Aja viide. Aja lugu.

< October 06	October 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 no consensus‎. Opinions are split, and a consensus is unlikely especially given the addition of events of the last week. If folks think a merger might solve to some of the issues, suggest that continues on the respective Talk pag es. Star Mississippi 12:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada

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

Clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating this for AfD alongside Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Terrorism, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three): These pages are indeed all examples of what is discouraged by WP:NOTMEMORIAL and writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD under a different title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. AryKun (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and detailed data on a well studied international conflict. Page needs some cleanup, and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns can be addressed. Mistamystery (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list is a NOTAMEMORIAL violation, there isn't a way to address them without deleting the list. The individual people killed aren't in any way notable, and while "Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada" might be a notable topic, such an article is never going to justify having a list of people who died in it. AryKun (talk) 15:29, 24 September 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} 08:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The parallel counterpart to this list, List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada has now been deleted, while this one hasn't, as one additional editor voted delete there but not here. One way or another, however, it means that this list now stands in isolation as an unbalanced POV list without a balancing counterpart, so the impetus for its deletion as a standalone item has only grown. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Unknown" individuals in the list doesn't really prove notability. Most of these "individuals" don't even have articles, so I'm not seeing the point of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTEMORIAL doesn't apply here. It says Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject of this article is Israeli civilian casualties which has been covered widely by reliable sources. It doesn't even name any names.

Alaexis_¿question? 12:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:IS WP:RS are already coving casualties as a group, NLIST is satisfied. NOTEMORIAL doesn't apply per Alaexis explanation above. // Timothy :: talk 21:54, 7 October 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!} 23:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on what has been written, I think the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Iskandar323 - all three articles should be deleted. In fact, it was an error, IMHO, to make 3 separate discussions. All three should have been handled at one common discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like many others have said, NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable here. The topic of this page has had wide and sustained media coverage, which is the basic criteria to keep an article in Wikipedia. WonderCanada (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTMEMORIAL is applicable here, and the list is not otherwise notable. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in abbreviated form to Second Intifada. Cruel as it may sound, individual incidents in which a handful of civilians are killed in an ongoing terrorist campaign generally do not have standalone notability. I would cut this to a list of instances with deaths in the double figures, and summarize the collective remainder in a few lines of prose, accounting in prose as needed for any specific incidents that drew unusual attention relative to the deaths caused. BD2412 T 03:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: FYI, most of this list is already duplicated here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Pravin Maharajan

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

The article fails of meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The majority of sources within the article primarily consist of interviews and sources associated with PR, lacking substantial or noteworthy coverage. Additionally, a significant portion of these sources do not provide proper authorship attributions. Furthermore, certain sources, like The Logical Indian, are considered unreliable. The deletion log indicates that the article has been deleted on multiple occasions due to being perceived as unambiguously promotional or advertising-oriented. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and shouldn't be considered for deletion, having references on many Wikipedia independent reliable sources including CNN-News18, The Economic Times, Business Wire India and lots more. Kasuabakin (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide information about this individual. They all appear to be promotional articles related to cryptocurrencies. It would be helpful if you could specify which sources are actually offering substantial coverage of the person in question. Akshithmanya ^talk 03:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has only made less than 70 edits so far.Akshithmanya ^talk 03:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum level of activity an editor must have before voicing an opinion in an AFD. Some editors' first edit is in an AFD. What's more important is the argument they are making, not their edit count. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Main sources has PR materials in it. No mention of this person can be found in any reputable sources. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't think the participants' arguments are very strong and would appreciate a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My source analysis is as follows. 1st 2nd and 3rd sources are about his company bitscrunch. 4th source has no content. It is just titled as stories by author. 5th and 6th one are about cryptocurrencies. 7th one is a promotional interview. 8th one is a video of his speech on Tedx. 9th one is interview. 10th looks almost good. But it is solely focused on his company bitscrunch. 11th one is entirely about something else. 12th one has some mention. 13th one is from Behindwoods which is known for its promotional content about celebrities. 14th is interview. 15th, 16th, 17th as well as 18th is about his company and cryptocurrency. 19th one dont even mention anything about him. 20th one is a promotional press releass without any byline of the author. 21st one is one among the many websites that lists net worth of celebrities. So from these it is clear that the subject fails GNG criteria. 116.68.101.233 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 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 02:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance Animators New Zealand

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

Not able to find any coverage. No source/ significant improvement since it was created. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, and Organizations. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced article for a closed business with a name that is very difficult to search for WP:IS, my BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I can't even WP:V its existence. I did find a directory listing for an "Animation College" in Auckland, very general name, but it is mentioned in the article, [1] as an offshoot, but they don't even appear to have a website. // Timothy :: talk 19:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to usual WP:BEFORE Google searches, I have searched the Australia & New Zealand Newsstream Proquest database which is usually pretty good about NZ newspaper coverage in the 90s-00s; as the studio was apparently founded in 1989, I'd have expected any newspaper coverage to fall in this timeframe. I can't find anything, and certainly not anything that meets WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this now [2] [3] and archive of the official website [4]. If I am right, it is somewhere under yoobee's [5] now. Still no sigcov. Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. and then Redirect to Baron Muskerry Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Deane, 9th Baron Muskerry

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

This nobleman fails WP:BIO, due to no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. BEFORE did not turn up anything satisfying the GNG criteria. Gets passing mentions in the tertiary sources Debrett's and Burke's, but then again, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baron Muskerry. Or, failing that, delete. Again we have another one of these NOTGENEALOGY entries/articles which only exist because the person holds a title. Holders of peerage titles are not automatically notable. If the only thing we can say (and support) about this person is that they hold a title, then that fact can be covered in the article about that title. Per nom, there is nothing to indicate that GNG or SIGCOV are otherwise met, and the only (scant) sources which support the basic information we have (confirming that the subject was born, married, had children and owns a [granted large] property) are directory-style peerage entries and the like. Which are all tied, inexorably, to the title the subject holds. Hence "redirect" to the article on that title... Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Unsourced BLPs eligible for BLP PROD. No objection to a redirect if the unsourced BLP (includes info on children) is deleted before redirect. // Timothy :: talk 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads awfully like something written by a family member in the early days before sources were considered essential. Deb (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the title page as an WP:ATDR. Plausible search term with no possibility of confusion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:44, 9 October 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 Recompose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Spade

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

Article seems to clearly lack the notability criteria. It appears as if this is a promotional article that was written and is maintained by an employee of Katrina Spade's company. Kitzing (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recompose. All of the news coverage is about Recompose, or Spade describing Recompose and the human composting process. There's already a very short biography on the Recompose article. Sionk (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No compelling claim of notability and flimsy sources. Judging from content and edhist, this seems to be either a fanpage or promo art. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:06, 27 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!} 23:39, 30 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!} 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recompose per Sionk seems like a logical enough alternative to deletion here, at least on the surface. (Granted, that article is far from perfect as well, but it did survive its AfD for what little that's worth, and she is very much mentioned in the other article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recompose seems appropriate. Kitzing (talk) 14:49, 09 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!} 23:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1953 12 Hours of Sebring

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

WP:ROUTINE (motor)sports event. Nothing really of note happened. The article consists of a play-by-play, which isn't noteworthy itself. The remainder of the article is unexplained statistics. SWinxy (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Florida. SWinxy (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Merging to 12 Hours of Sebring is undesirable per WP:NOMERGE point 1. Nomination seems to focus on the state of the article and not about the existence of sources; no evidence is presented that offline sources were checked in a WP:BEFORE. Classic case of AfD being used as cleanup. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is a completely valid venue for when editors think it fails NOT: WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. A check for sources is irrelevant, since the concern is not of notability, per BEFORE: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. SWinxy (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you said in your nomination, "Nothing really of note happened." How is that not a concern of notability? Regardless, If the concern is purely about the state of the article ("The article consists of a play-by-play...The remainder of the article is unexplained statistics.") and not notability, then you're either using AfD as cleanup or a means to force others into expanding it (which doesn't fly in the face of WP:JUSTDOIT and WP:VOLUNTEER, respectively), in which case I support the below opinions that this be speedily closed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mean it as a notability thing in the sense of Wikipedia notability, but in terms of: 'nothing really happened, it was routine coverage.' I am not intending to force a cleanup. I am nominating it to be deleted. SWinxy (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree in the strongest terms that there should be no coverage whatsoever at any time on Wikipedia (which is what is implied by either nominating or !voting for deletion) on the very first race of the World Sportscar Championship, which has readily available online sources to establish notability, on top of likely a plethora of offline ones, all because of the article's current state (see the WP:POTENTIAL essay). I apologize if you feel that I cast any aspersions, was not my intention, but I do very much support a speedy close based on my understanding of this reply. This is a bad AfD (not in a dramatic sense, just absent of good). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you're nominating it for deletion but not contesting its notability? What's going on here? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, as a failure of WP:NOT. SWinxy (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        From WP:WHATISTOBEDONE: "When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider: 1. Modifying the content of an article (normal editing)." Was this considered? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not what? Not routine? Routine means everyday events without any significance, not any event that ever happened. A track day for the local auto club at Sebring is routine, an instance of one of the biggest endurance races in the world is not. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep - World championship edition of a major event. Someone with access to suitable archives would almost certainly be able to find WP:SIGCOV from contemporary sources, and likely from later ones given the historical significance of this race as the first ever round of the World Sportscar Championship. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Not the best race report I've ever seen but the 12 Hours of Sebring is obviously going to have ample coverage to write on, notwithstanding the additional significance of this event as HumanBodyPiloter5 mentioned. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Searching for the article title seems to bring up less useful results in a WP:BEFORE search than searching for the more naturalistic "1953 Sebring 12 Hours", which immediately brings up this retrospective article from the seventieth anniversary of the event and this contemporary report from Motor Sport magazine. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that these two alone are enough for a clear GNG pass, ending any (apparent non-)concern about notability. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely is notable enough to remain. GraziePrego (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the event's notability should go unquestioned. The article has problems, as do many others. It can be improved upon over time, as have many others... RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Tscharntke

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

My WP:BEFORE did not find reliable in depth sources about the person. The references in the article are not WP:SIGCOV. The article toes not meet our guideline WP:CREATIVE. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any evidence that this artist is notable per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The article referencing consists of primary sources or directories. What I'm not finding is significant coverage in independent sources. No real track record that one would expect of a notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is less than what's expected on the English language Wikipedia. Looking at the other article created by the same article creator Bergpartei, die "ÜberPartei", the article might be translation from the German Wikipedia. There's difference beyond language in other languages of Wikipedia and many have less rigorous notability reqs. Graywalls (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:05, 14 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CGS (schools)

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

List fails WP:NLIST, and if seen as a WP:SIA, it also fails NLIST (The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list.) But it should not be seen as a set index article because the members do not share the same or similar name. As initials are not names, having the same initials (together with ostensibly having the same initials, but not being known by these initials) does not change the fact that these are all essentially different names. Page resembles a dab and is tagged as a dab on the talk page, but it is expressly a list and not a dab, stating even that "Not all [entries] are known by their initials". Dab-valid entries appear to all be included in CGS (disambiguation)#Education, so there's nothing worth preserving here.

Copa Confraternidad

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between Argentina and Brazil national football teams with no historic relevance. Could be merged to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, as it was done in this similar AfD request Fma12 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Argentina, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, we do not need a separate article for every match between these two countries. Giant Snowman 18:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, the match is not worthy of a stand-alone article. TheInevitables (talk) 14:56, 10 October 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!} 23:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyBlueprint

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

Website does not pass WP:GNG. All sources are not independent of the website, and searches for this website do not bring anything of note. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Canada. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero reliable, independent sources. A quick google search brings up nothing that could be considered WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 8 October 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!} 23:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Makin

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 7 October 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!} 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Lennen

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 7 October 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!} 23:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Mariano

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 7 October 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!} 23:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Kuylen

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 7 October 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!} 23:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nahjib Guerra

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is coverage in Breaking Belize News and Channel 5 Belize but none of it is significant. I'm glad that these articles are now being taken to task. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International footballer and enough coverage in secondary, independent sources to meet GNG. LilleFreak187 (talk) 22:50, 07 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 7 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etele Baláska

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

Played 16 mins of football and then disappeared. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 found in my searches; I searched in Romanian, Hungarian (Târgu Secuiesc, his birthplace, is largely Székely) and English but found only basic database coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Database sourced article. Coverage to support notability not found. Rupples (talk) 19:42, 10 October 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!} 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiris Vasiliou

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

Doesn't even seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone anything else. The CFA source (non-independent) seems to be permanently dead but I revived the Balla source here but, sadly, it contains zero WP:SIGCOV. The only other source that I found on him was Kerkida (translated), which is far from good. All I can seem to find is stuff about a chef of the same name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:35, 7 October 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, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic warehousing

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

Please see the multiple issues tag - I suspect these issues cannot be fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best I could do is [6], which is a conference proceeding and therefore not peer-reviewed (presumably not RS). Article is incomprehensible and nongrammatical. I found more hits if I searched "semantic data warehousing" but I'm not sure if that is the same thing...this isn't my field. At the very least WP:TNT. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there might be enough content for a new article on semantic data warehouse, but I think this is a buzzword that hasn't caught on (compare to: data lake). Walt Yoder (talk) 14:25, 11 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National security group

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

Tagged uncited for over a decade and "These organizations differ from other NGOs and think tanks by not only producing original concepts and solutions but also by finding the necessary means and mechanisms to implement them." sounds dubious Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vauge and lacking sources on the topic as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be a company of the same name. This might be a valid topic but is too generic and lacks referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 22:56, 14 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum (TV series)

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

Draftified following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothalum Kaadhalum, moved out of AfC. While I don't read Tamil, still does not appear to be independently notable from Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai. Bringing it here for community discussion. Star Mississippi 17:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Star Mississippi 17:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is one of Vijay TV famous serials with a lot of cast coverage in English, and more there’s a source from The Times of India: [7], [8], and News18 India [9] [10]. [11] disneystar website: [12]. I can be add more source in future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Loglines of its existence don't prove overall notability, and the company that produces it is disqualified from being a source here. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's rationale for deletion is completely false, @Ravensfire has on multiple times shown that there is no connection between KMKV and this current series by sources. There are already multiple drafts on this topic with varying content (with the draft recently being submitted by @Aspiringeditor1 and declined by @Tutwakhamoe), so the contents of both should be merged and histmerged together if this article is kept to create a decent article. — Karnataka ^talk 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then add sources? PKarthic still hasn't addressed my concerns, and we should not be having multiple versions of an article in draftspace if there's one in mainspace. The talk page for this article has not been created and isn't there to look pretty; use it. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a longer term issue unfortunately @MrSchimpf. That article has been created under multiple titles and by a number of editors. Leaving User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_13#Modhalum_Kaadhalum where I said I had no issue with the draft being resubmitted, but going around AfC is not what was intended nor to their credit what AE1 did, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karnataka/Archive for the closer. Star Mississippi 01:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf I'd like to reiterate the importance of fully reading and understanding AfD comments before pouncing at them to reply. At what point was there a !vote in my message? I was simply refuting the incorrect nomination statement and pointing out the multiple drafts as well as how they can and should be combined. You should be asking Star Mississippi to add sources to prove the link between KMKV and this series - my comment is to do with nothing about notability, you would have understood this if you have properly read my comment and took it as a suggestion: "if this article is kept". — Karnataka ^talk 21:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nate :I don't understand, what's wrong with the serial, that's serial was more than 4 time delete or draft. if you have a problem with added the name of Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai serial, i can remove. (If you have watched the serial Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai, then you will understand the similarity between the two serials.) I know, i don't have a any sources, but in future i can find. the series is actually a well known one. What kinds of sources are you looking for?--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

, i don't have a any sources, but in future i can find. which is why you should not have moved this out of draft space. That's why draft space exists, for improvement. Star Mississippi 01:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nate : look, so many draft serial still on, Draft:Ilakkiya (TV series), Draft:Raju Vootla Party, Draft:Vasantham Star 2023, Draft:Super Singer Junior (season 9), Draft:Veera (2022 TV series).. i was already remove all link about kalyanam mudhal kadhal varai. Now this series are independently. please help me.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:20, 27 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!} 17:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. discussion above has said all I could. —darling (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The popular TV series.. is still airing more than 100 episodes. Sufficient source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.65.69 (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 7 October 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. Star Mississippi 02:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hudo (scouting)

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

No indication of WP:Notability, and not clear that it belongs at en-wiki. Will never be larger than a stub (it's been 15 years; no refs). In-links from Cathole, and Outhouse. The Dutch nl:Hudo (toilet)^[⟶ en] has two refs, one (floep) appears to have been a passing mention in a wordlist (now 404s; no archive), and the other (in Dutch) is an etymological speculation positing Urdu origin for the Dutch word but says nothing about the concept. Maybe transwikify (per WP:NOTDICT) but maybe not at en-wikt, but only at nl:wikt:hudo. Mathglot (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hudo article is a small gem. Deleting everything that isn't a major publication is IMHO a petty action. Definitely the article describes a worthwhile term in Scouting, and as such would be much better served with a recommendation for enhancement or improvement, than a deletion proposal. As such, I vote AGAINST DELETION. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above, Bduke (talk) 00:33, 29 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!} 17:28, 30 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!} 17:35, 7 October 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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next Thai general election

AfDs for this article:

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

Next Thai general election

This article has no references, and verifiability in Wikipedia is not a nice-to-have because it is required. It was once moved to draft space, correctly, by User:DIVINE, but has been moved back to article space, and so is a contested draftification. Wikipedia should have either a draft or an article on the next general election in a country in which a general election is mandated by a given date, but the authors were already once told to find references. The Heywood criterion is to add two (preferably three) references to reliable sources, such as Thai newspapers, in any known language.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Thailand. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unreferenced but will become encyclopaedic with references and unhindered work in Draft space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This article needs referencing and time to work on the prose before it's ready for mainspace. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already had a reference in the opinion polling table (although not in footnote form), and I have added another for the electoral system section. As opinion polls are now being created for the next election, IMO this means having an article is now justified as there is information specific to it. Cheers, Number 57 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Opinion polling being available means this is no longer in WP:CRYSTAL territory. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Darftify:The next general election in Thailand is pending, and the country already has its current Prime Minister. Consequently, there is no prevailing political instability in the region. The article is not yet prepared to transition to the mainspace. DIV INE 10:15, 11 October 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 02:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Glassford

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

No notability exhibited for this photographer, who has studied in notable places with notable people but has no track record of notable works, exhibitions or regard as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique or has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. With that, we fail WP:NARTIST... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Mexico, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Alexandermcnabb,

Thank you so much for your time and for the information regarding what the article may be missing. I will include in this thread some information that may hopefully be of help.

Some notable works have been exhibited in publications such as the Leica Fotografie International magazine, where the photographer's work was awarded the 'mastershot' distinction (link) which according to Leica USA, Leica Fotografie International (LFI) is "one of the most long-established photography magazines on the market" (link). This award was briefly covered by German local publications and media ie: Pixel News (link).

The artist was the 2019 recipient of the Director's Fellowship for Documentary Storytelling at the International Center for Photography (ICP) in New York; one of the leading institutions in photography and visual narratives.

As to the existence of concepts, theory, and techniques; the artist has been cited in a few mediums, one of them being FeatureShoot (Link), a publication that has since 2008 "showcased the work of international emerging and established photographers who are transforming the medium through compelling, timely and cutting-edge projects" (Source) and is regarded as a leading publication by creatives and editors within the field. The artist has participated in exhibits, a recent one being the most notable, where he participated in Mexico's leading photography fair "FotoSeptiembre", led by the federal government's cultural secretariat. Throughout the exhibit, the artist received a few notable mentions through two of Mexico's leading newspapers (La Jornada and El Reforma) which mentioned his solo exhibit throughout the fair.

Links to the digital and physical printed copies are as follows:

I apologize since most of the information is based from Mexican publications and written in Spanish. Hopefully this doesn't present much of an issue, in the meantime I'll await for your response and look forward to any other comments or questions you might have.

Thanks so much! Andrew Sanchez-Kane (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:49, 23 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!} 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some eyes on this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All things considered, it might be WP:TOOSOON. His awards/positions do not strike me as notable. There is some SIGCOV of his solo exhibition but I don't think it's enough.-KH-1 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NARTIST as lacking a significant body of work, UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 11 October 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. As this is due primarily to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Biggs (singer)

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

The fabulously named Michael Fernand Nascimento de Castro Biggs is Ronnie Biggs' son (remember folks, notability is not inherited) but his notability is presented in this article as a singer. There is no evidence that the subject is or was notable as a singer. The article does contain the compelling line, "Since March 2021, Biggs has being a television presenter for a Music show called Papo Musical, which is about music." but the coverage presented here relies on Michael's relationship with his father, and with his membership of a children's group, The Magic Balloon Gang (a possible redirect target). Michael himself fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United Kingdom, and Brazil. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Turma do Balão Mágico. Michael Biggs was a child actor on the popular television show Balão Mágico and singer on popular band. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked into the sources and added some new ones (I speak Brazilian Portuguese); the source about Papo Musical doesn't rely on his relationship with his father (he isn't well known in Brazil, unlike his son), but it does primarily associate him with his former band.

However, my reading of WP:BIO is that this doesn't preclude him from being considered notable -- Several news articles from reputable sources have been written concerning him specifically, even if he's introduced as a former member of the band. I think there's enough information and sources about him to warrant a separate article, and so I disagree that the article should be merged.

I did some copy-editing to improve the quality of the article, and I think it's significantly better now (please give me some feedback). CVDX (talk) 18:41, 29 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!} 16:54, 30 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!} 17:30, 7 October 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 . Star Mississippi 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramy Houssaini

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

BNP Paribas executive, no SIGCOV in RS - fails WP:GNG; WP:ANYBIO - WP:NOTCV very much applies here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. His work in cybersecurity has better coverage however the page need changes for his notability claim as a BNP Paribas executive.195.36.32.145 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This being the sole contribution to Wikipedia made by this IP editor. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 30 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!} 16:52, 30 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!} 17:30, 7 October 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!} 06:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sopapan Wirunmat

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

This actress, businessperson, television personality and beauty pageant titleholder lacks notability for any of these roles/functions having never acted, proven notable in business, been on television beyond some beauty pageants which brings us to the last, because according to this article she's never actually won a beauty pageant - which wouldn't make her notable in of itself in any case. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Thailand. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Evey by the relatively low standards of Thai entertainment news, there seem to be very little to go by. Apart from a very brief interview in Thairath in 2017[13], all other news coverage appears to be passing mentions of her being the MC in a few events. She appeared on the cover of the May 2014 issue of Sakulthai magazine (one of the leading glossy magazines before it ceased publication in 2016)[14], but I can't find if there was an accompanying profile. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:07, 27 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!} 16:49, 30 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!} 17:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding coverage to support notability. Article reads like a CV. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 10 October 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 D.Gray-man characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nea D. Campbell

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

Fictional character from minor anime. While there is a reception section, it is cobbled from mentions in passing (anime reviews). I fear this is a WP:SIGCOV failure. Merge/redirect to List of D.Gray-man characters per WP:ATD, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was downright planning to merge it lately as I kept expanding Lenalee Lee. So yeah merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, September 30, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. Looks like a good consensus towards WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:03, 13 October 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. all except for James D. M. Beebe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James D. M. Beebe

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

Only claim to notability is length of time he did his job. Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Howard Van Pelt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe the job itself is not notable. Melcous (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages which make the same claim to notability (i.e. length of service)[reply]

I clicked on two of them, Beebe and Josiah Johnson Sr., and each had extensive front-page obituaries in major newspapers (Johnson in The Sun, which apparently was The New York Times of its time, and Beebe in the Daily Record, which, while not as big, is still a pretty large newspaper in the area) - I don't know if this bundle of 11 is okay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Nominating over 20 creations of historical articles by a single user in a very short timeframe feels like harassment of that user~~ - I'm really not liking these nominations, especially since all of them are very well-developed and appear to be of historical interest (not necessarily suggesting they're all notable, but, really, 22 nominations for deletion of the hard work of a single editor in the span of around two weeks?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the claim to notability doesn't seem to be length of service, but WP:GNG, as the creating user mentions in the creation summary for each page "Creating article for subject that passes WP:GNG per having significant coverage". BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Inappropriate bundled nomination. Many of these subjects are clearly notable. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest doing a procedural keep of both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Fowler, each of which have way too many articles to be evaluated at once – each of varying notability and some near-certainly notable – ~~and seem to be harassment of a single user~~. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, not sure if you realized but you have !voted K*ep twice in bold and again in non-bold. Please strike through your repeat k*ep !vote, as it is not permissible for an editor to !vote twice. I realize you may not have known that this can affect the outcome is the closer is doing a search-and-count when analyzing the closure. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harrassment of the creation editor. The first three I looked aren't notable. Articles must be able to be evaluated for notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for Beebe, I would say having a full-column long front page feature story in a major newspaper is indicative of notability; I haven't looked at them all, but even if they're not all notable, it still feels wrong to be mass (as in over 20 in two weeks) nominating for deletion the hard work of a single user - it caused immense stress when I had that experience happen to me (and it was half the scale) - it at least should be spaced out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~What about Theophilus Beebe?~~ Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Looking in the template potential claim to notability as "first" pilot licensed under the the New Jersey Commission Graywalls (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a non-procedural note, I think we should at least keep Beebe for being notable per scope creep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having looked at the first three with the first one being Beebe himself, they certainly look as though they are non-notable. The main reference for James Callahan (pilot) is an interview, which is WP:PRIMARY. The first three articles are framework article with almost no biographical information. I found one entry that is notable on another Afd. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that a bundled nomination does not provide an adequate forum for each article to be independently examined and debated on its merits. Perhaps some of these subjects are non-notable, as Charles O. Beebe was deemed to be. But others may be notable, as Joseph Henderson is. They should each be considered independently. Jfire (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comment above. The Joseph Henderson article will need to be looked at again, because 5 members of the WP:ARS were in attendance, which makes it a ideologically driven block keep !vote. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These boat pilots do not seem to be notable, and are part of a walled garden. They all seem to be men who were born, did their job like hundreds of thousands of other employees, possibly won a non-notable award like hundreds of thousands of other employees, maybe raised a family and died. If these were female nurses or another skilled profession they would never pass notability for simply doing their job. I will hold off on !voting after a deeper dive into the sources, but am leaning towards delete all as run-of-the-mill entries WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All Ten There seems to be a misapprehension that statements by a creating editor are invariably true. It should be acknowledged that creating editors are often unduly protective of their work, This holds true with statements in edit summaries when articles are created. It comes from the concept "getting your retaliation in first" and creates an apparent expectation that what follows is correct.
These articles are part of a walled garden. Maritime pilots work in a hazardous profession by definition. The subjects of these articles were born, grew up to adulthood, married, had children, and died. They are WP:ROTM workers performing their work, as do many millions of people each day. Their job is not notable, nor is their performance of it, and they are not made notable by the times they lived in.
Each fails WP:BIO, each fails WP:GNG. Some facts in the articles are interesting, and, where references permit, could and should appear in Sandy Hook Pilots if they are not present already. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources that exhibit intellectual independence from one another and independence from the subject matter. For example, front-page obituaries in major newspapers for James D. M. Beebe. Let's ensure the enduring recognition of the notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots in our encyclopedia! Preserving their legacy is essential for any comprehensive record. I do not like putting so many pilots into one Afd request. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's four articles solely dedicated to him here so he's passes coverage guidelines. Him being the first pilot in that area also seems to be of something of note. I'd agree that he's not the most notable person ever. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something also needs to be done against mass nominations of articles like this. I question how in-depth of an investigation on each person could have been done when 10 articles are in play at once and it's asking too much of people to go through all of these nominations at once.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KatoKungLee, The nomination was made in good faith by a very experienced editor. There is nothing incorrect nor against policy with creating a bundle of related articles to be deleted together. It is definitely not against policy to do so, it actually saves editors' time as well as closing administrator's time in the long run when there are a group of articles that are part of a WP:walled garden or have similar problematics. In fact we have a guideline on it: WP:BUNDLE. There is a long history behind the articles in this walled garden, several editors and admins are aware of this case. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' I will do a source analysis table tommorrow on all of them, for the first reference block on each one of them. Beebe and the first two are certainly non-notable. By long established consensus, it needs more than single obit to establish notability. It needs more than obituaries to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy, so try and get this done tommorrow. See whats what. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am holding off on !voting until the source analysis table is completed. Many thanks to @Scope creep for offering to do this as it is a VERY time consuming task and the tool sometimes has glitches and one's work can be lost (this has happened to me a few times on other AfDs). If a closing administrator stops by before the Source Analysis Table is posted, I request that the AfD be relisted to give editors the time to digest the contents thereof. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to see if there is any meat on the bone. I suspect some of them are non-notable and some are. scope_creep^Talk 22:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as that was requested but right now, I'm seeing No consensus here. These bundled nominations are either successful (when the articles are nearly or completely identical) or they aren't successful and in the case of this bundle, I think there is enough difference between some of the articles for most editors to not argue for the same result for all of them and it is very time-consuming for editors to closely examine sourcing for 10 different article subjects. But maybe this coming source analysis will coalesce editors around one opinion on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Lets look at these in turn, working backwards, since I started on that and looking at each block in turn:
Thomas Cooper (pilot)

Ref 1 Short obituary two small paragraphs, spread across two pages, with an advert in the middle.

Ref 2 Birth records. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 3 Unable to view it.

Ref 4 Talks extensively about this grandfather, but not much about him. It not significant as a ref.

Ref 5 Passing mention

Ref 6 Discusses the "Daniel Webster" Not about him.

Ref 7 Passing mention

Ref 8 Small article, saying he was in town and boat was wrecked. Its not significant. Passing mention at best.

Ref 9 Another newspaper entry. Very short. States he will be in charge. Its a passing mention

Refs 11,12, 13 are the same. He is will charge of piloting.

This constitutes, two small obits, a birth record and several paras about his parents along with notices of his work in the local and very local paper. This person is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Robinson Lampee

Ref 1 Essentially an X of Y article, a small profile on each pilot working the harbour.

Ref 2 Birth census record for his children.

Ref 3 Unable to view it. Its a raw search url

Ref 4 Mentions his grandfather took him on cruises, but non-existant on detail in the context. Its actually Charles I Lampee, not about William Robinson Lampee

Ref 5 All passing mentions on Thomas Cooper

Ref 6 Its about John H McManus. Not specific

One thing I noticed is the couple of the book references are to the same book, same page number. This person is non-notable by a long way. A small profile in an X of Y article doesn't make you notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Low

Ref 1 Census record for marriage. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 2 Non-ref. No page number. A search archive.org where it is located. Sorry there is a page number:82. Picture of the "Edwin Forrest" that he ordered. Passing mention.

Ref 3 Newspaper obit. Decent ref.

Ref 4 Not a ref for him. It is the "Liberty"

Ref 5 Newspaper entry. Not significant. Small para

Ref 6 Passing mention is a newspaper entry. Not significant.

Ref 7 Another small newspaper entry. Not significant.

As with the other, ultra-local coverage that is not significant in its own. Per long consensus, since 2006, the single obit is not sufficient. This person is non-notable scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murphy (pilot)

Ref 1 Birth records WP:PRIMARY and non-rs

Ref 2 A substantial obit. Decent ref but ultra local again for Boston port town.

Ref 3 Short newspaper article about reading of the will

Ref 4 Small obituary. A very small 10 line para. Not significant.

Ref 5 Mentions Murphy as the pilot. Not significant. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 6 A letter from the pilots themselves including Murphy, something about misrepresenting their board. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 7 Mention him working as a pilot. Passing mention. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 8 Arrival of the "The Great Eastern". He was the pilot. Passing mention.

Ref 9 Small para, another obit. 8 lines. Its a death notice. Not significant.

No doubt that being pilot is an important job, but several of the these references are notices of the work he was going to do as a pilot and at best they are WP:PRIMARY. If there was a couple of references to go with the big obit, it would been kept assuming they were WP:SECONDARY but currently this person is non-notable scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon L. Mapes

Ref 1 Smithtown news. Passing mention. He was the pilot.

Ref 2 Marriage details. WP:PRIMARY. Non-rs

Ref 3 Taken sick while working. Two small paras.

Ref 4 Details of the "VERA CRUZ" oil painting. passing mention.

Ref 5, 6 are census details. WP:PRIMARY and non-rs.

Ref 7 404

Some of the worst references. Man doing his job with hearsay and notices. The subject is absolutely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Johnson (pilot)

Ref 1 A newspaper obit, in the front page of "The Brooklyn Daily". Might be good this one.

Ref 2 Census records. Non-RS. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 3 Two paragraphs in the "Veterans who pass a life of hairbreadth escapes" article.Not significant. Interviewed for it.

Ref 4 Launch of a ship. Not significant.

Ref 5 Statement piece. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 6 Lots of passing mentions in this book, although I think its the name of a boat. Not significant.

Ref 7 Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1881.Not significant.

None of these are real coverage. The same kind of coverage, lots of passing mentions of man doing his work being used to spin up an article. Nothing here that is significant that can be called WP:SIGCOV. There is three criteria in WP:BIO. This person fails to meet any of them. Fails WP:BIO. This person is Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Johnson Sr.

Ref 1 Small paragraph about the pilot and the boat named after him. Not significant.

Ref 2 Again. Gbook ref about the pilot and the boat named after him. Not significant. Only a single of him. More of the boat named after.

Ref 3 Census. Eight children. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 4 Boat launch notice. Not specific to Johnson.

Ref 5 The boat getting down by a ship "Wanata"

Ref 6 Article thanking the town when the boat was ran down and belongings saved. WP:PRIMARY.

There is nothing here that makes person special. Fails all three criteria of WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. This person is Non-notable scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electus Comfort

Curious name for the man. Electus??

Ref 1 No page number on article but page 18 anyway. Just the image on page 18. Nothing else. Not significant.

Ref 2 From Sandy Hook to 62° but page 336 anway. Seems to be a whole chapter. Good be a good if it was verified.

Ref 3 Marriage notice. Not significant.

Ref 4 Census again. WP:PRIMARY. Non-rs

Ref 5 Not specific to Comfort.

Ref 6 Passing mention

Ref 7 Shipping movements. Not significant.

Ref 8 Another doing a job of work passing mention.

Ref 11 is a death notice.

This could potentially be borderline but a single reference is insufficient to prove WP:BIO. This person is Non-notable scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Callahan (pilot)

Ref 1 and 2 Non-rs

Ref 3 Widow of Callahan, marrying his best mate. Not significant.

Ref 4 Callahan being interviewed at a tribunal. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 5 Notice of pilot boat "William Bell" being launched. Not significant.

Ref 6 More about the William Bell. Not signficant and can't be used notability.

Ref 7 Callahan is not mentioned in this book.

No real sources in the first block. This person fails WP:BIO, all the criteria, in fact they is no references at all in this article. This person is Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James D. M. Beebe

Ref 1 Quite a substantial obituary. It is a good source.

Ref 2 The launch of the "David T. Leahy" Not significant.

Ref 3 Another obit. Not significant.

Ref 4 Very short notice in the NY Times. Not significant.

Ref 5 Another small obit. Two small paras. Not significant.

One big obit and a couple of small ones. If I was to !vote on this, I would it was a weak keep. Its not what I would consider really WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ten articles - based on the detailed source analyses by Scope creep, and the comments by Timtrent, these individuals do not meet criteria for notability. They were simply doing their high-risk jobs as boat pilots - run of the mill WP:MILL. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles except James D. M. Beebe. It is quite a long obit and there could be more history there. It unusual to have such a long obit unless there was something else going on. I think it should be a Weak Keep. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 10 - Based on the above sources, just having one good source is not enough. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 02:02, 13 October 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 23:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VCal

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for sources is complicated by the number of things out there called "vcal". My understanding is that vCal and VCalendar are different formats, although some folks abbreviate VCalendar as VCal. That said, I could not find any independent, in depth, reliable sources discussing this calendaring format. I don't see a compelling target for a redirect, either. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as I cannot find any reliable sources on "vcal" related to "Vision PIM". Can't even find unreliable sources. Article has been tagged for 15 years for not citing any sources and for 7 years for notability. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:45, 7 October 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 October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict. Overwhelming consensus that a standalone article is not warranted at this time, and a redirect is the clear opinion. Acting on this in a speedy manner to avoid confusion. Fuzheado | Talk 14:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Gaza war

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

article already exists Abo Yemen ✉ 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Abo Yemen ✉ 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- yeah this is the exact same thing as October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict, literally no reason for it to exist - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 13:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect duplicate, and warn the disruptive editor. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is ElijahPepe disruptive, huh? (Disclaimer: the page was discussed on the Wikipedia Discord right before it was sent to AfD, so I can't really !vote.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — There is a separation in topic that should exist but does not at present because of the nascency of this event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no need to delete plausible search term. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/merge/redirect Needless duplicate of existing article.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate. Delete and redirect is also fine. No added value in the article. gidonb (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Article titles are essentially synonyms and scopes identical. All the information here is contained within or outdated by (e.g. in updated casualty counts) the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict page. Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scopes are not identical. The war article is specifically about the actions taken by the IDF following the attack. The attack article is about the attack. There is a reason one is longer than the other—that being that there is more information on the attack right now—and more attention to the attack article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and speedy close, duplicate article Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me, as it is too early to tell how this will develop. I'd say that a redirect to October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict is the best course of action. The Gaza War article can be remade in the future depending on how this goes. DarkRevival (talk) 14:35, 7 October 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 13:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Alistair

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

The GameZebo and Gamer Tell reviews are substantial pieces from reliable sources, but I couldn't find anything more. The other site used in the article seems to let anyone submit pieces for consideration through their forums. The Jay is Games review I found doesn't count towards notability and isn't usable in the article because it's by another contributor besides the eponymous Jay. QuietCicada (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I also found a mention here, but it doesn't have much commentary on the game besides a general description of it. This seems like it's scooching up to the line but not crossing it. Normally I'd suggest merging to Sakevisual but I do not believe that may be notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 7 October 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 23:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N. Jehangir

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Most of the sources are about his company NestGroup. The majority of the available sources primarily focus on the subject's company, NestGroup. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Kerala. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:19, 30 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 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: where is indi source nd research about Jehangir . some source are gossip contant nd some talking abut his company i think he is not notable till now. Worldiswide (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:48, 11 October 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. Ineligible for SOFT, however no one is contesting it and I don't see another relist helping to garner input. Star Mississippi 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Hassan

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Most of the sources are about his company NestGroup. The majority of the available sources primarily focus on the subject's company, NestGroup. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Kerala. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:23, 30 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 13:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in depth coverage. Fails notability guidelines. 117.254.35.190 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Menon

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

Has appeared in minor parts and does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for actors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources attest he rather meets both general notability requirements and specific criteria for actors, with various significant roles (not minor, some being lead roles... ) in notable productions.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The actor appears to have played major roles in just one movie, "Rakshapurushan." To meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR, an actor typically needs to have played major roles in multiple productions. Regarding GNG), it's worth noting that sources 2 and 3 focus on the movie Rakshapurushan. Furthermore, sources 1, 6, and 7 are from TOI, a publication known to accept payments for positive coverage, and its reliability falls within a range between no consensus and generally unreliable as per WP:TOI. Additionally, sources 4 and 5 are interviews, which are considered primary sources. So the subject does not meet the notability criteria outlined in GNG.
Akshithmanya ^talk 06:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that more coverage on his other films (the Hindi ones, and his more recent ones, including Elza (2022)) would help to demonstrate that he meets WP:NACTOR more clearly; but he seems to meet the more general requirements for notability of persons, with the significant coverage on him in New Kerala (incidentally, this source "5" is not an interview) and Times of India (this source "6" is not a review but an article on his career). As for the latter, the noticeboard says indeed not to use it for political subject matters, but the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". I'll leave it at that. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think need more RS. Worldiswide (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Sources in articles are interview, brief mention, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with BLP level WP:SIGCOV addressing the suject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing different. // Timothy :: talk 00:18, 8 October 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 12:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veho

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

While there seems to be some mention of its products in media, it doesn't appear that there is sufficient coverage to meet the WP:CORP of today. I would have PRODed this one also, but it is mentioned at Southampton F.C.#Club identity. However, I also decided against BLAR since I'm not sure this is the primary topic of this name. Besides Veho Tech which I have also nominated, there is also a Finnish car importer, fi:Veho and the French commune Vého currently disambiguated via SMALLDIFFS. Not really sure if people will find the redirect appropriate so here I am. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this stub a long while ago when they were the only company sponsoring a Premier League football team that didn't have an article. They don't really appear to have gone anywhere since, and their last set of accounts suggests they have downsized. Together with the lack of RS about the company itself (though that's actually tricky due to the existence of the US firm), I don't think they pass CORP these days. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree they don't meet WP:CORP. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:20, 7 October 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 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yavgeniya Khatskevich

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

Played one minute of international football and then disappeared. I can't find significant coverage in any language, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There is SCSG, which has a small amount of info about her but it's nowhere near enough for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:16, 7 October 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!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faiza Ismailova

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

Unfortunately, I can't find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. Article created due to playing less than half of one game for Kazakhstan but can't see anything that meets our notability guidelines. KFF, Olympic and Kaz Football were the best that I could find but all are just squad list mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: check the Kazakhstan women's national football team last couple of games and she is not there. I think she stopped playing since 2020. Also different search words did not yield any results that can back up even a weak keep FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:16, 7 October 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 speedily closed‎. Deleted under CSD G3. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiul Islam Sagor

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

This is a contested draftification. However, this article looks like a direct copy of Hridoy Islam with the names switched. As a result, the sources I can access only mention Islam, not Sagor.

Before the page creator removed the draft templates, I had tagged it as a possible conflict of interest issue, owing to the creator's username. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, I declined an A7 without checking that the sources talked about the correct person. It should probably be speedied as a hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Espresso Addict! This one's an unusual situation for sure. Obviously, I'm not opposed to a CSD G3 deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete. An autobio. A hoax. A mess. Whatever this is, it's miles from notable, and needs to be nixed, the sooner the better. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete Sources don't mention him, looks like a hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not draftify. Delete this hoax. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this for speedy as a hoax given the above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get Shakes

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

As I wrote in my PROD which was just removed:

Aside from this review from DIY and a paragraph in a MusicOMH concert review, I found no evidence of notability.

QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a huge number, but it still has multiple sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above, the group won an award that was televised on Channel 4. I suspect there is more coverage beyond what's easily found on Google. Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 30 September 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} 05:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike CTR360 Maestri

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. After removing unreliable sources what was left were sources from SoccerBible.com and Nike. SoccerBible I'm not actually certain about the reliability of and Nike is obviously not independent of the subject. Most of the SoccerBible references only mention the project in passing in relation to some other subject or are mere product release announcements. The couple that do mention it more than in passing or are product announcements don't constitute in depth or broad coverage given that it's only one source. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic. Giant Snowman 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, we redirect to articles, not other redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article - redirected - now restored. Giant Snowman 07:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD, but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, can you sign your vote please. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 30 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A failure to produce viable references means the WP:golden rule is not satisfied, so this fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 11 October 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 Scotch Game. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haxo Gambit

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

Non-notable "internet name" for a chess opening not used in reliable sources. It's simply the Scotch Gambit to chess players. See Talk:Scotch Game for further information. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Game. Not entirely sure why we need an AfD when there was already a merger discussion. Even if the term is a recent meme, as long as it's a plausible search term a redirect is appropriate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Game. Not a notable enough term for this chess opening, as evident by its complete lack of sourcing. Redirect to the suggested target as a WP:ATD. User:Let'srun 02:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pawnkingthree. Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was basically what I was proposing in the merger discussion, but if it's decided in AFD, so be it :) -- Sohom (talk) 12:08, 13 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY Amigao (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously deleted last week at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment. WP:G4? Curbon7 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previously deleted article was a one paragraph stub. This is not a G4 situation, let us consider the present article on its merits. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Curbon7 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on an unattributed translation of zh:反台獨情緒. I think it is a worthy topic, but a terrible article. The original Chinese article is mostly a quote farm, and the present version is worse. Translating zh:台獨派, "Taiwan independence faction" as "pro-democracy people" is clearly incorrect, for a start. I think this requires WP:TNT to have any chance at a decent coverage of the topic. Delete or stubify. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kusma, this is a noteworthy topic, but article within the realms of TNT, possible redirect to Taiwan independence movement#Opposition to independence, but the title is grammatically ambiguous, Opposition to Taiwan independence would be best. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a student assignment (I am the instructor). The student jumped the gun by publishing the draft in the mainspace before asking me for a detailed feedback. This is not read for mainspace, although I think it is a notable topic (otherrwise I would not approve it); it is broader than the linkted to at Taiwan independence movement#Opposition to independence, as it concerns the anti-Taiwanese sentiment in Mainland China (see also GScholar query). I'd ask for this to be moved back to draft. Hopefully by the time class is finished in December, this will be ready for mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous commenters: @Kusma @Goldsztajn. Also, @Curbon7 - this is semi-relevant, as I see the old deleted article was an early draft by my student. Apologies for not noticing it earlier, I provide students with detailed feedback on my talk page, but if they do not request feedback, I fear some stuff can be missed even through I try watchlist their discussion pages, etc. If anyone wants to follow/monitor more activity of my students (I'd cetainly appreciate it), the course page is here. (Note the students are all ESLs). PPS. Please see my prior feedback to the student on this from June; that includes among others my comment on the "pro-democracy people". My current feedback is here. Feel free to leave messages on my talk pages or on student talk pages with additional feedback. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only comment on the title; whether it concerns mainland views and/or those on the island, "Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment" remains grammatically ambiguous. Opposition to Taiwan independence is grammatically unambiguous and does not exclude opinion on the basis of geographic location. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, this term does not seem to exist in academic discourse. Anti-Taiwan sentiment, pararelling anti-Chinese sentiment, is a bit better, used by a few sources. but is not very popular, either. opposition to Taiwan independence is indeed more popular, and I'd support renaming this thus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind draftifying, but it does need serious work. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:SNOW and because the author themselves has requested deletion of the article, which would typically fall under WP:G7. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines diarrhea incident

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

This article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Yes, there are lots of references, but in the 24-hour news cycle, media picks up anything to fill space. The publication of this event is no more than titillation and shock value. It is tabloid trivia. Wikipedia is better than that. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Transportation. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom rationale. WP:NSUSTAINED certainly applies here as well. User:Let'srun 01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who. ----ing. Cares. WP:NOTFB. WP:NOTGOSSIP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails NOTNEWS as-is. It might be salvageable if there was also controversy (eg. court case), or social commentary about a larger issue, something to move it out of the realm of news-of-the-day. -- GreenC 04:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Busition said in Special:Diff/1178883240/1178950382 it was a "viral incident/notable meme" but the article does not show that. A meme is not the same thing as a news story. If it was a meme we might see notable parody, news stories that discuss it in the context of a meme, enduring coverage and discussion. BTW I think given (or despite) the material Bustition had to work with, it's cleanly formatted and well researched. -- GreenC 04:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a pretty good point. Most of the sources I encountered were either written by the same person or were just non-reliable (e.g. Daily Mail). I wrote this article mainly because I thought it was notable enough due to how very references I was able to find. Now I know very well that is not the case. I feel like it should've rather been a mere mention in an article rather than a stand alone page by itself. Busition (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright it's hard to tell how things will end up, what sources will be available how it will look, you took a chance without ill intent. No harm. The system is working well. -- GreenC 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. FatCat96 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS WilsonP NYC (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very clearly NOTNEWS. Conyo14 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but would be fine on Wikinews. Is there a way to move articles there? - Indefensible (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site is miserable. In the past 7 days there have two legitimate new articles created. And about 20 hoaxes, nonsense and spam pages. -- GreenC 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But like what GreenC said, most of WikiNews is misinformation, which also really brings up the question of how much moderation is there on that site. Busition (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia gets thousands of hoaxes/spam/nonsense too. And it deletes (almost) all of them. Wikinews is probably the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already stale on Wikinews, which only accepts articles about events in the past week or so. See User:Tom Morris/Don't transwiki to Wikinews, thanks * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. But curious if there is a real policy behind that essay. - Indefensible (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
n:Wikinews:Freshness? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I might explore Wikinews a bit more and just drafted a news version of the article on today's Palestinian attack. - Indefensible (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the inclusion criteria listed under WP:NEVENT. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sorry but I have given up the strength to care about this article anymore. In retrospect, I feel like this shouldn't have been a standalone page. I just want this to be deleted and I am sorry if this message appears rude. I'm sorry and good day to everyone. Busition (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we request a speedy Delete per G7? Conyo14 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find this instructive to compare with the similar United Airlines Flight 976, which I created almost three years ago for that event's 25th anniversary. Even at this time in 1995, it would have been notable in a way this has not ... we knew who the perp was and that he was an investment banker, that a head of state had been on the plane and thus it could not be diverted for security reasons, and of course that the perp had at one point decided to perch on the back of a drinks cart, drop trou and crap away. By comparison we know almost nothing about this, nothing that makes it notable. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 9 October 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 Paintball marker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball pistol

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

I couldn't find much outside of sales pages about this topic. This is a subtype of equipment, and the page that covers the larger topic (paintball markers) is where any information here should be merged to. Though this page appears to be only wp:or Malibu Sapphire (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Toys, and Sports. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My gut tells me this should be notable, but the article does not cite any sources, and my BEFORE in GScholar just gave me a few passing mentions. Uh-uh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge to Paintball marker. Currently unreferenced, does not seem to be independently notable. Here's the best I've found, some secondary coverage of case law [15] —siro χo 04:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to paintball marker. No evidence that a pistol is notable enough for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a higher paintball page, this does not need its own article. GraziePrego (talk) 07:38, 8 October 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!} 05:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Leppien

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Does look to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, not seeing enough currently for a WP:GNG pass here at the moment. Given there's no suitable redirect here, reluctant delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Devi Elangbam

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

Priya Devi Elangbam

This Indian sepak takraw player does not satisfy sports notability or general notability. The article states that her team (the Indian national team) won a bronze medal at the 2022 Asian Games. There does not appear to be any special notability guideline for regional games such as the 2022 Asian games. A review of the references shows that they say that her team won the bronze medal, and that only one of them has a passing mention of the names of the players.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	hangzhou2022.cn	Record of a match, states that the match took place. Does not name the subject.	Yes	No. Not even a passing mention by name.	Yes ?	No
2	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	States that the team won the bronze medal. Does name the subject in passing.	Yes	No, passing mention.	?	Yes
3	olympics.com	States that the team won the bronze medal. Does not name the subject.	Yes	No, passing mention.	Yes	No

Neither the article nor the references provide significant coverage. This article was created in article space, and then moved to draft space; then this copy was created again in article space, so that this is a contested draftification. Since there already is a draft, this article can be deleted, and the draft should not be accepted, at least not without expansion to provide significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator Worldiswide (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a comment opposing deletion at Draft talk:Priya Devi Elangbam#Passes notablity criteria (which may apply to the similar Draft:Priya Devi Elangbam). Certes (talk) 20:20, 11 October 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.

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Evelin Poolamets