Hosta

< September 06	September 08 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byorn Sandvliet

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Cannot find WP:SIGCOV. Note that I made this article myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South America. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:09, 8 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 merge‎ to Mary Perkins. Sorry, IP editor but I see a consensus to Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Muse

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

Not notable on its own, merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Perkins Rubymza (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Arts, Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Fraternities and sororities, Schools, Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, Websites, and United Kingdom. Rubymza (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good choice. She's perhaps more notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly WP:PROMOtional, and the original creator was long ago blocked for WP:UPE. Opposed to the merge for the same basic reason, and also because a biography on someone who donated money to help found the organization and doesn't otherwise have any involvement with it doesn't warrant inclusion of any information about the organization itself in her article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as per ATD, none of the sourcing meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid ATD. The article was created as probable UPE, is highly promotional in nature, there's no real usable sourcing, and the connection to the proposed target is extremely tenuous. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:28, 13 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SixReps

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

It doesn't look like this website has enough WP:SIGCOV to meet notability guidelines, and since it went under in 2013[1] that's unlikely to change. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Internet, Websites, and Indonesia. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any significant coverage about this. Even it's official website domain has been expired and shows The domain sixreps.com has expired. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:59, 8 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. ✗plicit 23:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackbirds (Norwegian band)

AfDs for this article:

First discussion: 2006
Second discussion: 2016
This is the third discussion.

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

Unable to find SIGCOV on the band and evidence of notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish delete From previous AfD discussions, this band has supposedly been in regular rotation on NRK P1, and I have been able to find some reviews of their debut album from Norwegian newspapers ([2] and [3]). However, I haven't been able to find reliable secondary sources to support the claims of play on major radio channels (the archived link in the article does not allow for access to inidivdual weekly playlists), or sustained significant coverage to prove this band has been notable. The reviews seem to only be from local newspapers. I would appreciate if a Norwegian-speaking editor could have a look in Norwegian sources. I personally can't find much, but there's the chance of more out there. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 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 Draftify‎. On the delete side, TOOSOON is an essay and not strictly policy; it covers some cases where articles should be deleted, but leaves a grey area. On the keep side, the FUTURE policy explicitly talks about elections, but notes that they must meet the notability criteria. The happy medium, and standard practice, is to draftify until notability is established. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2029 European Parliament election

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

Per WP:TOOSOON; the 2024 European Parliament election hasn't happened yet and we almost never would have articles for future elections except the next election (e.g we have articles such as 2024 United States presidential election and Next Australian federal election but not one for the 2028 United States presidential election just yet). When the next EU Parliament election is over, recreate this article. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:FUTURE, 'Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.' Future elections are explicitly called out as good subjects for articles. The Institut Jacques Delors information clears any hurdle for RS and specific notability, and the churn about the German changes to election law clears GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last is correct about the criteria that applies, rather than WP:OtherStuffDoesn'tExist. I created the article because I thought that wp:nevent is fulfilled at this time, and coverage can only increase in the future. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON, 2024 hasn't happened yet, no need for this. Any details should be in main article - Elections to the European Parliament. Spleodrach (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Last1in. This is certain to happen in the future and will be notable 2607:FB91:2D5D:4432:49F1:EE59:F802:8023 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, and the article can be recreated as the time comes. As it stands, it doesn't really need to exist yet. Fork99 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually upon further reading, can any of the Institut Jacque Delors 2023 study information be merged into the 2024 election article? Regarding the 2023 German parliament law, has this been written about anywhere else on Wikipedia? Changed my stance to Keep for now if this information can't be merged elsewhere. Fork99 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as per standard practice on elections which is that they should not be moved to mainspace until the previous election cycle is completed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes of coming to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or drafity. WP:FUTURE only supports keeping it if it is notablee. The think tank piece only has "2029" in it three times and twice lumped together with another election. Significant coverage? I think no.

Will switch to keep if anyone shows multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that are not from a think tank. My searches didn't find as much. I don't think the discussion about rules that would then impact this election (and every other one also) are the same as significant coverage of the election itself. CT55555(talk) 02:27, 8 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerwin van der Werf

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR #4c. Article has many problems, including a resume-like list to which I have added a warning template in 2014. That said, the data is factual, just not organized right. An occasional word is WP:POV. The problems do not rise to the TNT-level and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The claims by nominator, other than that it is tagged, are plainly untrue. Did I already mention that AFDISNOTCLEANUP? Well then, AFDISNOTCLEANUP and these nominations of notable subjects keep coming. gidonb (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the article's subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR to be honest, or might possibly meet in the future but is WP:TOOSOON based on being shortlisted in 2023 for the Ned Kelly Awards but not actually winning. There are some reviews online (1, 2, 3) for the same work, but if all of the unreferenced material is removed then we are left with a stub of 2-3 sentences and I am not confident the coverage is really enough for notability. The 2 other references on the article from 2010 and 2012 are for a Turing Foundation prize which does not seem to be considered notable and making a shortlist but again not winning an award respectively. The rest of the material appears to be somewhat promotional and/or based on primary information. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable for his Turing Award. The Turing Award is the preeminent award for Dutch language poetry. See nl:De_Gedichtenwedstrijd (Google Translate English version).

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty niche honestly, 10k Euros (and now only 5k Euros) is not a big prize. But I guess keeping this article depends on whether that award is notable enough. - Indefensible (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 7 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 merge‎ to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Neskuchne

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

We cannot have an article for every single battle in every single village in Ukraine. This one is not notable at all. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Even in the context of neighboring battles, Neskuchne was insignificant. Speedy delete/merge to counteroffensive page. Jebiguess (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guy who created the article. what exactly is wrong with the article I made? Salfanto (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not actually with your article (which is not bad at all), but with the subject. At this point, it is WP:TOOSOON to know if this particular battle will have any lasting significance outside the horrific local impacts. In fact, I think it highly unlikely, but anything is possible. The policies you want to look at are WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENTCRIT. A good example is the 1940 Battle of Ardennes. A lot happened there, some of it fascinating, none of it historically pivotal. It is (and belongs) in the overall Battle of France article. Similarly, Neskuchne belongs (until history tells us otherwise) in the overall article for the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Hope this helps. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I think merging the article with the overall article for the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive will be a good idea Salfanto (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive - Part of 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive where it is already mentioned. A couple of good sources that could enhance that article should be added there. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
could we keep the info box if we do end up merging the article? Salfanto (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we would. It's not a major part of the counteroffensive. HappyWith (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, but the article body should be kept when merged Salfanto (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge in to the Counteroffensive - Article is not very big and mainly is just stating that the battle happened. The Article doesn't meet the notability at all. This could be used if we merge in to a small section of Donetsk Oblast section of the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive. Someone0317 (talk) 10:08, 8 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 redirect‎ to List of Criminal Minds characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Morgan (Criminal Minds)

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

Per Rosguill's tag - Does not meet WP:GNG as written, overly reliant on original analysis of episodes rather than secondary sources - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ehhh... I'm seeing a substantial number of hits in just general news sites like ABC and Deadline Hollywood. But even if this character doesn't merit his own article, this should be merged to List of Criminal Minds characters or Criminal Minds#Characters rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters from that show. Reception is limited to "included in TV Guide's list of "TV's Sexiest Crime Fighters"". Ridcolous. Do ping me if sources estabilishing SIGCOV are found, and I'll reconsider my vote, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Any additional content can be merged through editing, per WP:ATD. Does not have enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 11 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 redirect‎ to List of York City F.C. managers#2022–present. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Webb (football manager)

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

Subject has not played or managed at a fully professional level in football, and there seems to be little to indicate that the WP:GNG is met. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Right now, the article looks like it doesn't meet GNG standards, but there's sources out there, including BBC, The Independent, Vavel, and Southend Echo. Webb has, at least, managed York City F.C., but this article probably needs a re-write as well. He's also held positions at numerous notable football clubs as well, so that's also something, regardless if Webb hasn't played at a full professional level. Tails Wx 01:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Delete, no routine coverage in sources, no GNG passing. Tails Wx 11:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you list do not amount to WP:SIGCOV. They're all transfer reports and routine coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks for the WP:ROUTINE reminder. Tails Wx 11:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of York City F.C. managers#2022–present. This section details his tenure sufficiently, but he doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the above redirect target. Subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. User:Let'srun 12:30, 12 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 05:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skywalker 1999

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

Non-notable album, WP:BEFORE only turned up trading cards and Pez dispensers and I could not find a listing in the WRH Billbaord archive. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 7 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 no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent Black (comics)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding too much: -
1. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/70589-the-best-cyberpunk-comics-part-1.html - passing listicle mention
2. https://www.comicsbeat.com/preview-fluorescent-black-by-nathan-fox-and-m-f-wilson/ mainly a press release
3. http://legacy.aintitcool.com/node/46094#15 isn't too bad
4. https://www.cbr.com/nathan-fox-on-haunt-joe-casey-and-teaching/ bit about discussion with creator
On the fence really. 3, 4 and the Hollywood Reporter link in the article would lean me towards weak keep but it really would be a stretch. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately subject has no viable third-party coverage. The sources provided here (with much thanks to the user) are all barely-passable niche sites, as were the results of a Google search. Given that the comic lasted only two years and ended back in 2010, I don't see this improving anytime soon. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have enough for WP:GNG.
1. 81 word review in Minneapolis Star Tribune[4]
2. French language review, professional writer on site w/ professional editorial staff [5]
3. in-depth review with a named by-line[6], on "Flamesrising.com", seems to be a semiprozine with an editorial staff [7]
4. Some coverage from MTV, along with an interview [8]

—siro χo 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject seems notable to me, but when I searched for better English-language sources, I could find none. Some may exist, but they weren't available upon a short search that included Google Scholar. However, one of the sources that Siroxo, the one in French, may establish some notability. Its "a propos de bodoi" page lists what appears to be a chief editor. Could someone fluent in French give it a closer look? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 05:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farrad

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, Connecticut, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since his page only contains two references and one of the references is an archived link from Wayback Machine.

Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIL-PRF-32171

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

WP:ROTM military specification with no WP:SIGCOV outside of primary sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete and all the other milspecs need to be examined, as none that I've checked contain any claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: milspecs may be something better summarized in a list article as opposed to independent stubs. Entries have to be reliably sourced but there’s no requirement they be notable.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., whatever happened to just adding sand to paint when painting a boat’s topside deck? Surely the Navy doesn’t need a milspec for sand and paint?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:50, 7 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Nikolaeff

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

Possibly a non notable actor. Don't think the article passes WP:NACTOR Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Russia, Ukraine, and Australia. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are additional references in the corresponding Russian article at ru:Николаефф, Николай. I added them to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you seem to just be throwing in references to pad it out. Since 2-5 all "references" the same sentence. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies NACTOR. Main role in Crash Zone. "principal character, Leo Kosov-Meyer" (Daily Telegraph) in Sea Patrol. Main character in Camp (TV series). Power Ranger in Power Rangers Jungle Fury. Main character in season two of Wicked Science. Main character in Six (TV series). Role in Mile 22 has coverage. He is the prime focus of White, Naomi (25 August 2018), "The BAD BOY", The Daily Telegraph. Also Shearer, Geoff (20 May 2009), "Nik's new role is plain sailing", Courier Mail but that relies a bit too much on qoutes from him. Also gets coverage for stage work, eg PLAYING YOU, Dec2005, Chapel Off Chapel, Ziffer, Daniel (3 December 2005), "Strong performances give script's odd premise a playful lift", The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fulfill WP:NACTOR criteria Worldiswide (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many reliable secondary sources. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:27, 13 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. ✗plicit 23:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Politehnica Iași (2010) in European football

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

These '... in European football' articles are always controversial so I'm bringing this to AfD. Relatively new club with their only European tie to date being a qualifying loss to Hajduk Split. I'm not seeing how this topic meets WP:GNG and I'm not seeing enough justification for WP:SIZESPLIT from FC Politehnica Iași (2010). Furthermore, the contents of this article are already covered perfectly at FC_Politehnica_Iași_(2010)#Statistics and records so there is no content worth merging. FC Terek Grozny in Europe was deleted despite having more games played but that AfD was a long time ago so it's worth discussing this topic again especially since this seems to have even more issues than AZ Alkmaar in European football, which is also up for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with nominator. There is no reason to split this off from the main club page when it only contains details of two matches. This can easily be covered within the parent article. Any content not included in the main article should be merged but I don't think this would be a reasonable redirect as, having only played one European tie, I doubt it is something readers would search for. I'm unfamiliar with the Terek Grozny one but this is a very different case to that of the AZ article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new section to be created at FC Politehnica Iași (2010)#European football as an ATD, as I did with Bradford City A.F.C. in European football and is a good solution to clubs who have no real history in European competitions. Giant Snowman 08:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a need for a redirect, this article title has a year in it and seems slightly off for a redirect. There is enough content in the club article about their endeavours in Europe, this article fork is not needed, forking is only needed when a club plays a lot of European football and this isn't it. Govvy (talk) 14:32, 8 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Campbell-Mac

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

Non-notable minor film actor. Natg 19 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. Natg 19 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would create a source analysis table if there were sources to begin with. After thorough searching I could find not 1 SIGCOV article. Delete based on WP:GNG Nagol0929 (talk) 19:51, 7 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jellycat

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

Promotional Content, issue in WP:GNG. Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Companies, and United Kingdom. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to easily meet SIRS criteria even at a glance, with genuine feature level coverage in the Times, Evening Standard, and Wall Street Journal. Not seeing the argument here for deletion. Or specifically why the mildly promotional tone warrants a deletion discussion rather than the obvious solution of editing to NPOV, putting a flag on it, or similar. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per the refs in the article. Cleanup ≠ deletion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:ORGCRIT. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. ResonantDis_tortion 05:47, 8 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Luca

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

I've looked for sources on the player, under both "Constantin Luca" and "Luca Constantin" but have been unable to find anything in either Romanian or Turkish media. Media most likely exists in Romania or Turkey in a footballing archive somewhere, but it seems there is nothing online - cannot even find information on which club Samsunspor signed him from. Hoping someone can find something, but doubtful. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:56, 8 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Lost

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

Created ten years ago with a single-purpose account, and the one source listed is the only one I can find that is remotely reliable. ~T PW 16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~T PW 16:28, 7 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. ✗plicit 23:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stijn Hendrikse

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

Only passing mentions, nothing in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is largely a WP:PROMO for a couple companies and a book, through a professional profile (WP:NOTLINKEDIN). This would require a complete rewrite which doesn't even seem possible based on available sources, I don't see anything other than trivial mentions, nothing to begin constructing WP:BASIC. —siro χo 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This nomination is on the merits or lack thereof and actually holds water. gidonb (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I consider the subject of the article has notability as a creative professional in the marketing sector, the article can be expanded with the support of new sources. I'm compiling them, but would need a bit more time to improve the article. --Dennis6492 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Looked at the first two blocks of references. They are trival WP:PRIMARY WP:SPS sources of the worst kind. It reads like a linkedin profile. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 14 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dre the Truth

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only source was a now dead linked interview and a link to his IMDb page. No significant coverage of this musician uncovered in my search. Penale52 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any truth to the article's assertion that he had songs on the game soundtracks of games like Madden 09 or NBA Live 09? While not a formal indicator for notability, that would generally be quite the significant accomplishment for a musician. Those game series consistently sell multi-million copies. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's had tracks in the NFL games, sure [9], but that's all the sourcing there is for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His IMDB page is bare, he has tracks on the various streaming sites, but only has one page of hits in Gsearch. He appears to be the thug character in the background in various movies, scowling in a hoodie, nothing for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find anything that would suggest they pass WP:NBASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to Draft I'm an inclusionist for artists in particular, but there is no valid sourcing for this article. It's actually a pretty well written article, and yet it cannot be sourced, for a figure I've never heard of. Don't fully delete forever, but move it to the draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 09:30, 11 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. ✗plicit 03:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar Mani

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

Supposedly a medical researcher, but I couldn't find any of his supposed research. I don't think this fulfils WP:ANYBIO. PepperBeast (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and India. PepperBeast (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:pepperbeast, that was a trip down memory lane, and along the way I ran into permanently indeffed editors and deceased administrators. I deleted the article as promotional and a copyvio, and restored a cleaned up version to the original creator's sandbox; it was later moved to article space by another admin. That's the extent of my involvement. The article started out bad and didn't get much better. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sourcing in Gscholar, I don't suspect he's a widely-regarded medical researcher. No coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 03:16, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Secrets

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

Non-notable documentary. The reliable sources in the article reference topics in the documentary, but do not establish notability for this documentary itself. Tagged as non-notable in May; invited to bring here for discussion when that tag was removed without improvement. ~T PW 14:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~T PW 14:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Thank you. I did indeed remove the tag and invite you in a message on the TP, that you have apparently read, to take the page here if you thought refs that I added were still not enough. But I cannot therefore logically agree with you when you say the tag was removed without improvement. See the page history, please.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. 1 super-minute assessment in TV Guide and 2 reviews in independent sources (one, substantial, at DVD Talk, the second, rather poor at DVD Town; the first is usually accepted by the Film and Horror projects). Various mentions in independent books, that may not be significant in themselves, but all in all add up to something rather significant, I find. ~~PS- As the Josh Roshen linked on the page is obviously not the author of the film, a redirect to its other main author, Katherine Ramsland, may also be a good option, I think.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited 9/11 after new sources presented by Cunard, thanks)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hulse, E. (May–June 2009). "Vampire Secrets". Video Librarian. Vol. 24, no. 3. p. 62. ISSN 0887-6851. EBSCOhost 40630476.
  The reviewer gave the documentary three stars. The reviewer notes: "The entertaining History Channel documentary Vampire Secrets might give short shrift to the earliest examples of the undead in literature (such as Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla), but covers the field reasonably well—beginning with Bram Stoker's Dracula), which chilled the blood of Edwardian-era readers—offering interesting insights into the evolution of the vampire in popular culture, backed with vintage film clips and newly shot dramatic recreations. The accounts of supposed real-life vampires here are just as fascinating, although the segment dealing with the notorious Countess Elizabeth Bathory—who committed violent atrocities against her servant girls and supposedly bathed in their blood—repeats embellishments to her story that were debunked years ago. Narrated by Corey Burton, this 2006 documentary was originally released as part of the Haunted Histories series, but has been repackaged to tie-in with the DVD release of Twilight, based on the first novel in Stephenie Meyer's wildly popular YA vampire series. Featuring interviews with authors Katherine Ramsland and Michelle Belanger, Vampire Secrets not only covers ancient legends and pop-culture depictions of vampires, but also examines such phenomena as present-day cults of bloodletters and the rise of the "Goth" subculture. Sure to be popular, this is recommended."
2. Triplett, Ward (2009-03-12). "'Twilight' is dawning -- on DVD but first some vampire facts". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The article notes: "Meanwhile, A&E is hoping some of those fans will bite on "Vampire Secrets," which is being shipped to stores Tuesday. There's no love story here, just historical data about the myths of vampires dating back more than 1,000 years. It's told through the comments of authors, historians and re-enactments. There's also some scientific explanation for why some of the legends exist. ... The documentary goes up to modern days and role-playing games like Vampire the Masquerade. One player calls it Twister for vampires, but it may have inspired a real double murder. There's also a part on why current times have turned the once horrific creatures of the night into sexy beasts ... which brings us back to "Twilight.""
3. Douglass Jr., Todd (2009-03-07). "Vampire Secrets". DVD Talk. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: "As interesting as Vampire Secrets may be at times, it's a rather redundant documentary. There's nothing new here, very little that is based on "historical events", and the reenacted bits are just too tacky for their own good. What information you'll pull away from it is light at best, and mostly sensationalized through awful bits of drama. This may make an entertaining watch if you happen up on while flicking through the channels, but I wouldn't buy into the DVD release. There's just not enough here to warrant its own release and the quality isn't as high as some of History Channel's other efforts."
4. Villarreal, Phil (2009-03-19). "New on DVD". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: "Here's the vampire movie of the week worth renting. The well-researched History Channel documentary traces the origins of popular vampire mythology through film and literature. The film also traces evidence of actual vampire encounters throughout history, most of which are issues of mistaken identity involving superstitions run amok. Some stories, however, are disturbing instances of killers who fed on human blood. There's also a profile of the modern underground vampire-wannabe scene in New York."
5. Carnes, Jim (2009-03-20). "shatnerama - He's all over 'Groom Lake' also: 'Twilight' is near". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: "A&E has its own bit of "twilighty" entertainment, too, in the documentary Vampire Secrets, which arrived in stores Tuesday. This fascinating 47-minute look at the history of the blood-suckers examines the folklore common in cultures around the world that have shaped our conception of these fangy fiends. Vampire Secrets is not rated and lists for $19.95."
6. McDonald, Glenn (2009-04-10). "Which Sort of Vampire Suits You?". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: "Studious scary movie types might pick "Vampire Secrets" instead, a strategically reissued documentary from the History Channel. "Vampire Secrets" explores the history and folklore of the vampire across the globe, from ancient China through Eastern Europe all the way through to modern underground vampire culture. (That is to say, pretend vampires - we hope.) Everything is cleanly delivered in History Channel style - interviews with academics and fuzzy historical re-enactments."
7. Burns, Jane (2009-03-19). "Spring's a Bloody Good Time for Flicks". The Capital Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: "For a little historical perspective, the History Channel will re-release "Vampire Secrets" on March 31. The 100-minute documentary looks deeply (and in stomach-churning detail) at some of the vampire legends of the past, their pop culture incarnations and the current vampire scene in cities such as New York."
8. Craker, Lorilee (2006-10-29). "Documentary traces vampire's history". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The review notes: ""Vampire Secrets" (8 tonight, History) is a high-falutin' documentary-type treatment of mythical bloodsuckers. We learn that vampires have vanted to suck blood for centuries -- at least that's what the legends say. Plus, those bat people don't just lurk in deepest Transylvania. Many cultures, including Greeks and Chinese, have told vampire tales."
9. "Best on Foxtel - Hot Picks". Sunday Mail. 2008-10-26. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The article notes: "Watch your neck - this Halloween documentary dramatically traces vampire history from ancient myth to more modern incarnations like Count Dracula and Lestat. These blood-thirsty creatures have been the stuff of nightmares for millennia, and still fascinate."
10. Hicks, Chris (2009-03-21). "Stooges, 'Barney Miller' on DVDs". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  The article notes: ""Vampire Secrets" (History, 2006, $19.95). This documentary has the usual talking heads but also some gruesome and quite bloody re-creations as it tells the history of vampires, from 17th century folklore to Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" to modern movies (pre-"Twilight") to real-life people who have embraced the fantasy a bit too much. Extras: widescreen"
11. Godfrey, Linda S. (2009). Mythical Creatures. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-7910-9394-8. Retrieved 2023-09-11 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Vampire Secrets (2006): History Channel, DVD. This review of vampires from different cultures digs back thou- sands of years, travels as far as Greece and China, and updates the concept of ancient human blood-drinkers with a look at Bram Stoker's fiendish Dracula and vampires rampant in today's pop culture."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vampire Secrets to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:07, 11 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AZ Alkmaar in European football

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

Reviewed during NPP. Stats-only article (IMO the derived topic is inherently such) with stats-only sources. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this ends up being deleted, I would say we need to review a lot of similar articles (e.g. PFC Cherno More Varna in European football, AS Progresul București in European football) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article isn't in good shape but AfD isn't clean up. There is plenty of prose that can be sourced around AZ and their accomplishments in European football so this is a valid content fork from the main club article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stevie - definitely a notable topic, major club with long history. Article needs a clean up, not deleting. I'm sure Dutch editors (@Bocanegra and Gidonb:) could help source it? Giant Snowman 08:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The club article is AZ Alkmaar which is not the subject of this AFD. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware, thank you... Giant Snowman 09:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Sorry if my indirectness made it unclear and I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know that. I was responding to your post which was saying the the club is notable and I just meant to emphasize the distinction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, apologies if my original post was unclear. When I said 'major club with long history', I should have added '...in Europe'. Giant Snowman 08:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quite normal to have such articles for clubs that play a lot of European football. It needs an overhaul, but the basics can easily be established there is enough content on the web to support GNG easily. I consider this a bad nomination, nominator clearly hasn't looked around enough to see the norm. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not responding to your "keep" argument (which is fine.....that is what is supposed to happen here) but to your complaint about the nomination. Your complaint was based on saying that the bad nomination because of the "but there are other pages like it". Quite often "walled gardens" spring up of many problematic articles and so the existence of others like it is not per se supposed to be a reason to not try to do my job properly based on policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really, have a look around; AFC Ajax in European football, Manchester United F.C. in European football, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. in European football, Galatasaray S.K. in international football, FC Barcelona in international football, there are loads of these types of articles. Your nomination is completely floored. Govvy (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to do my job properly, whatever y'all decide on this is fine with me. But regarding your criticism of me, for your last post you'll have to show me the rule that says "if there are other articles like it, ignore the policies and guidelines". North8000 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t feel that we are ganging up on you, put the mention of similar articles is just to emphasise that you are not familiar with this area. It’s a learning experience, maybe if there was a template that linked this topic to similar topics that would have made it easier. Anyway, take the L, and move on FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why this was nominated. It needs a prose intro, yet WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I will try to write a few lines. gidonb (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with gidonb and Giant Snowman, article needs a cleanup, not a deletion. I'll give it a go. --Bocanegra (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: having series articles about a notable club is frankly very normal. Proper BEFORE not done FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's snowing in September! gidonb (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time concentrate on improving articles, rather than just nominating them? gidonb (talk) 18:38, 11 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter 20 Fox C

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and unsourced. Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hunter_Boats#Boats where it is listed. There is not much coverage out there, but basic facts, such as being it produced by British Hunter, are verifiable [10], so a redirect to the builder's page is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hardly any information at Hunter Boats, so I'm not sure if it would be useful to redirect there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:17, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Howe

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, United States of America, and Nebraska. UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF both #1 and 6 since he never occupied the highest administration post at UNL (but was a chief of staff). --hroest 15:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: given his rank and the handful of double-digit citation figures I found on google scholar, I suspect he may be notable, but searching is somewhat complicated given the time period and the fact that there are several publishing Herbert Howes. He published as "Herbert E. Howe Jr.", for anyone who wants to take up the search. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Herbert E. Howe" in GS gives four papers with moderate citations (71,47,40,39) but I'm not sure that's quite enough to meet WP:PROF by citations; also there seem to be two distinct topic areas so not 100% sure they are all this subject. Not seeing anything else in the article to help with notability. The memorial bio linked does not talk about his research at all.[11]. He might be one of those extremely meritorious individuals in their community who nevertheless does not meet WP's requirements for an article. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to see how this article lasted as long as it did after being tagged 13 years ago. Not notable and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw the same 4 papers but no other coverage at all. Nothing. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 14 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kensie Bobo

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:55, 8 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Hourihan

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 7 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Horn

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think WP:AUTHOR is probably met. Her first children's book Tattybogle was shortlisted for Kate Greenaway Medal and Smarties Book Prize, and (according to the article) adapted into a musical; it is extremely likely to have reviews offline. The Ebscosearch finds multiple reviews for some of her other books: Babushka in Kirkus Reviews, Booklist & School Library Journal; The Dandelion Wish in School Library Journal; Loss and Bereavement in Mortality, & Psychology, Health & Medicine. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3 and the sources identified by EA. pburka (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reviews I found of Tattybogle include:

Lewis, Naomi (1 May 1995). "Hooked by a Big Fish". Evening Standard. p. 25.
Feinstein, Sharon (28 Jul 1995). "Growing Pains of Tattybogle". Daily Mirror. p. 29.
Cope, Wendy (5 Aug 1995). "A Small Person's Place in the World". The Daily Telegraph. p. A8.
Lafferty, Fiona (13 Jul 1996). "The Art of Interpreting the Written Word". The Daily Telegraph. p. A8.

pburka (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A search found wide coverage, which adds up to notability. It also meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, and passes WP:BASIC -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 14 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Émeline Charles

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Moncada

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Honduras. JTtheOG (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 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 merge‎ to GE Lighting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savant Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Routine coverage, not sufficient to establish notability. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. 4 of the 6 references relate to an acquisition and the Bloomberg reference is fairly worthless. Uhooep (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing but press releases, nonselective database entries, and companies selling their products. No independent secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to GE Lighting as per ATD. I am unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per HighKing as an ATD. Insufficient coverage for a standalone article, but there's some information at GE Lighting that could be expanded there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:15, 15 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 merge‎ to List of Hollyoaks characters (2001)#Scott Anderson. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Anderson (Hollyoaks)

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

The article does not have enough sources to meet GNG, and a BEFORE search did not find anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2001)#Scott Anderson per lack of sourcing. – Meena • 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters per lack of sourcing, which prevents merging (per WP:V). Also, the (2001) article is ridcolous, unencyclopedic fancrut (list of characters from season/year). We have a dozen of such Hollyoaks (year) articles, all of which require redirecting (maybe a bit of merging) to a single list of characters from that show (it does not merit more than one). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The development section is sourced and per WP:SOAPS, sourcing is not required for storyline sections, as watching the show acts as the source, so it should be merged there. Also, the reason that yearly lists have been used by the Hollyoals for years as soap operas have A LOT of characters that are regular/recurring that are significant. Merging them to a single list would be completely unmanageable due to the sheer length. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak keep (as there are sources in the development page) to List of Hollyoaks characters (2001)#Scott Anderson. The "characterisation" section can be removed though as that is unsourced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: as WP:ATD. Not enough sources to support a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 13 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi and Me

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced only to IMDB and its official site, this children's television show fails WP:GNG. It was soft deleted after an AfD in January closed with minimal participation and as such PROD is no longer possible. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to the article which states all the details about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.87.143.145 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough sources for GNG to be met. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @MrsSnoozyTurtle and The Banner: as the participants of the previous AFD. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced affair. The source given is not an in-depth source but clearly a service announcement based on a press release. The Banner talk 16:03, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naushad Iqbal

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

No in-depth coverage. only statistical and passing mention. Unable to find at least three notable and reliable sources that majorly discuss him, with substantial content. Fails to meet GNG or any specific biographical guidelines. Created by User:Lugnuts who seems to have created a lot of these nonnotable articles. I also previously AFD'd their articles. X (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Bangladesh. X (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:53, 8 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 keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herma Marksman

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC as a historian. Her relationship with Hugo Chavez is not a reason for a standalone article, per WP:INVALIDBIO. A sentence or two covering her in the "Personal life" section of his article are more than enough. Mooonswimmer 13:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Venezuela. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugo Chávez following a source search on Google Books from which I conclude the mentions are not significant. BrigadierG (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My searches found

a 2003 Interview on Foreign Correspondent: https://web.archive.org/web/20060526160431/http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s882059.htm
34 mentions (in Spanish) at https://archive.org/details/hugochvezsinunif0000marc?q=%22Herma+Marksman%22
22 mentioned (in Spanish) at https://archive.org/details/losbrujosdechave0000plac/page/n7/mode/2up?q=%22Herma+Marksman%22
7 mentions (in Spanish) at https://archive.org/details/elpoderydelirio0000krau/page/150/mode/2up?q=%22Herma+Marksman%22
A whole bunch more similar to the above three at https://archive.org/search?query=%22Herma+Marksman%22&sin=TXT

In summary, I think there are lots of sources about her, but they tend to be books, tend to be in Spanish and therefore not as easy to find if we default towards English-language news. The above is enough to convince me that she passes WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the sources found by CT55555. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:05, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlyann Pizzarello

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

She fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. The only independent sources in the article are routine match coverage and a twitter link. Searching the internet didn't provide any better sourcing. Dougal18 (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cecchini

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources outside of WP: ONEEVENT (his death). Hirolovesswords (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES.````

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indisputably notable. See Bishop Cecchini's lengthy article on the Italian Wikipedia: it:Mario Cecchini (Google translated English version). There are many references used, some reliable and others not.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources in the Italian wikipedia article such as the one identified above. Catholic bishops are normally kept, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kais Dukes

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

Artricle not meeting WP:BIO. Limited secondary sources. ElENdElA (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Computing, and Software. ElENdElA (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few mentions of his name [12], [13] but I think it's a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 7 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 redirect‎ to Wan Chai. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Street, Hong Kong

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD as a non-notable road, sources are about the places on the road instead of the road itself. Lightoil (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. Lightoil (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wan Chai (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the street is mentioned several times, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 07:30, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1972–73 NHL transactions

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

Copy and paste move to mainspace. Having tidied it up a bit I am very unsure about the referencing. My concern is that it does not have the quality required, hence the need to discuss this article and reach a conclusion. Conceivably it's not appropriate as a stand alone list. The Draft exists at Draft:1972–73 NHL transactions, so draftification would be pointless. History Merge is not required because there is only one significant author. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't imagine that WP:BEFORE was followed, as I'm dead certain that by the very nature of the beast, reliable sources discussing many of these trades would be found in contemporaneous newspapers. (Not only could I easily find a half dozen articles on the Plante trade alone, I have one in hardcopy from the Boston Globe: I happened to attend his first game in Boston, a memorable shutout against the Black Hawks, and saved clippings.) AfD is not cleanup. Ravenswing 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not have a newspaper.com account, but I know for a fact that trades and free agent signings across all the major sports leagues are and always have been covered by major sources. Even for this specific case, the NHL will occasionally publish an "On this Day" in which a specific trade or signing occurred. That being said, if the creator of both the draft and article (Scuddy07) can provide some of those, then they clean clear the "cleanup" label. Per Ravenswing, although not everyone existed in the 1970s, but if anyone has a physical copy of the newspapers, then it's probably proof enough.Conyo14 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage obviously exists.KatoKungLee (talk) 23:51, 9 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 merge‎ to List of Hollyoaks characters. There is no appetite for deletion, but the arguments against a merger are quite weak. LISTN has been asserted but no evidence provided for it; I also struggle to see how LISTN would be met independent of the parent list, which is indeed obviously notable. Size concerns are a strong argument, but given that this article is far larger than the parent, I don't see how that's a strong argument either. As an aside, I noticed there appear to be lists for individual years as well; I suggest discussing the best way to handle these also. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Hollyoaks characters

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

This does not meet WP:NLIST. It should be either deleted (due to having no references) or mercifully merged to List of Hollyoaks characters if we AGF that it is correct. Side note: this kind of split is not easy to maintain (did the author consider the concept of recurring/returning characters...?). We probably need to do the same with everything else in Category:Lists of former characters. PS. Consider that eventually each show will finish and then this division will be even more pointless then it is now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) PS. There's a ridcolous amount of fancruft in Category:Lists of Hollyoaks characters (I've never seen lists of characters in a show by year of appearance...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been living under a rock Piotrus. What do you think WikiProject soap operas have been doing for the past sixteen years? Chewing corn for gummy parrots. Maybe you haven't seen these pages because you've chosen not to poke your nose into passionate soap editors work. So Piotrus.. **** off and make a cup of tea 2A00:23EE:11F8:56DF:1126:6214:8C44:152E (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand disagreeing with Piotrus' opinion, but please try to keep it civil in regards to the discussion. Yelling at people isn't going to advance this discussion further. Pokelego999 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Anything can be presumed sourcable to primary sources to meet V, anyone can tag or remove anything they doubt, just like always. I agree that 'former character' lists are something that should be deprecated and merged into character lists in general due to the nom's concerns. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the category, these seem to be associated with long-running UK shows. Is there a relevant Wikiproject that might become involved? Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're all UK and Australian soap operas – there is WikiProject Soap Operas, which I am a participant of. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That, coupled with anon's abusive comment above, does help to explain the sudden pile on of low quality keep votes from folks not usually seen at AfDs. Oh well, I am sure the closer will be able to deal with this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by nom. Agree with above concerns. —siro χo 07:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM... – Meena • 10:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – First of all, these lists are easy to maintain, and the author did not do anything wrong. If a character is recurring, they stay on the present list unless a departure has been confirmed and taken place. If a character returns they are moved back to the present characters list. The reasons that these are separated is because soap opera character lists are huge as soap operas have huge casts (due to airing up to 6 episodes a week) and have been around for decades (nearly 63 years in Coronation Street's case). And yes, sourcing is a problem as in the past sources were not used in character lists at all (they are now in the present ones) but we are slowly working our way through it. I and a few other editors would likely be able to source at least half of it by the end of this AFD. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is about 3100 words right now, almost entirely in tables. That would fit pretty comfortably in List of Hollyoaks characters § Former characters.

However, this could also be primarily a minor naming/organization issue. Here's an alternative that might clear that up with very little hassle or change. We could move this to List of Hollyoaks characters, add a top section that links to a Main list of List of current Hollyoaks characters which would now have the content for the current list of characters. I think that would meet basically all the WP:SAL policies. —siro χo 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If someone really thinks this is useful, subsections solve this simply. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per the reasons that user:DaniloDaysOfOurLives gave above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KEEPER... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then strong keep as if the list is merged with the main character list page, then that article would be too long. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLENTY... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The sources for said characters are on the individual pages or List of characters for that year. Ridiculous nomination and needs a speedy close. User:Liz come and close this travesty of a nomination please.2A00:23EE:19F8:1387:E139:4143:4FD3:1019 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. there is zero reason why this should be its own article, instead of a subsection. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sheer size of this list combined with the list of current characters is too much to navigate through comfortably for one article. – Meena • 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment there are numerous news articles about former characters that demonstrate that the former list meets LISTN. People who claim that it is a non-notable list are perhaps not doing their research. Google search for 'past Hollyoaks characters' and you will find many, many articles documenting specific characters that have left, why they left, etc. There's a lot of laziness going on throughout this discussion with the 'agree per nom/NLIST' but I don't see a whole lot of WP:BEFORE going on. – Meena • 22:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to list them? I googled and did not find anything that looks particularly useful. There are sources to show that List of Hollyoaks characters - one list - is reasonable. That's it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters#Former characters. This topic does not meet LISTN, and is not large enough to warrant a split. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, some folks may be confused with regard to what AfD is - a merge is a perfectly fine outcome. Second, interested editors may be interested in merge proposals at Talk:List_of_Emmerdale_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Emmerdale_characters, Talk:List_of_EastEnders_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_EastEnders_characters, Talk:List_of_Doctors_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Doctors_characters, Talk:List_of_Coronation_Street_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Coronation_Street_characters, Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Home_and_Away_characters and Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Neighbours_characters. Most of the main articles here are very short, so size considerations are an issue (but see also WP:PLENTY). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above points. It really would not take much to spruce up these articles - more references (as seen in the Neighbours article) and an expanded lead. I also want to note that rather than 7 different discussions, it would have been more appropriate to have one central discussion at WP:SOAPS. Soaper1234 - talk 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified for 17.78 years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun sourcing the page - it is a work in process but I will be able to get it complete within a few weeks at most. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do no delete. I would prefer to keep this but a merge could be possible, keeping current and former characters separate. The list can be fully sourced with a little effort and it is not difficult to maintain since there are several dedicated soap opera fans who edit these articles as well as a dedicated WikiProject. I would worry however that a merge might make it harder to navigate the list, given the number of subsections in both articles. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 12:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per QuicoleJR Dawid2009 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs sourcing. I would hope some effort to source it would be made if the outcome of this AFD is to keep. It has been unsourced for too long. But that does not mean simply deleting it is the better option. A long-running television series with millions of viewers and at times that has been broadcast worldwide is notable. It may not be as high-brow as some lists, but it is valid.Rain the 1 17:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would say delete, due to literally having no new information, but I believe a merge to List of Hollyoaks characters would be more reasonable. Also, we should merge all of the "List of Hollyoaks characters by year of introduction lists" as they seem all very trivial. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have begun sourcing the page. So far I have only done the first section ("Last appeared in 2023") but by the end of tomorrow I can get 2022, 2021 and 2020 done, and I would be able to get the 2010s done over the weekend too. The sources demonstrate its notability and I will continue to improve the page.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:57, 14 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. ✗plicit 06:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ross (basketball)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT/GNG. Non-notable basketball player - sources appear to be paid-PR/puff pieces.

WP:GAMENAMEing titles [14][15] KH-1 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A puff article for a non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG. Played for a minor college last season where he averaged 2.5 points in 8 games.[16] All the sources are paid-PR/puff pieces. I do remember this article from draft where it was repeatedly rejected for exactly these reasons. Alvaldi (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Blatant advertising for a non-notable athlete. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above after looking through the sources. It's feels close to WP:G11 eligible but I'd support a WP:SNOWCLOSE regardless. Skynxnex (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is G11 material, really, but since we are here now, delete, per nom. Java Hurricane 11:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PR sources have been removed from the article Isabel nisa (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a PR puff-piece. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SALT I draftified this under Jonathan D Ross (draft was CSDed under WP:G11) and this has also been deleted under Jonathan Daniel Ross and Draft:Jonathan Daniel Ross has been speedy deleted 4 different times. The editor who created Jonathan D Ross was also blocked for promotional editing just 4 days before this article was created. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this back story, shouldn't a CHECKUSER be opened to see what other accounts and IP addresses are potentially pay-to-play under User:Isabel nisa? SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this, but after looking at edit histories I think that it's more likely that the subject/people close to them are hiring freelancers to publish, which is meatpuppetry but harder to prove. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I guess we'll whack-a-mole any other similar meatpuppets that pop up. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject fails all notability guidelines, including WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 00:16, 14 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. ✗plicit 06:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serge B. Provost

AfDs for this article:

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

Page creator restored page via copy-paste move (I think adding a review or two) after recent AfD ended in soft delete. There is a weak case for NAUTHOR notability with (excluding routine zbMath and MathSciNet items, which are more catalog entries than reviews of the sort discussed in NAUTHOR) 3 reviews of one book and 1 of the other. Subject is surely overshadowed by his more notable coauthor in these cases. Redirection to a stub on Quadratic forms in random variables : theory and applications might be an alternative to deletion; or it is possible that more reviews may be found (but I didn't succeed in this during the AfD of a few weeks ago). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only new addition here is one primary source that isn't support for notability — awards only bolster notability if they're sourced to third-party reliable source coverage properly establishing the notability of the award, and not if they have to be sourced to content self-published by the award's own presenters. Otherwise, this is functionally identical to the first version, and has done nothing to build a stronger case for notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the previous discussion, doesn't seem to be notable enough in his field of study. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The citations might be enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a low-citation field. And the book reviews look like enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, even not counting the MR and Zbl ones as too routine to confer notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this AfD ends as a no consensus or keep, then the closing admin should likely merge the history from the previous version of the article, since the current article appears to have been created as a copy and paste move. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, since consensus is still up in the air. More opinions would certainly be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wanted to note that the mention of an "award" from the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology is unfortunate and likely UNDUE. I'm not sure if that affects notability in a negative way so I am not !voting yet. —siro χo 07:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was on the fence, but contra David Eppstein, I have looked at the citation record for his works and — excluding Bilinear forms and zonal polynomials, which he was not a principal author of — the article subject's publications don't seem to be sufficient to constitute "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" (WP:NPROF). I also don't personally buy the AUTHOR argument. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 11 September 2023 (
Delete A professor but does not meet NPROF. His works have a small number of citations, and the "award" is from a predatory publisher: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Lamona (talk) 02:34, 13 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 no consensus‎. There are some suggestions to merge, but there is disagreement over the respective target. In any case, a decision and action to merge does not require administrator intervention, so this AfD can be closed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orikhiv

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

For almost a month, something like 90% of the references in the article have been completely broken and unidentifiable due to a ProveIt bug. Even if you do count the unverifable stuff, there is really not much here. Most of it isn't even near Orikhiv, making it not really a "battle of Orikhiv" at all - just scattered bits of fighting in the area that are mostly covered much better in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive anyway.

I'm not really sure what exactly to do with this article. Draftification is an option, as is massively changing the scope to cover the broader 2023 eastern Zaporizhzhia campaign and/or merging with Battle of Huliaipole. If none of those end up happening, then maybe we can just delete it and put any salvageable bits into relevant notable articles. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding articles in the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have lots of references, including (in the Russian) several daily updates from the Institute for the Study of War such as https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-22-2023 These could replace the references to the main page of https://www.understandingwar.org/ in the existing English article. If you Google "Battle of Orikhiv" https://www.google.com/search?q=Battle+of+Orikhiv there are many references from reliable sources, including The New York Times. If ProveIt is broken, tell its maintainer what needs to be fixed. References have to be verifiable, but that doesn't mean they have to be easily verifiable. Print-only references and ones in languages other than English are perfectly valid. Whether the battle really is best named "battle of Orikhiv" or something else, that's a content matter rather than something for AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the corresponding article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is just covering various bombings and shellings, with zero mentioning of actual military engagements. Meanwhile, the Russian Wikipedia article has like five sentences covering actual fighting, none of which is near Orikhiv and is much better covered in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Those articles would probably fail AfD too. HappyWith (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge to Southern Ukraine campaign is a valid WP:ATD. There is generally a higher barrier-to-entry with these Rus-Ukr battles for standalone articles due to their recency (WP:NOTNEWS applies), so coverage needs to be beyond just merely daily updates and needs to contain some sort of significance through (preferably academic) analysis. I haven't really looked into this article yet, but am just laying my general thoughts out. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is in a bad state, however I'd say the fighting here was notable on its own. Orikhiv was the center of the failed russian winter "offensive" in Zaporizhzhia. I imagine fighting must've also taken place during the initial moments of the war. If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just made an effort to make the citation standard less horrible. Quite a lot is sourced to a single ISW daily briefly, which my revision makes entirely evident. Concerning the previous comment "If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one." I regard this mode of logic dangerous. According to Buridan's ass, you sometimes have to draw lines between things that are arbitrarily close together (otherwise you can box yourself into unlimited scope creep). Better that each case is tested against the merits separately, unless case A ≫ case B (much greater than) clearly demonstrates inconsistent application of the standards. My own bias favours splitting, not on the basis of the size of the split item, but on whether the boundary is prominent and well delineated. If no two people put the cut anywhere near the same place, all you have is a problem. However, with a clean enough cut, even a small excision can usefully stand apart. — MaxEnt 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't think there is an argument that this subject isn't important is whether or not the sourcing and content is adequate. This really rests on the dialogue between Eastman and HappyWith. Whether or not other Wikipedia's have decent sourcing should not affect what is in the English Wikipedia's version of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially merge this to Zaporizhzhia front per talk page discussions. It should not just be deleted though in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would theoretically support this too, but there is no article with that name. HappyWith (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to mention that since the removal of all unsourced info, the article now has literally nothing in it involving any "battle" beyond sporadic terror shellings by Russia.

The fact that it has not been improved in the many months since creation - and the weeks since this deletion nomination - makes me really doubt that there is any good sourcing out there with which this article could be improved. This was confirmed when I googled "battle of orikhiv" and found basically no significant coverage in any reliable English-language sources. Isn’t this a pretty clear delete per general notability guidelines? HappyWith (talk) 01:32, 11 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 keep‎. There is minimal input, but what there is suggests that the problems with the article can be fixed without requiring deletion or any other administrator activity. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burlakov case

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

Unmotivated fork from main article Oleg Burlakov, most of the article duplicates the main one, and the rest does not meet the criteria WP:BLP. Details can be seen in particular here.

It combine in an original way a set of criminal and civil cases related to the personality of Oleg Burlakov, which were conducted in different years between him and third parties, as well as between third parties without his participation.

The article does not cite and there are no reliable sources at all that would define the totality of these cases as the “Burlakov Case”. Acting in the same logic, all cases connected with the personality of any John Doe for the entire period of his life and proceedings after his death should be defined as the "John Doe Case", which is absurd. I suggest deleting the article

By the link, there is mostly a discussion of the main article Oleg Burlakov, but this one is also mentioned. At the same time, its author refuses any discussion of the content he contributes, instead swearing at me. The history of this article is as follows. In the Russian Wikipedia, I removed fragments from the article by Oleg Burlakov that violated the local analogue of WP:BLP. The user ssr silently created an article in Russian on the Burlakov case and translated it into English as well. In the Russian section, the administrators, after discussion, removed this article as violating the rules about forks and original research. After that, the user ssr translated it into Spanish and French, and in these language sections the main article by Oleg Burlakov is simply missing. In the English section, he refuses to discuss the relevance of finding the information he brings in, even my request for the source of the name Burlakovo Case (absent in authoritative sources) was deleted by him with swearing. The content of the article Oleg Burlakov can be improved. But there is no expediency for Burlakov case to be on Wikipedia, since its only purpose is stalking and it radically violates the rule WP:BLP. For the entire existence of the article, the author has not cited a single authoritative source in which the circumstances set forth in the article would be combined into some kind of "Burlakov case". Джонни Уокер (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Cyprus, Latvia, Montenegro, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Panama, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "farmed sockpuppet"-nominated article. "Farmed sockpuppets" are strictly prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any language. The article validity was proven by new page patrollers and other watchers (thanks to them), then deletion attempts got no support at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Burlakov_case and after that at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Oleg_Burlakov. The freshly-registered "empty" nominator's account is used for the only purpose of attacking this particular article. Which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE — "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". So that, such nominations and techniques contradict with everything Wikipedia is about. This should be not allowed per WP:NOTHERE. --ssr (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My account is really not that active here and I mostly write to the Russian Wikipedia. But this does not affect the fact that you, firstly, violate the rules of Wikipedia, in particular WP:BLP, and secondly, you refusing to discuss these violations meaningfully. You never cited an authoritative source in which the term "Burlakov case" would be used in the same sense that you used to create the article. Since you cannot silently rollback my question here, I still ask you to answer it for everyone - where does the term come from? Who uses it besides you? Джонни Уокер (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Attention Wikipedia administrators! The account "Джонни Уокер" is a "farmed sockpuppet" account. Please do what is needed in such case. -- ssr (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is in the wrong place. The BLP debate, now archived, ended with (1) a suggestion that this article could be moved to a more general title, to deal with the problem that there is no "Burlakov case" as such, just a series of legal things going on connected with him, and (2) a reply saying that wouldn't solve the BLP violations. There are two things going on here: allegations of editors pushing a point of view, showing ownership, and creating unsourced biographical information. These are serious behavioural allegations that should be handled at ANI. The other half is a content dispute, which could better be dealt with by a third opinion or dispute resolution case. AfD is probably going to make a mess of this, because neither keep nor merge addresses which bits of content are wrong, while delete could easily just refocus the content dispute on the Oleg Burlakov article. I note that neither this article nor the main article has much going on on the associated talk pages. Elemimele (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "problem that there is no "Burlakov case" as such", there is a reliable source for it. And more are appearing. --ssr (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 7 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Center, Kansas

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

GNIS permastub. Unlike Dentonia, Kansas in the same county I cannot find any evidence of there ever having been a village here, with no Google results apart from auto-generated crap and references to an unrelated church named Wesley Center in Independence, Kansas. Historical satellite imagery shows one building which was removed at some point between 2011 and 2014. Neither this historical site nor historical maps make any mention of Wesley Center until 1985 when it appears as a name with no structures attached. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wesley Center was a real place; it had its own local column in the Burr Oak Herald during the 1920s (see this for example), and it gets some mentions in north Kansas and south Nebraska local newspapers during the same general era. That being said, I'm not sure there's enough to it to support an article without more sources than that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP According to Roadside Thoughts Gazetteer, it still exists.[17] — Maile (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete These Kansas locales have proven troublesome. This one looks a lot on the maps like Dentonia mentioned above, but I don't think a heading in a local paper is enough to describe what it is, and that's really what we need, not just a tag which collects together ephemeral items about residents. That said, it's possible that somewhere out there is some local history which addresses the matter directly, as was the case for Dentonia. Regular searching shows the usual clickbait (of which Roadside Thoughts is an example) and a number of references to Methodist Church facilities and simple juxtaposition of the words, but nothing specific to this place other than the usual US gazetteer GNIS predecessor documents. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newspaper clipping is enough to establish that the community was once a real one. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without additional context, this fails all notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 21:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, this is looking like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of the sources linked above is significant coverage: One is just a listing of minor events that happened in the area during one week in 1927 (someone couldn't get home from school because of the weather...someone bought a rug for the church...) and the other is just a nonselective gazetteer entry with little information content. These establish the location exists and may have once been populated, but existence is not notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a former unincorporated place the subject of the article is not eligible for WP:NPLACE automatic notability. Absent that, it is clear that it lacks notability under GNG. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:30, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brant J. Pitre

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

Biography bereft of any WP:INDEPENDENT source. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of non-primary sources is a big issue, and, frankly, I'm not seeing all that much worth saving: it reads very generic bible scholar, without any interesting details. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 03:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone objects Green, Joel B.; Brown, Jeannine K.; Perrin, Nicholas (2013). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (2nd edn): A Compendium Of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 978-1-78974-026-4. includes an article by Pitre. So not WP:INDEPENDENT. And he is not a subject of the book, although his works are cited several times. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want an independent WP:RS: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/confecting-evidence , but that would make it a wholly negative WP:BLP article. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, scholars routinely publish books and articles, so publishing books and articles is not evidence of WP:N. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but having those items cited by others is evidence of WP:N. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not exactly: WP:N requires that Pitre (or his works) were subject of an in-depth coverage in books or journal articles. Again: getting cited by other scholars is nothing out of the ordinary for a scholar. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. Take a look at WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bible. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Keep. Far from my area, but if you search GS for "Brant Pitre" (rather than with middle initial) you find a great deal more citations (top one 115). Putting that name into WL Ebscosearch comes up with loads of book reviews, which look sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If those are judged to be WP:RS, they should be cited inside his biography, and this request be closed as keep. You see, I do not necessarily want his biography deleted, but independent sources should be provided for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From EBSCO:

However, I frequently found his historical evaluations to be overly optimistic and at times bordering on apologetics. [...] – I could not help but feel that Pitre’s analysis was often too averse to tension and contradiction, and that his methodology was too much like a sieve that allows everything to pass through.
— Daniel Frayer-Griggs Duquesne University

Frayer-Griggs otherwise expresses admiration for Pitre's book.

Our discipline’s methodological foundations in form criticism and the criteria of authenticity have been shaken if not razed altogether,1
— Jordan J. Ryan University of Dubuque

Ryan's whole analysis stands or fails upon this claim.

My minor criticisms notwithstanding, this is an excellent book that I highly recommend.
— D. Clint Burnett, Knoxville, Tennessee

Pitre has argued this contrarian, reformist, and restorative agenda thorough strictly biblical criticism in a half-dozen previous works including [...]
— Campion Hall, Oxford Patrick Madigan

Pitre has convincingly challenged a number of assumptions in the study of Jesus, and his work must be engaged by anyone wanting to understand Jesusthe first-century Jew.
— John A. Dennis, International Christian College, Glasgow, Scotland

If I were to locate him on a scale of criticism I would put him in the camp represented by, say, N. T. Wright (or Joseph Ratzinger).
— Lawrence S. Cunningham / University of Notre Dame

To demonstrate his thesis Pitre adopts certain methodological guidelines implemented by E. P. Sanders in the latter’s study Jesus and Judaism. That is to say, Pitre adjudicates the historicity of the Last Supper based on a combination of the following factors: (a) its contextual plausibility in late Second Temple Judaism, (b) its coherence with the evidence of the New Testament gospels, and (c) its plausibility as the cause for the Eucharistic practice of the early church. This method certainly offers three necessary conditions for the evaluation of the Last Supper’s historicity. However, given the subject’s complexity, those conditions alone seem insufficient for the task. Pitre chooses to disregard other well-known and established standards widely adopted in the field of historical Jesus research, such as the traditional form-criteria of authenticity and the earliest New Testament sources. He highlights his reasons for doing so by briefly appealing to the ‘powerful critiques’ of the former as well as to the continuing questioning of the Synoptic twosource hypothesis in some academic circles.
— OLEGS ANDREJEVS Carthage College

There are some other sources, but I don't know if any of the above count as WP:RS. E.g. Cunningham is the only full professor among them. There might be other full professors who wrote about Pitre available at EBSCO, but since I could not decide whether they approve or disapprove of him, I left them uncited. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the author is simply a conservative biblical scholar and a prolific author. Some of his books are bestsellers and there is no real reason to delete him, in my view.-Karma1998 (talk)
- Yes, but you should know that our own opinions do not matter. The opinions of WP:RS do matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not be especially well-known or at the top of his field, but looking at the citations in the article he seems to be notable enough to at least have a short article about him. Vontheri (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very well known in American Catholic popular academic circles (a surprisingly large niche). Some coverage: America, Catholic News Agency (CNA is owned by but editorially independent of EWTN, which has featured Pitre in at least one TV show). If anything, this article could be shortened to remove non-independently sourced material. Also, "full professor" is less a standard for RS than the fact that reliable source published an individual as an authority on a subject, so I see the above block quotes as pushing this article well-past GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep as he passes WP:NAUTHOR based on multiple reviews for his books: [18] [19] [20] for one book, [21] [22] for another.
Keep and rewrite This appears to be another case where “there are sources, but none of them are cited”. Perhaps this is because many of the sources present a negative view of the subject. If that is the case, then the solution is to examine the sources and rewrite the article, not to delete. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs presented above. Also, this is not the first time I’ve seen issues with exact names and Google Scholar searches.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sure the nominator knows about WP:BEFORE, and that article content does not determine notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:09, 9 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 05:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Jansen

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

Lacks notability as a beauty queen. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 7 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 redirect‎ to List of Gossip Girl episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, Victrola

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020. Previous AfD (2007) closed as "no consensus" DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. I'm not seeing in-depth coverage in reliable sources focusing on this episode in particular. It is occasionally mentioned, of course, or listed among rankings of the show's episode, but nothing that suggests independent notability from the show or its characters. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:28, 7 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 merge‎ to List of Hollyoaks characters (1999)#Alex Bell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bell (Hollyoaks)

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

The article does not have nearly enough sources for GNG, and a BEFORE check found no additional sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is redirected, it should be merged to List of Hollyoaks characters (1999). List of Hollyoaks character is not appropriate at all. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1999)#Alex Bell (the only appropriate place) for reasons stated in nom. – Meena • 15:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Largely unsourced. There is a valid WP:ATD and the redirect target can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:27, 11 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 merge‎ to List of Apple II games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video Stock Market

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

~~Fails WP:GNG Summerslam2022 (talk)~~ 00:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Business. Skynxnex (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any indication this was not just a driveby deletion nomination and a WP:BEFORE was performed on contemporaneous magazines? This game's sources are 100% WP:OFFLINE, so nothing will be found by searching the Internet. It has at least one review here so I feel like more may exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also pinging @BOZ: since he is the one who created the article, to see if they can come up with more sources than just a single one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Apple II games as WP:ATD-M. Willing to change to keep if evidence of another RS is found (recognizing we might not have access to such a source within 7 days, evidence thereof is enough for me) —siro χo 07:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Apple II games. A WP:BEFORE yields nothing additional online or on the Internet Archive. It is fair to hope that WP:OFFLINE can complement this, but absent evidence of those sources, it leads down the rabbit hole of WP:TMBS. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not seeing anything else. Timur9008 (talk) 13:22, 7 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Bashir

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - can't read Arabic but will AGF that sources below are SIGCOV as claimed. Giant Snowman 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is Captain really his first name, or is it an army title? Govvy (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like his legal first name. Ortizesp (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage under his Arabic name الكابتن بشير. Some sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Proper BEFORE not done.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am scratching my head to grasp why the article is even nominated for deletion. Easily passes Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as part of the Sudan national football team and plays in the Sudanese Premier league. See the coverage under his arabic name

FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:58, 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.

Hosta

Recent Comments