well as a range of allegations about the suspect. Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the reason explained by @Knightoftheswords281 --MaeseLeon (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, e.g. on January 1, there were eight mass shootings in the US that day, four on January 9, three on January 19 and January 29, etc. The coverage appears to support a redirect to where this event is already mentioned, and no compelling reason has been offered to ignore guidelines and policy in response to the guideline and policy-based reasons (e.g. WP:NOTNEWS, the policy basis for the WP:EVENT guideline, and WP:BLP) to support a deletion/redirect; with regard to the vague wave at 'precedent', the list article suggested as a redirect target seems to demonstrate support for inclusion in that list, not a standalone article, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not typically considered strong support. Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this was a notable mass shooting that interrupted a peaceful racial justice protest. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can certainly be argued it's just another shooting, WP:NOTNEWS, but there are some somewhat interesting bits in this case and in the initial communication afterwards. There was somewhat wide/deep coverage, though the time period could be argued- but it's common for crime stories to become very quiet before a trial. I'm happy to revisit my opinion on "but what about no ongoing coverage" after that. tedder (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. This is not an event that has impact beyond the event itself. As to the argument that it made national news - have you looked at how much content there is in every issue of the NY Times and Washington Post? National news is not = encyclopedic. It has to be more than news, and this isn't. Lamona (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now WP:NORUSH and we will see what comes Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This was making news as recently as about a month ago. Here are some sources that show news coverage over a period of time, which I think is the important thing. I think criminal proceedings have not concluded, so I think this will continue to make news:

This is a "Weak" !vote because:

the coverage is not a lot, especially recently, and
the most recent is a tabloid in style,

About a year has passed since the event, so I am not sure I can say WP:SUSTAINED is met without more time, and without better recent source. But, I think this article is still is overall a net positive to the encyclopaedia. CT55555(talk) 02:25, 14 February 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!} 02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Rathi Gupta

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

Non-notable entrepreneur fails to meet WP:BIO. Primary and unreliable refs with interviews, few of the ToI pages have trivial and routine news coverage. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and India. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourced to a lot of PR profiles. Nothing substantial here. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 9 February 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!} 02:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Maxim Micic

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

No Grammy nom, no chart, and no gold record means subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Of the sources I could find that did not fail WP:SPS, many failed WP:RS and were not independent of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are twelve criteria in WP:MUSICBIO and a person only has to satisfy one of them to be considered notable. This musician flunks all twelve, but your nomination gives the impression that you only considered three before nominating. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Serbia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has a few friendly interviews and product endorsements here and there, but otherwise I can find nothing reliable and significant from the music media, at least under the spelling of his name given here. He's been around for a while but simply hasn't achieved the notice that is necessary for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There seems to be a general feeling that the subject is notable, but even several "keep" !votes signal problems with the article as it stands. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Serial Killers

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

I hate to nominate non-promotional articles by new editors for deletion, especially when the subject matter has merit. I'm sure there's a lot written about fictional serial killers and about serial killers in pop culture. I believe Serial_killer#In_popular_culture is really lacking. However, this article reads like an essay with a lot of original research WP:OR. The sources don't really verify what is being claimed. Half of them don't even mention the term serial killer. Mooonswimmer 01:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable. AfD is not article cleanup. Do the work please, instead of going to AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article has merit and could even rise to GA status. However as this has been brought to AfD, I'm hoping for the WP:HEY effect. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable topic and an article that can be expanded. Should be RM'd to "Serial killers in fiction" as a more general topic name, however. 193.37.240.168 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is clearly notable. I do agree with the idea to rename the article to "Serial killers in fiction". Maybe someone will propose it or be bold once the AfD is over. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Regardless of the fact that the subject is potentially notable, the current article was clearly not ready for main space because, as pointed out in the nomination, it is pretty much entirely comprised of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH right now. The sources very often do not support the statements in the article (for example, there is a paragraph on Norman Bates that makes the claim that "therefore Psycho is currently considered by experts in the field as the pioneer in the use of a serial killer in the world of cinema", a claim that is not backed up at all by either of the citations being used to support it), some of the sources do not actually refer to the idea of serial killers in their discussion making their use in this article complete original research, and only one of them (the crimeculture site, which given their "About Us" description, I have doubts on whether this would count as a reliable source) actually seems to discuss the overall topic that this article is about. The topic may have merit, but until those issues are resolved, it simply should not be in the article main space. It should be sent back to draft to be worked on until these WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues are resolved, and better citations from reliable sources are added that are actually on the topic and back up the statements in the article. The above Keep votes because the topic is "clearly notable" are completely ignoring the fact that notability concerns are not why this article was nominated to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify was what I was initially going with, and I guess I should have gone with it over deletion. I'm considering withdrawing my nomination, draftifying the article, and giving the creator a few tips and reliable sources to start with.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have just gotten more active in AfD recently and I am still learning: is nominating a potentionally notable or clearly notable article for deletion ever justified? In this case, everything from the article's title to the sources cited is problematic and must be reworked. It does not belong in the article mainspace. There is barely anything salvageable. Should draftifying these articles always be my first recourse, or is AfD ever warranted? Mooonswimmer 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is probably the most common reason cited, notability concerns are only one potential reason for bringing an article to AFD (you can see WP:DEL-REASON for examples of other reasons), so yes, it is justified to bring an article on a potentially notable subject to AFD if there are other grounds for deletion. For something like this, however, where it is a clearly good faith effort to create an article on a notable topic that just is not ready, incubation would be a more appropriate alternative then sending to AFD so quickly after its creation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may be something notable on this out there, this is a poorly written piece of WP:OR that meris only WP:TNTing into oblivion, the sooner, the better. This is also inferior to Serial_killer#In_popular_culture, which at leasts cites some academic sources, unless the piece here, which cites, well, Screenrant and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It should be moved to Serial killers in fiction, but it's in no way ready for primetime. It has potential, but clearly isn't there yet and is unencyclopedic in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I believe there is a notable and quality article to be written here. But this is not it. Much of this is WP:OR and unreliable. It needs a severe rewrite with more careful use of sources. WP:TNT applies and a redirect would be another way to allow editors to re-work this over time. Archrogue (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree with the above comments. There's potential for an article here on a notable topic, but it just needs improvement at the moment. At the very least, this could be a listicle. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a notable topic but it needs major rearangement and to be moved to a better name, something like Serial killers in fiction.★Trekker (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to note that this topic (focusing pretty much only on slasher cruft and kill counts) was already deleted in 2021 when it was under the name Film serial killers.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text is reasonably encyclopaediacally written and it has low-quality but passable citations. Sure, there are some criticisms. The table has unclear inclusion criteria, is uncited, and could be iniscriminate. The sourcing could be improved with something more academic such as [21] or [22]. But these are not fatal objections – AFD is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 15:32, 16 February 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 08:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orbis Publishing

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. I did a thorough search WP:BEFORE proposing deletion, including Google, WP:LIBRARY, and newspapers.com, and located no significant coverage. The 1971 Guardian article about partworks is the best available source, and it does not satisfy NCORP requirements, as it is a single source and does not focus on Orbis. At best I can see a merge to De Agostini if someone can locate a suitable source for the acquisition claim (I couldn't even verify that). Jfire (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are reliable sources I found about the subject:
1. Batchelor, Charles (1986-02-06). "UK Company News: BPCC Buys Orbis Books Division". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-02-02. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "British Printing Communication Corporation (BPCC) has bought the books division of Orbis Publishing, a privately-owned producer of art-works for 2.7 m pounds sterling. Orbis's book division, which includes Jancis Robinson, the wine writer and Mary Gilliat, the expert in home design, among its authors, just above broke even on turnover of 8 m pounds sterling in the year ended September 1985. The two sides agreed on the deal just before midnight on Tuesday after four days of negotiations between Mr Robert Maxwell, chairman and chief executive of BPCC, and a team from Orbis. ... Orbis is the British arm of the private-owned Italian publishing house, De Agostini, which claims to be the largest publisher of part-works - illustraded books sold in weekly instalments - in Europe."
2. Laing, David (2014-07-28). "Brian Innes obituary". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-02-02. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "For most of his musical career, Innes held down a series of day jobs in publishing, eventually becoming a founding partner of Orbis Publishing, which became a market leader in partworks in the 1970s and 1980s. As a pianist, he led the Orbis All-Stars, an informal group that played at industry events. After Orbis was sold to Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press, Innes moved to the south of France where he poured out a stream of books, mostly in the true crime genre."
3. Menkes, Vivienne (1989). "Maxwell to close down U.K.'s Macdonald Orbis". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 235. p. 19. ISSN 2150-4008. EBSCOhost 502691598. Retrieved 2023-02-01 – via Google Books.
4. "1986 Publishers Weekly article". Publishers Weekly. 1986. p. 197. Retrieved 2023-02-01 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Back in February, Heller sold Orbis Publishing Ltd. to tycoon Robert Maxwell , and Orbis joined a group recently renamed Pergamon BPCC Publishing Corporation . To take some of the pressure off Maxwell, Heller has been put in charge of ..."
5. Sheridan, Geoffrey (1971-10-22). "World of partworks". The Guardian. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-02-01 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Now the only companies left in the running are ... and Orbis Publishing, which is putting out "World of Wildlife." ... Orbis, who are hoping for 300,000 sales at the start of "World of Wildlife," will be delighted if 50,000 readers are still hanging on by issue ten."
I oppose deletion. Potential merge targets are De Agostini, Pergamon Press, and Maxwell Communication Corporation (which was previously known as British Printing & Communications Corporation).
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a merge. 2, 4, and 5 all appear to be passing mentions. I can't access 3. 1 is a good source (but insufficient for WP:NCORP), and suggests Maxwell Communication Corporation is the best merge target. Jfire (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly a notable company in its day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, incorporating the sources Cunard has cited above to show notability. Letdorf (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Agree with Jfire: a merger into Maxwell Communication Corporation would solve the obvious NCORP issues for the Orbis article and improve the MCC one. — Trey Maturin™ 18:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, the corporate history is tortuous and has an impact on what might be an appropriate merge target. BPCC/Maxwell Communication Corporation made an acquisition in 1986, but was this just the part of Orbis that published full books, leaving the main partworks business continuing with De Agostini? The distinctive activity was the partworks and, if that is so, then one woudn't want to merge material about the Orbis partworks into the MCC article (and unfortunately the en.wiki article about De Agostini is about the financial organisation rather than their activities). AllyD (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is designed to ease deletion of spammy corporate articles. I don't see the benefit in applying it to a company that went out of business in 1999. I don't think a merge would be beneficial given the above comment. Garuda3 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage by reliable independent sources to satisfy GNG and NCORP guidelines. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview Academy

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

Procedural nomination for connected User:Smileykaye per this request at User talk:Donald Albury. The nominating user admits to being paid by the school but appears to have complied with WP:COI in all respects. I have no interest in a specific outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Georgia (U.S. state). BusterD (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I work for the school in question. Since the article about Lakeview was created in 2007 (16 years ago), there has been very little notable sources added to it. Therefore, we believe the article about the school fails to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Smileykaye (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interestingly enough, the connected user vowed to get it deleted because they couldn't get it whitewashed, they originally just wanted to try to remove the information about their founding as a segregation academy. That said, I have not found much in the way of reliable sources. The best source was a master's thesis by (now Dr.) Monica Blair, which contains a good bit of information and could be used to identify a number of offline sources. Unfortunately, as a master's thesis, it was deemed inappropriate for use as a RS. I don't really like to grant the wishes of the racists who want to cover up their sordid past, but I'm not capable of digging into these sources, so maybe it's time to let the racists have their anonymity.

— Jacona (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to say something negative about a user, I would use diffs so if the user wished to respond they'd have evidence to address. If I couldn't provide such evidence, I would avoid making negative characterizations of another user, even a connected one. BusterD (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would never make a great lawyer. — Jacona (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe we should delete an article just because people connected to the subject of the article are uncomfortable with something in the article supported by a reliable source, I am on record stating that this article probably doesn't meet the GNG. - Donald Albury 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In view of developments, I am withdrawing my support for deletion. - Donald Albury 14:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage of the history of segregation is in itself enough to demonstrate GNG. There is no requirement of a recent demonstration of notability. That argument on its face is simply foolish. 174.212.224.15 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)— 174.212.224.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources, including disallowed primary sources, that establish this school's history. It meets GNG. That not much of note has happened there in the last twenty years is irrelevant. That persons currently associated with the school don't like the article is irrelevant. I'll look in the IRS list. It should be there. Rhadow (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found sources using the search function on The Times of Gainesville, and listed a baker's dozen that can be used to improve the article on Talk:Lakeview Academy. The school's historic bennings as a segregation academy are documented in the master's thesis that Jacona lists above. The sources cited in that thesis, documenting the school's beginnings as a segregation academy, indicate the founder Robert Tether was advised to "downplay the school’s 'race appeal' when marketing it", so it's no surprise it has not yet been found on available partial lists of segregation academies. Even so, plenty of sources exist to qualify the school as a notable subject under WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources already in the article I was leaning keep per the general notability guideline; the additional sources — Grand'mere Eugene has listed on the article talk page easily puts it over the line for me. Jacona (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough significant coverage does seem to exist to indicate notability. Not really seeing any compelling argument for deletion. Don't think I've ever seen an entity request its own deletion without having a reason so I suspect that there is more to the story than @Smileykaye: is telling. You said "we" in your statement, were you directed to make these edits by someone else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Smileykaye has complied with policy thusfar as it regards disclosure of COI. They work for the school. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for why the school wants their page deleted anywhere. Am I missing something? Note that the school spent seven years[23] editing the page and clearly not thinking it should be deleted, so what changed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to that myself. I saw the request on another admin's talk page, an admin who was reluctant to nominate this for deletion. I boldly nommed it per request and thought we could hash it out. I think the cited descriptor segregation academy has something to do with the desire for deletion. History is a fickle and heartless mistress. WP:Presentism makes the descriptor out to be a negative thing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a negative term in the 1960s and 1970s, what the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to why the school edited the page for seven years and what changed, I can explain that. The technology director of the school spent several years cleaning up student pranks they would add to the school's article. When she left, I was asked to add content to keep the article updated. However, once I was informed by Jacona I could not add information as it was a conflict of interest, I stopped. I thought someone else would keep the article updated over the years, but no one has. Another Wikipedia member suggested it be deleted per the general notability guideline;. As there is very little mentioned about the school, that made the most sense to me. Smileykaye (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smileykaye: what account did the technology director of the school edit under? The identified account (Sondra at Lakeview Academy) never cleaned up a single student prank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back I do not know what account she used. It was not Sondra at Lakeview Academy. It would have been between 2007-2015. I noticed a couple of the posts and brought them to her attention. As the technology director, she handled it. I do not know what methods she used to have the prank listings removed as I was not a part of the process. Smileykaye (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 edits reverting vandalism, made by 2 accounts that were blocked because the usernames contained "admin":

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I said, "we" I meant myself and my boss. I keep her updated on all my activities related to the school so she is aware. When I mentioned what I wanted to do and why regarding Lakeview's article, she agreed. No directive or ulterior motive. Plus, I sometimes have the habit of using the (late) Queen's plural usage of we when referring to myself. Smileykaye (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this source, a thorough masters thesis, references around a hundred other sources that relate to Lakeview Academy, but they are not easy to find as almost all of these are offline, and many of them are maintained at the school itself, which would rather hide their history than embrace it. Jacona (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been expanded and sourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the editor who originally added citations to Dr. Blair's theses. I've since come to better understand WP:RS and would not try use a master's thesis as a source for an article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Not to worry, BillHPike. Blair wrote from primary sources, most of which are apparently in the Lakeview Academy's archives. Blair describes a series of circumstances, using the logic, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." arriving at the conclusion it was a "segregation academy". However, I've checked and quoted/summarized/paraphrased the online sources available and two books I now have on my Kindle; none so far use that term. I've paraphrased the sources fairly closely, based on reliable secondary sources. Readers can draw their own conclusions. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BillHPike, note that I believe Dr. Blair is including some of this in a forthcoming book - albeit as yet unpublished. — Jacona (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whatever the origins of the article, it has been improved and meets WP:NSCHOOL. - Aoidh (talk) 07:23, 14 February 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 Patrick Soon-Shiong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NantWorks

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

For three years, this article has been tagged for notability. In the sidebar, there was an assertion that NantWorks is a public company. It is not. A run through the references finds little to do with NantWorks, other than assertions that the other companies mentioned are part of the conglomerate. Much of what is there is conflated with NantHealth, which is a publicly traded company. NantWorks, it seems, is the private holding company of the founder and his associates. It is not noteworthy. Bloomberg will publish a single paragraph for anyone. Rhadow (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rhadow (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears a little strange to challenge the notability of the holding company while not doubting the relevance of the constituent companies like NantHealth and NantOmics. The holding is usually wielding the power or at least controls finance and its owner is not a billionaire for nothing. I agree that the company structure is in need of a cleanup. -- Kku (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At best, Redirect to Patrick Soon-Shiong. Use WP:ORGCRIT. No one of the references has all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, (4) secondary source. Patrick Soon-Shiong may be smart, rich, and famous, but that doesn't confer notability on his holding company, the one with a one page website. WP:INHERITORG Rhadow (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patrick Soon-Shiong. All of the sources listed are just database entries or unreliable sources. I could not find more sources on the web. I will retract this if someone manages to find reliable sources. Carpimaps (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Patrick Soon-Shiong, not seeing coverage of NantWorks which is distinct from coverage of Soon-Shiong, I don't think that this topic is independently notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Patrick Soon-Shiong, there is insufficient sourcing on this topic to meet our notability criteria, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 13 February 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!} 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Louis Massignon (United Arab Emirates)

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there is a school in Morocco with the same name. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Arab Emirates, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only minor, incidental coverage like Zawya. No WP:SIRS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 11 February 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. Sandstein 08:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Fallaize

AfDs for this article:

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

The latest bit of Fallaize/Cupsogue spam. Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. His stunt casting of Kevin Spacey a little blip of news coverage on Spacey and Control but wikipedia is not the news. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any substantive, independent sources about this fellow. There are mentions, as well as entries in things like IMDB, but none of the small amount of biographical information is reliable. As others have mentioned, this article seems to have been prompted by the possible participation by Kevin Spacey in a film by Fallaize. Those articles only name-check Fallaize, who is clearly much less well-known than Spacey. It is possible that if this film is made and released, Fallaize will suddenly be a household name. (Not holding my breath, but things happen.) Until then, he doesn't meet GNG, and not by a long shot. Lamona (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Not enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:22, 16 February 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) 06:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Heights

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

Does not appear to be notable. The only independent/non-trivial mention I could find in a BEFORE search was [24]. While this is not a trivial mention, it does not confirm much about the show other than its existence and the release schedule. House Blaster^talk 03:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and American football. House Blaster^talk 03:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the article content, this was meant to be based on a YouTube series by Bleacher Report (link here). I could argue that the series the article is based off is notable (though I'm not sure I could argue that point well), but I think this is a case where we should use WP:TNT. This isn't a properly formatted article, it's missing context, and it has no references whatsoever. It's just a list of players that have appeared on the series. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced article, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 15 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plush (band)

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

Subject fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed better sources than this article shows but still no case for notability. (Don't confuse this band with the all-female band of the same name!) Most of what I found were South African outlets interviewing/ extensively quoting the band, so those items lack independence. The album article linked is not notable and I've PROD'd it. Without a chart position or a gold record there is no reason to keep this. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 9 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chetco, Arizona

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

This is an odd case. The coords in the article were off, but fixing them didn't make a difference: this is the "same" place as Sanders. I don't have much of a history to work with on the topos but it appears that the name Chetco was (re-)added to the maps in the 2012-ish update, though GNIS says it was collected in the original scrape of the maps. In any case the current map's claim that Chetco is on the north of I-40 and Sanders is on the south is just nonsense: the original settlement was all on the north, and that's where the elementary and middle school have been since at least the late 1960s, when the southern portion barely existed; and that's where older topos say Sanders was. As to text references, results are heavily tainted by the area in Oregon; the only clear reference was in a short story in which it appears in a list of towns passed through on a bus, taking the place of Sanders in the numeration. I don't know what that means, and I didn't see the name on the highway signs. It's certainly possible that it is an older name for Sanders, or the Navajo name, but I couldn't find something to cite to this effect. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about Oregon. I also saw the fiction piece about a bus ride. I don't think I have ever seen the name on a sign either and I used to regularly drive I-40 through AZ. Passing mention here. (fwiw they say it is "next to" Sanders). Unclear whether this source is reliable but it won't matter if we don't find others. Re: Navajo, I don't think so. Not a speaker of the language, so I could be wrong, but I once spent a lot of time in NM, where it's an official language and appears on all official signage, ie rules for riding public transit. Most words have a lot more vowels, with diacriticals. Will look more later, need to tie up some loose ends rn Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's not enough solid information about Chetco to mention it in the Sanders article, but a redirect couldn't hurt. BruceThomson (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to reiterate my view that redirecting to an article that isn't going to talk about the subject is a bad idea. Also, the big problem is that we really don't know where this name comes from. I can't see having a redirect fo it when we don't know if it's a fiction or a mistake. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough information to support a standalone article or redirect. Agree with Mangoe that redirecting is inappropriate when not mentioned in the target, particularly in cases like this one where we can't verify what it was or if it even existed. –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, given the lack of reliable sources supporting the subject's existence. All I can find is sources about the Chetco River (Oregon) or the Chetco Bar Fire (also Oregon). I agree we shouldn't redirect if we have no evidence the subject exists, we could give readers the idea that it's a legitimate alternative name. Hut 8.5 19:11, 13 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SP Cinemas

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not have sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations/companies (WP:ORG). The references currently included are primarily routine announcements about the company's upcoming/past productions. Akevsharma (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. Akevsharma (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Agrees with the Nominator's View. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC) blocked as a sock. Akevsharma (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG per nom. desmay (talk) 09:28, 10 February 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. The argument that this content is entirely unsourced, failing WP:V, is a compelling argument for deletion, overriding arguments to keep the content because of theoretical notability based on yet-to-be-identified sources. Sandstein 08:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by K. S. Chithra

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. If by then no sources are found then I believe the right course of action would be redirecting it to the main list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No effective sources. The statement above breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use. It is shocking. We deal in facts, not hearsay and mislabeling one thing for another is misinformation. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, WP:DEL8 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable singer, just needs sourcing and more information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem with argument is that its been two years since the article was created and the editor has made no attempt to add sources, yet has continued to carry on as though unsourced article are the norm, creating more of them. It is unsourced and will never be sourced as the amount of work to do it is huge. The singer is notable but this list fails WP:NLIST and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally closed with the following closing statement, relisting per request on my talk page. I still believe a centralized discussion is needed here, but I would rather we didn't waste time at DRV. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
The result was no consensus. This is one of several AfDs I have now read where virtually identical !votes have been posted by multiple parties that leave the discussion evenly divided. Those advocating deletion correctly argue that NLIST needs to be met; those arguing to keep correctly argue that discographies of notable artists have generally been treated as notable, and that individual items don't have to be notable for a list to have a Wikipedia article, so NMUSIC is generally not relevant. I don't see how repeating this discussion any number of times is a productive exercise; we clearly need to have a wider discussion about what criteria we use to evaluate the notability of such discographies, and probably use a few bundled nominations to make the discussion more efficient. As such I'm closing those nominations in today's log that are clearly divided on this basis with this identical statement, which seems fitting given the identical discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See statement above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is entirely unsourced. And it's massive. It's simply nowhere near being ready to be published. I'm open to to being sent to draft space, but considering it's massive size, the article creator having been indef blocked, and it remaining unsourced for the last 5 years, it's simply not reasonable to believe that it's going to be appropriately cleaned up any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that the intersection of Telugu songs and K. S. Chithra is a notable one; see WP:CROSSCAT. No evidence that the topic itself has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject; see WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. No evidence that the list is anything other than original research and appears to be largely unverifiable; see WP:V and WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 10 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Maccini

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage found in WP:BEFORE. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Switzerland. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Needs more sources, otherwise should be deleted.--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 18:00, 11 February 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. Sandstein 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Shipping History Institute Exhibition

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

Nothing in gnews and a plain google search has 1 hit. Would reconsider if something is found in Greek. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need a Greek speaker to ID the actual name of the museum to even come close to assessing notability. This sounds like a bad English translation, which is why results are essentially wiki mirrors and travel guides. Star Mississippi 14:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to establish the notability or even the very existence of this museum. A clarification on which museum would trigger a review of this opinion. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From using archived copy of the first reference I believe "Ινστιτούτο Ιστορίας Εμπορικής Ναυτιλίας" is the museum in question. Scrolling through the first few pages of Google search notability is plausible (I see coverage from a radio station) but I don't understand Greek so I cannot evaluate the usefulness of the sources. Jumpytoo Talk 20:19, 10 February 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 Gene Fallaize. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control (2023 film)

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

Non notable future film. Got a little blip of news coverage from it's stunt casting of Kevin Spacey but wikipedia is not the news. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to director Gene Fallaize. Paradoctor (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Film has not been made yet. At the moment the only sources are about the news that Kevin Spacey will be in it. In fact, until the film is completed even that is not 100%. If this becomes a hit film, then this article will be warranted. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 13 February 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 White Lodging. Content is still in the page history if anyone wants to merge content to his company or father's articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce W. White

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

Non-notable person Jax 0677 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name is probably too common, I don't see anything about this businessman. Even what's here, he was born, son of a rich guy, founded a company and passed away. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No apparent notability independent of his founding of White Lodging. He can't inherit notability from his father.OsFish (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Purdue Undergraduate institute named for Bruce White, after his family foundation donated $50 Million. Very notable.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2023/Q1/white-family-foundation-commits-50-million-to-new-daniels-school-of-business-at-purdue-university.html Jbpo (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will agree to a merge to White Lodging. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to White Lodging: would seem reasonable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:10, 16 February 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.

[1] ttps://www.deepika.com/cinema/StarChat.aspx?Chat-with-Saajan-Bakery-Heroine-Ranjitha-Menon&ID=50036

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/my-dream-is-to-be-part-of-good-films-says-ranjitha-menon/articleshow/78487005.cms

[3] ttps://malayalam.samayam.com/photo-gallery/cinema/actress-ranjitha-menon-latest-photo-shoot/photoshow/msid-90170231,picid-90170292.cms

[4] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/ranjitha-plays-a-sensible-yet-mischievous-character-in-pathrosinte-padappukal/articleshow/83686142.cms

[5] "This IIT graduate makes right to recall his poll plank". The Indian Express. 2010-10-08. Retrieved 2023-02-11.

[6] Aji, Sowmya (2014-11-25). "Karnataka government drafting right to recall bill for rural voters". The Economic Times. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2023-02-11.

[7] India EVM, India EVM. "India EVM" (PDF).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]