Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 22 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz 22:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

José María y María José: Una pareja de hoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no usable reviews found in a BEFORE. Perma-stub since 2007. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Marigonë Tahiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Sera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically thinly veiled advertising for a non-notable person. The references are all local news feel good stories and paid advertising promotion companies. For instance the About Us on Business Daily Media is "We thrive on providing publicity and buzz for people and business operators. Tell your story through us." It's all just self promotional advertising for non-notable businesses. Created by a user with a long history of promotion for non-notable people they know on Knowledge (XXG). Minor mentions, passing name dropping in the references, nothing solid or particularly reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Spiderone 21:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Purely self-promotional. The Channel 10 and 9 videos contain barely the smallest passing mention; the Channel 7 News article is entirely promotional (including the use of affiliate links). Nothing of substance to distinguish the subject from any average businessman and falls well short of establishing the notability required for WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. On the surface, this appears to be a barely adequate article, but on further inspection the notability and in-depth, reliable secondary sourcing aren't there in any way. I didn't go through all the sources on the article and only briefly looked for other sources, but it's obvious enough the article subject is not notable or encyclopedic in the general sense nor fits WP:GNG criteria. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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 21:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Modesta Uka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources which come up are individual match and goal reports (eg. this and this) or simply lack substantial coverage. Avilich (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 21:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Marigona Durguti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agnese Ricco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage apart from stat profiles and passing mention, which are scarce too. Although she is a footballer, she never played in a professional league, nor did she play for a national team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: Prior to you pointing it out, no, I hadn't checked the Italian article. There is quite a bit of text on there, but I checked the sources, and they are all either primary sources, statistic profiles, or brief passing mentions. Not enough to warrant WP:GNG being passed, IMO. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Rudraprayag district. Liz 21:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Jaggi Kandai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I checked the Census Population Finder (2011) and did not find any village by this name. If this is a name or feature within some other legally recognized populated place, it should be a redirect to that place, per WP:GEOLAND. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Redirect to Rudraprayag district - Exhausting mapping searches were not that productive. I've found the name Jangi (not Jaggi) Kandai in the 2011 Indian census page here with the line reference, village 05 058 0017 042552. It confirms it's a village within CD Block Augustmuni in the District of Rudraprayag in Uttarakhand province. Scrolling down the list I didn't see a Jaggi Kandai. On a second, more thorough mapping search I still found no evidence that a place of this name exists near to Basukedar. I also considered this list , Jaggi Kandai not included. I'm not saying categorically that a place of this name doesn't exist, it may or it may not. What I am saying is despite detailed searching of online sources I haven't found any evidence of the Jaggi Kandai name near Basukedar. For that reason, I believe the article fails WP:V. Afterthought, if the page title is a mispelling or informal name I suggest a redirect to Rudraprayag district.
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 02:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Viola Avduli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 02:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Fatlinda Ramaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Delete is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Galli Zugaro family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Family of no particular notability. Included in various comprehensive compendia of nobility but no evidence of any significant coverage. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned multiple times on Knowledge (XXG) Italy: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomwikimaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment Mentioned multiple times, but even on it.wiki, there is not an article about the family. Mentions on it.wiki do not indicate notability; coverage in reliable sources does. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Page 460 in "La Fine di Un Regno" by Raffaele de Cesare, 1909" Personal accounts of Baron Enzo as King Umberto's chief secretary Official documentation of Domenico's status as "magistrato", judge Additional mentions of notability and importance Looking forward to hearing feedback before I go ahead and draft other families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomwikimaster (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment @Randomwikimaster: These are all mentions in passing. None of these citations amounts to in-depth coverage that would be necessary to build a Knowledge (XXG) page. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

KEEP - Do we require a person or family to be 'notable' to require inclusion? Notoriety should be sufficient. 146.200.245.116 (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment The notability guideline exists to assure that there are sufficient reliable sources from which to build a verifiable encyclopedia article. With this family, there are not such sufficient sources. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 22:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this reason to KEEP - if a family directly related, who clearly directly interacted with as stated in the sources, royal families such as the House of Bourbon-Parma and House of Bourbon, as well as directly related to the Princely House of Massimo, as well as mentioned on the pages of Carlist pretenders to the Spanish throne and Legitimist pretenders to the French Throne - if this doesn't achieve minimum notoriety, then what does? Although I appreciate the way Knowledge (XXG) works with moderation, I do believe that sometimes some users such as WikiDan61 should put their pride to the side - and let experts of history and genealogy decide whether a family is notable or not. Randomwikimaster (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete What we have here are listings in documents that record genealogies, and a few very brief mentions or name-checks in things that read like society columns of the early 20th c. The title "barone" here dates only to 1927, and is a minor title given often to military persons. I see nothing that would elevate this family to a level of notability. I also don't (yet) find any individual member with enough sources for an article. Lamona (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately you must be confusing your knowledge of titles with that of other countries such as the UK and France, the former who still sells titles for pennies. In Italy, the title of Baron was more respected and admired than the superior "Count" - due to being earned. In addition to this, I do believe that any family directly related to a former Royal House, in this case, the House of Bourbon and of Bourbon-Parma, and the Princely House of Massimo, one of the most important aristocratic families in rome, more than definitely exceeds the bare minimum for notability. In addition to this, "WikiDan61" seems to be going out of his way, more than his usual activity records, to get this page removed... Randomwikimaster (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of "mention in passing". While some of them are, Repubblica, Gazzetta della Repubblica, and Vivant, are all reliable sources and first hand accounts. Randomwikimaster (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
From Vivant, a clause in one sentence: "... alternandosi durante le proprie assenze con sostituti quali il barone Galli-Zugaro...". From Repubblica: "... l' elenco degli ospiti: principessa Cenci Bolognetti, contessa Marcelli Graziosi, principessa Machiavelli, barone Galli Zugaro, marchesa Costanza Afan de Rivera Costaguti..." (a list of guests). And the gazzetta says that Domenico Galli-Zugaro is taking a 6 months leave for "family reasons." That's it. And those are classic passing mentions. Lamona (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
It seem as if you are taking the mentions out of context. Vivant, a first hand memoir of baron Enzo's role as general secretary of King Umberto II of Italy while in exile in Cascais. The guest list, for a fundraising event for a major political party in Italy. Gazzetta, the ex-official newspaper of the Kingdom of Italy. All more than exceed the minimum notability requirements for Knowledge (XXG) in my opinion. Actually, being listed in the Italian Book of Nobility on its own is, according to Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy, more than enough - families who shaped the course of Italian history. Randomwikimaster (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

·Delete. Besides the New York Times article (which is paywalled), I found only one source that wasn’t first person, a trivial mention, or Ancestry (which is generally considered not reliable) like. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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 leaning to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ecumenical Catholic Communion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ecumenical Catholic Communion is a small group with no recognition whatsoever from any Christian mainline denonimations. Their leaders are widely considered to be "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. Furthermore, most of the article refers to primary sources. Thus, I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Soft Delete this article as the nominator has changed their mind but it was already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. So, I'm relisting this discussion in case BD2412 pulls together an article to Merge this content into or we hear some opinions from editors knowledgeable about obscure religious organizations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The ECC is a member of the National Council of Churches and works regularly with the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Old Catholic Churches in Europe. Your statement that the ECC has "no recognition whatsoever" is easily disproven. 2600:8800:52AA:C000:14F3:751E:D0D1:2341 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Open Episcopal Church is a small group with no recognition whatsoever from any Christian mainline denonimations. Their leaders are widely considered to be "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. Furthermore, the creator of the page appears to be one of the leaders of the Open Episcopal Church, which makes me think that this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No assertion is necessary as it clearly has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Independent, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by "assertion of notability"? The article cites significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is a clear assertion of Knowledge (XXG)'s definition of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ray Harryhausen: Movement Into Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable short film, fails WP:NFILM. No usable reviews found.

PROD removed with rationale, "This article meets the Knowledge (XXG) criteria for reliable, independent secondary sources independent of the topic and the author. The film is both notable and worthy of notice."

I fail to see how the ref-bomb of links to screenings makes the film notable. Being show at a festival or even in a regular theater does not in itself, make a film notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete: The film has no critical commentary from film critics that I could find. Per WP:NFP, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. the article just different releases and use quite a lot of primary sources. Also as stated by WP:NFO, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Mike Allen 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

National Fire Adjustment Co., Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and largely self-sourced for quotidian company details. JesseRafe (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Juozas Kudirka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Was deprodded with a note on the talk page that the Jonas Basanavičius Prize is enough to meet NSCHOLAR. Not sure that's accurate. Onel5969 18:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the scholar link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

1887 South British Football Soccer Association season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1886 South British Football Soccer Association season. Fails GNG and NOTSTATS. Avilich (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

1885 South British Football Soccer Association season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1886 South British Football Soccer Association season, fails NOTSTATS and GNG. Avilich (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Consensus the article fails WP:GNG, with sole 'keep' not offering policy rationale. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Serbs in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a very small community (343 people according to the 2016 census), which doesn't appear to have been covered in any significant depth in reliable sources. Most of the sources cited are on the Serbian diaspora as a whole and just contain a population figure for Ireland but no depth of coverage. The one source with some detail is a short article in a community magazine published by the Serbian Council of Great Britain. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 12:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Admiral William Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC for notability guidelines. The only reference in the article is to a political-opinion piece on Irish attitudes to the Falklands War. There do not seem to be enough other robust sources to justify a separate article. The little information that might be justified by robust sources can be incorporated into either the main article for William Brown (admiral) or to The Wolfe Tones (the band who recorded it). Epa101 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Since I began work on this, I see that two other sources have been added to the article. OK, fair enough. I still think that the little information that's justified by robust sources can go in the other pages. There doesn't seem enough to justify a separate article for this song. Epa101 (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to William Brown (admiral). Only found passing mentions of the song's existence. Song is already mentioned on both the admiral's and band's pages, could merge the part about it charting, maybe a couple other sourced lines. I'd also recommend a new redirect of Admiral William Brown (song) going to A Sense of Freedom and a {{redirect}} hatnote on the Admiral's page. QuietHere (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Changing vote to keep per further coverage found below. Good thing other editors thought to check Spanish-language sources, I don't think that crossed my mind. No need for the move/redirect either but I will add a hatnote anyway, don't think it'd hurt. QuietHere (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. While avoiding a specific recommendation (!vote) myself until now, based on the sources identified (by myself in my own BEFORE, and by Binksternet and Jacona and others in theirs), it seems clear that the song has been a primary topic of news coverage in the UK, Argentina and elsewhere. Coupled with the chart placement expectation of NSONG, I don't see how deletion (on notability grounds) can be justified. Certainly I don't support deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any question as to whether this is notable, it clearly is. There are multitudes of Spanish-language articles about this song, the Wolfe Tones, and how this song caused them to be banned in England. Whether the song should be addressed in a stand-alone article as a navigational tool or within either The Wolfe Tones or the William Brown (admiral) articles is a good question. My gut feeling is that it is probably useful to mention it in both articles while keeping the details in this article, for both consistency and for the reader's experience. — Jacona (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Keep. The subject is notable, and while it could easily be contained in the other articles, I believe it will be better from a navigational and maintenance standpoint to keep a separate article. — Jacona (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    Can you put at least a few links to the multitudes of articles please? It is not true that the Wolfe Tones were banned in England. That makes me a bit wary of whether the sources that you've found are all robust, so can you share them please? Epa101 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    Epa101, I’m away right now, but start with the Spanish language source already in the article. After a quick read, cut and paste the Spanish title into your favorite search engine and see what you come up with. — Jacona (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    OK. I've tried doing this and this and, then in Argentina's google, this. Clarin is probably a valid source, but many of the other results that I find are either copies of the Clarin article or from sources that would not normally be considered reliable on Knowledge (XXG). A search on Argentina's Google Books brings up this book, so I remain open to the possibility that it's mentioned herein, but I cannot check it. Epa101 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Searching in other languages is very difficult. I think it is helpful to try multiple searches, more so than when in one's first language. As to your comments, there are two separate Clarin articles in my list below. Newspapers.com has its own challenges, (including spelling Wolfe as Woolfe), but there are a few articles to be found there as well. IMO, there's plenty to demonstrate notability for the song with what's in the article, the only question is whether it would be better to have it included in another article instead. I think this article is fine, although renaming it to make it clear the article is about the song and not the man would be an improvement. — Jacona (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Epa101, I'm sorry you had difficulty finding sources that say the song was banned. Whether it was in fact banned or not, sources say that it was banned, and that is worthy of mention - with due qualification of the sources, of course. Many thanks to User:Guliolopez. I limited the Spanish search to Argentina, and came up with these quick 4. , , , . Mi Espanol no es muy bueno, so I'm not going to go into them in detail, just showing you they exist and appear to be significant. Since the subject is more of interest in Argentina than elsewhere, it seems reasonable to look at sources in their language, and not just that of the Colonial power decried in the song. Jacona (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the links. Sources in Spanish are just as valid as those in English, yes. Nonetheless, they still need to be reliable sources. Numbers 3 and 4 there look reliable. Number 2 seems like a mirrored article of number 3, so I don't think that counts. Number 5 is on social media, and we usually don't use that. On the ban, I would also note that it's quite common for musicians to claim that they've been "banned" when they're not being played much. I recall Eminem complaining that "radio won't even play my jam" when he was actually being played all the time. Epa101 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The song has been discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis that "it's controversial lyrics caused all of The Wolfe Tones's music to be banned on radio in the UK since 1983". Also per Binksternet. Ceoil (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think that claim is true. I can see that Brian Warfield claimed, in the Clarin article, that the song was banned in England, but he's hardly a neutral or reliable source of information. The UK generally doesn't ban songs. I am aware that the Pogues' Streets of Sorrow/Birmingham Six is an exception, but it's certainly very rare and this song didn't get anything like the controversy that the Pogues song got. Epa101 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Reply. Whether via the Broadcasting Ban, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, or the BBC's own mechanisms, any number of songs have been banned (expressly or de facto) in the UK. Whether for use of language, references to sexuality, or political reasons. Including the political situation in NI and The Troubles. The Pogues is not an isolated example of the latter. Others include Paul McCartney, The Police (Invisible Sun), McGuinness Flint (Let The People Go), Marxman (Sad Affair), etc. (All mentioned in this self-reflective BBC source on BBC censorship). The linked primary source is perhaps not ideal. And should perhaps be reflected as "According to the group ". But it is not entirely true to suggest that the "UK generally doesn't ban songs" - when there is well-documented and self-acknowledged history of same. Guliolopez (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Not being played by the BBC doesn't count as a ban. The Wolfe Tones were not played by RTÉ in Ireland during this era either. That doesn't mean that they were banned in Ireland.
    The other things that you mention were generally not applied to music, although, as I said before, the Pogues song shows that it did happen very occasionally. Epa101 (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    P.S. To relate this back to this specific song, is anyone saying that the attitude of the BBC or RTÉ changed after this specific song? The Wolfe Tones were already known as backing the Provisional IRA before this song, which was presumably a big reason against playing them. Epa101 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    There may have been a bit of self-banning going on. Newspapers.com has a number of articles like this one — Jacona (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They, along with the ones in the article, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has been nicely improved since the nomination, and the song achieved notability thanks to coverage about the lyrics and being banned (or whatever the appropriate term) by the BBC. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
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 (procedural keep) due to lack of any valid AfD rationale, and no reply in 7 days to requests to elaborate on said rationale. Daniel (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

SMK Negeri 10 Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i don't want to write a page of smk Negeri 10 Bandung for now Ariandi Lie (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The article has been contributed to by other editors, so CSD criterion G7 doesn't apply: the original editor cannot just request deletion. I do not see any underlying fundamental flaw in the notability or sourcing, so I don't see a valid reason for deletion. The article needs cleaned up, but so do a sizable number of other articles. I was very close to just closing this nomination outright as a speedy keep, but I'll allow a chance for the nominator (and other editors) to comment.@Ariandi Lie: Is there some other reason the article should be deleted? Bear in mind that if it's deleted, you would not be able to recreate the article in its current state; it would have to be in draft until the concerns identified here are addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment the justification to delete is not easy to understand. Further clarification about the reason to delete would be helpful. CT55555(talk) 14:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
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 08:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Stairwell: Trapped in the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMOVIE. Non-notable self-released film with no apparent notable cast/crew. Previous AfD (of 16 years ago) attempts to hang some notability on this being the first 9/11 film; this might work under WP:NFO#Inclusionary criteria but we'd need multiple WP:RSs. I'm struggling to find any sources other than to corroborate that the film exists – Film Threat has a piece, but it just seems to verify the film's existence and I'm concerned by the fact our article says "Film Threat accepts money from filmmakers who are looking for a way to promote their films" (was that the case back when?). MIDI (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any sourcing beyond reviews of the film at allocine (a French movie site). Agree that if we can find multiple RS for the film, it could be kept as explained, but 9/11 was over 20 yrs ago now and it's hard to find much of anything online unless it's been archived. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Geometry Dash. Liz 08:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Robert Topala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been redirected and restored a couple of times. Doesn't meet notability, person has developed one notable video game (Geometry Dash). Sources referenced are predominantly about Geometry Dash, with some about other games - not about Topala. soetermans. 09:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has been redirected before by @Anarchyte and Cat's Tuxedo:. It has been most recently restored by @Schminnte:. soetermans. 09:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Needless to say, as the creator of this revision I would like to keep the page. Firstly though, some background. I created this page in a translation from Spanish Knowledge (XXG); it is not a resurfaced copy of the original redirected articles. @Soetermans is the first person to find issue with this article. They turned the page into a redirect again without any discussion. While I can see why this was done, someone could reasonably assume that I was merely recreating the redirect, my revision is substantially more sourced than the original removed article. My problem is that the article was reviewed by New Page Patrol, who saw no problems with it. I'll tag the reviewer @Onel5969. I believe the article does pass notability, as it has multiple independent sources. TLDR, I don't think the page should be deleted as it adds more depth to the areas not covered by Geometry Dash, including Topala's other games. Merge as per comment below. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry just realized how long that is. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Take a look at its history, it was PROD'ed in September 2016. That same month, Anarchyte redirected it. It stayed that way for years, until MapFreak123 restored it. Cat's Tuxedo redirected it again. So it's clearly not true that I am the first that doesn't think it should stay. Topala's other games are themselves not notable. That Topala created a notable game doesn't automatically mean he himself is notable too, per WP:INHERITED. Also note there's nothing wrong with mentioning a developer's previous work in a development section. And finally, NPP does not somehow mean articles are beyond deletion. soetermans. 11:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Once again, I am not referring to the previous incarnations of this article. To clear things up, the revision of the article that I contributed to is what I am talking about when I say that you are the first to find issue. I am in no way involved with any previous versions of the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Note - I don't know if it will help, but I found a reference that looks very promising. https://www.di.se/digital/mangmiljonvinst-for-sveriges-storsta-speldoldis-85-procent-i-marginal/
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. If anyone has a subscription it might be very helpful. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Take a gander at the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, curated by WP:VG. If you look up 'robert topala', you get a total of nine results. All of which are about Topala's work on Geometry Dash. There's no coverage on him as a person. soetermans. 13:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That may be the case, on that search engine. I've also noticed that those results are entirely English language websites; they disregard articles in Topala's native Swedish. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Not true, the source engine incorporates sources in other languages also, considered reliable by the WikiProject, see Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Video games/Sources#Non-English. Topala's a video game designer, if he would be notable there would've been more results. soetermans. 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
While it may not disregard non-english language results as a whole, is it not true that there are no Swedish websites on the search list? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you trying to catch me in a lie or something? No, there are no results in Swedish. But to be clear, we're talking about a video game developer, video games have a very international reach. It's not Swedish literature or Swedish architecture, Topala is a developer of digital entertainment. If he'd be more notable, his name would've appeared more often. soetermans. 17:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not trying to catch you out. Please assume good faith. As you say yourself, I'm relatively new to Knowledge (XXG). In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of this search engine as I'm more used to doing work in the reach of WikiProject Music. Sorry if my comments may seem that way to you, I'm still learning about parts of Knowledge (XXG) I have less experience in. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Schminnte, see WP:VG/MOS for a summary of video game articles. There are 'development' sections, not 'developer' sections. What can be merged is Topala's work on Geometry Dash. That's what's notable, not him as a person, his other works or his personal life. soetermans. 15:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. As it's exceedingly likely to be a merge now, how will that be carried out? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Merge with Geometry Dash — person's only claim to notability, substantial content here could be included in a "Development" section. DecafPotato (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Tilt (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Dead business. No indication of lasting importance. scope_creep 08:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: I don't think it was ever notable but it could be. I don't think they're all non-notable but they could be. There is about 80-90 defunct business articles listed in the template on this article under the defunct section. There is currently 1 in 2 roughly, about(ish) 40-45% of the restaurants and bars in Portland are on Knowledge (XXG) and listed in the Current tab of the template. I've see an cogent argument recently, if the establishment has 1 in 1000 coverage then it would be likely be notable. That whole argument is out the window, because there is an attempt to list every busines. Why are we moving toward directory like structures? Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. It cannot be by definition. More so, the Terms of Use explicity forbid advertising, yet there is 40-45% of all the establishments in Portland. Knowledge (XXG) cannot be another version of the Michelin or Froomer, or Fodor to DYK Travel guide. That is not its purpose. We are not an advertiser. Many of these bars are absolutely mediocre, they are plain boozers that happen to have an article because they used paid advertising and are well run. That doesn't make them notable. Many of them were only open less than 2 years. Most are absolute crock and have no place on here. scope_creep 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
A wall of text here does not answer Bri's comment. Read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Ongoing coverage is not a requirement. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
What does this mean scope_creep. This odd essay cites no rules or issues or policies. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Adequately sourced and received national television exposure. Nominator seems to be agitated in some way that goes beyond Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards. This article is harming nobody and providing some relevant perspective for food business historians. I am thankful the article is here. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep has years of GNG coverage. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep (disclaimer: article creator) per GNG and AUD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Knowledge (XXG) holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
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. I see no other closure than No Consensus as there is a fundamental disagreement on the adequacy of sources in the article and brought up in this discussion. There have been no new comments in 4 days so I don't think a relist will help resolve this. No penalty for renomination in the future but please wait a suitable period of time (that is, not today).

I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept or Deleted but I do question simultaneously nominating many articles by the same article creator over a holiday period. I think this is only appropriate if there is possible policy-violating content which isn't the case here. It's fairly easy to nominate a lot of articles, separately or in a bundle, in a few hours but much more challenging for content creators to address problems in multiple discussions at once so please, in the future, if you have questions about an editor's work, space nominations out over time. Thank you. Liz 18:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Bluehour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Defunct business. scope_creep 08:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • I did not see the hounding you've gone through involving multiple noms continuing even today, and there are plenty of sources now. Switching to keep, and advising the nom to knock it off, this isn't the way to endear yourself to the community. And I deeply and sincerely apologize for my blithe dismissal above, AB. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per GNG. The article now has 50+ sources, including reputable newspapers, books, magazine, food review sites, travel guides, etc. This represents some of the visible sources I could easily find via Google search, Google News and Google Books. A search for "Bluehour+Portland" at Lexis yields 563 results including 403 by The Oregonian, 26 by Portland Business Journal, 17 by The Columbian, and 11 by the Statesman Journal. I can't share Lexis URLs, so I would encourage editors to access the database to browse sources if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Quantity on Knowledge (XXG) in terms of references was never a thing, quality is. What is your best three references per WP:THREE that show the article is notable? These can be examined here to show whether it is worth keeping. scope_creep 03:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, except that I disagree that the fact that the business is defunct has bearing on it's own. About quantity: It may sometimes be a thing, for example when WP:BASIC is concerned, but quantity is decidedly not a thing when WP:NCORP is concerned. Based on what I've seen, the most extensive piece of coverage seems to be this, but it's essentially a press release about the restaurant opening (neatly packed in an interview-based profile feature format) by an outlet that obviously promotes local businesses. —Alalch E. 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Alalch E.: What are your thoughts on pg 102 here (currently Ref #13)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    What about this Oregonian article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    The book one is good. We got one. The Oregonian article is routine local news about a restaurant closing, but it's a good source as a source, just not a good one for establishing notability. —Alalch E. 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Shouldn't this help satisfy WP:AUD as a regional publication? Here's a detailed review by the same newspaper (which follows a shorter one published in 2011). This article is also interesting (not to mention written by a notable author). ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    AB, it really doesn't matter how important the Oregonian is to the PNW. Coverage in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant is still local coverage. We want to see sigcov in the Chicago Tribune or Boston Globe or LA Times or Dayton Daily News. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    When there's this much Oregonian coverage + significant coverage in books + tons of additional coverage in local/state/national newspapers, guide books, magazines, detailed food reviews, commentary by notable authors and food critics, etc, then I'm satisfied notability criteria are met. We can just agree to disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Coverage in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant is still local coverage - Is it? The geographic coverage requirement is about the audience. When the "local" audience is actually a population that's larger than most countries in the world, the audience requirement would seem to be met. In the case of the PNW, it's the size of France with a population of Denmark and Switzerland combined, not even a single metro area like NYC. Is an article in Le Monde "local" coverage of something that happens in France? Is a write-up in El Periòdic d'Andorra sufficient because it covers the entire country of Andorra? Now, of course, The Oregonian isn't the official newspaper of record for the entire Pacific Northwest, and its circulation is a fraction of NYT or Le Monde, so I'm not saying NCORP is met (and not saying it isn't), but I see this argument from time to time that seems to interpret WP:AUD kind of arbitrarily... — Rhododendrites \\ 20:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    If a restaurant is more than locally-notable, it will get coverage in major dailies other than its hometown paper. It doesn't matter how important that hometown paper is in the region or even in the country because if the restaurant is notable, it'll also have coverage elsewhere. A review in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant can certainly count toward showing notability, but you also have to have some evidence the restaurant is receiving attention elsewhere. If a Manhattan restaurant is actually notable, rather than simply being the subject of today's restaurant review, it's going to be mentioned in other places too. That's why the Oregonian isn't good enough all by itself. It's not that the Oregonian isn't important. It's that if a restaurant in Portland is truly notable, we won't need to rely only on the Oregonian, because that restaurant will be covered other places too. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'd put the book as certainly partial support. It's as much about the chef as the restaurant, and it's still a pretty local/guidebooky source. There are like 70 restaurants mentioned in that book, not all of them are likely notable. The problem for me is that this article has so many poor sources that I can't find the good ones, and I am looking. For instance, I saw a NYT source...but, no, it's about an architect who is designing a restaurant in NYC, and there's a bare mention because he also designed Blue Hour. It's maddening to have to comb through 80 sources to see if there's actually anything here. I'm not even bothering to look at the Oregon sources because there are so many of them, I'm positive one of them is good enough to be the one local source we can use. It's so frustrating to see people trying to "fix" notability at an article by adding literally every mention they can find, when what's really needed is to point people at the three best sources. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Knowledge (XXG) holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: this article flies by GNG with 78(!) references, including to numerous books, statewide newspapers, local news, and more, over the course of decades. For this restaurant to last 20 years is significant, as the industry standard is far lower: "The average lifespan of a restaurant is five years". The restaurant was clearly immensely important as well to the city, with prominent celebrities visiting, and being cited multiple times as the "place to see and be seen". I don't know what else you could desire from a restaurant article, this checks every box. ɱ (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    But which are the three sources that show notability? 78 sources that are either local or bare mentions aren't actually helpful in allowing other people to see the notability. Which three? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
All of them help prove notability. Your standards about "locality" are repulsive, no offense intended. I write about history pertaining to specific areas. Nobody in California is writing about Quebec events, nor are the Quebecois writing about notable Californians. That is why your personal notability standards are not codified in any policies and guidelines here, and you have to stop imposing them on other people. ɱ (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. and I think Scope Creep needs to start doing huge source analysis because I do not trust his content. When this meets local, regional and even national coverage ( I mean the NYTimes covering your place is a sign you aren't just some local fly in the wall) is a major issue that you need to show Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - @WngLdr34: Without judgement on the restaurant itself, I should point out that the NYTimes doesn't cover the restaurant, at least not in any meaningful way. They're both passing comments; one article is coverage of Brad Cloepfil's redesign of Eleven Madison Park (it mentions Bluehour as a previous project, but notability is not inherited), and the other (describing it as 'a bright star in the Portland food constellation') is a scene-setting comment in a paragraph about about a night where Todd Haynes had just sold a movie script and was thinking over the ramifications (while eating dinner with the reporter, I think, or maybe there was a conversation afterwards?). Calling that "coverage" feels extremely generous. –Mockingbus (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
But which three are the ones that support notability? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
See my above comment. Stop this. ɱ (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand how you feel, and I respect your line of reasoning above, but it doesn't have to be said that way, and it isn't right to talk like that. —Alalch E. 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I was about to say "cease and desist", but people freak out whenever lingo is used from the legal world. But it needs to stop. We can't all just reply to every AfD voter ever about our own opinions of what notability standards should be. We have standards, via policies and guidelines, for a reason, and they do not specify locality and industry. ɱ (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:GNG doesn't apply here, that is a false flag and FUD/fudge attempt and WP:42 is an essay and doesn't apply. It is also about 10 years out of date compared to NCORP. Per consensus only WP:NCORP applies for businesses. And AB feeling hard done by, is not a criteria either, as much as I sympathise and know how he is feeling. Everybody has went through this one or the other in the past, including myself. Here, only secondary, independent and reliable reference that are indepth per WP:SIRS applies here. This restaurant might actually be notable, but there has been no attempt to supply any real coverage that satisfies WP:NCORP. Doing a WP:CITEKILL on the article is not the way to do it, it really isnt. Per NCORP it doesn't count because they are all the same kind of low quality cruft that was the reason the policy was rewritten in 2018 in the first place, to discount this high quantity reference pile-on. Show me WP:THREE reference that prove the establisment is notable. I checked that ref above here, but couldn't see Tilt on it. scope_creep 11:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Please see my reply at the Wildwood AfD on why NCORP should not apply to the Portland restaurant noms. Briefly, in my analysis, this was rejected as part of the failed 2018 NCORP RfC, and the closer must take it into account as far as it reflects community consensus on this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep To me these seem suitably in depth, reliable and independent - Fearless critic. Portland restaurant guide. New York, NY : Fearless Critic Media. 2010. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-60816-004-4., Samson, Karl; Aukshunas, Jane (2002). Frommer's portable Portland. New York : Wiley Pub. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-7645-6721-6. and Burgess, Ann Carroll (2010). Secret Portland, Oregon : the unique guidebook to Portland's hidden sites, sounds, & tastes. Toronto : ECW Press. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-1-55490-924-7. when taken with the rest. Thincat (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not support WP:NSCHOOL. References provided are not reliable. VV 08:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. No prejudice against a re-nomination in 2-3 months. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Olav Zipser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a heavily padded biography that fails WP:NBIO, likely part of a small walled garden set of promotional articles related to this person and his business(es) such as The First School of Modern SkyFlying (see also Space Games, Freeflying). There are some mentions of him in passing here and there, but the sources generally are of low reliability and fail WP:SIGCOV (they are not about him, or the few that are are not independent or niche interviews or such). I have serious doubts that a Sports Emmy Award is enough to meet ANYBIO, it seems much less significant than the mainstream Emmies. Previous AfD found one article about him in Arizona Daily Star. I don't think that's enough, and the promotional style of the article is a concern as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Skydiving and parachuting are fringe sports. Whilst the sports themselves are often mentioned in mainstream media, the pioneers and champions famous within the sports are generally only featured in skydiving and parachuting specific publications and websites.
The Sports Emmy was verified previously via administrators (original certificate submitted) and there exists extensive and solid coverage on Olav Zipser, The Space Games, and The First School of Modern SkyFlying in the following articles:
https://ukparachuting.co.uk/history-freeflying-olav-zipser/
https://parachutist.com/Article/olav-zipser-d-11733
https://uspa.org/safetyday/olav-zipser-d-11733
https://www.fai.org/page/isc-artistic-events
https://www.cypres.aero/catching-up-with-olav-zipser/
https://paramag.fr/contenus/archives/n128/article/article-us.html
https://www.skydivemag.com/new/sky-on-stage-2/
Numerous mentions in British Skydiving Magazine:
https://britishskydiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/197-2000-3.pdf - Birth of FreeFlying - Pages 12 - 17
https://britishskydiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/189-1999-1.pdf - Space Games article on page 7
https://britishskydiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/201-2001-1.pdf - Space Games article on page 35
Numerous mentions in published books (searchable via Google):
https://www.google.pt/search?q=olav+zipser+skydive&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALiCzsYDuI905oUGR8sqTEJhQS9WcEk-0w%3A1669902430913&ei=XrCIY66nN8-KkdUP--Oj8A4&ved=0ahUKEwiuztCpx9j7AhVPRaQEHfvxCO4Q4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=olav+zipser+skydive&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEANQ0ARYiwxglA5oAHAAeACAAbABiAHlCZIBAzAuOZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books
More mentions here:
http://www.pilotspost.com/arn0000102
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/red-bull-stratos/interview-olav-zipser-freefly-astronaut-project/
https://www.universetoday.com/102289/revolutionary-new-space-diving-suit-will-rival-anything-youve-ever-seen-in-the-movies/
https://www.mmegi.bw/ampArticle/181422
https://www.rbth.com/arts/2016/10/03/kolomna-aerograd-why-are-foreigners-coming-to-russia-to-parachute_635395
https://parabolicarc.com/2011/07/15/suborbital-skydiver-to-jump-from-interobital-systems-rocket/
https://brujulea.net/en/places-empuriabrava
https://nolimitsskydiving.com/2014/07/
https://sportsshow.net/extreme-sports-that-can-get-you-killed/
https://thespaceshow.com/guest/olav-zipser
https://www.koyn.com/CloudDancer/articles/ChiSPGA.html
Quadtripplea (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There are mentions of him, but we need things that meet WP:SIGCOV, i.e in-depth coverage (that's independent and reliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep:Yes, the Emmy (and more) makes him notable; a concern is how the article was written which can be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibbertigibbets (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, my view is that the sources presented above do not provide in-depth coverage of Zipser himself to provide notability per our guidelines. The sources are in-depth, yes, but on the sport - with Zipser only getting passing mentions. Daniel (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 06:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Cortez Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 106th in the world middleweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Subject has also never appeared in a Sherdog top 10 ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡ 06:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Vertoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not complying WP:NCORP requirements. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. With a publically quoted company, I generally search for (and expect to find) published analyst reports. In this case I am unable to locate any such reports nor any sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing 14:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Springfield Park (Durban) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with the second source being a Google Maps link, and the other three being business websites. A previous draftification attempt was contested. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a fairly uncontroversial case of a populated place, which meets the guidelines per WP:GEOLAND. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Sourcing is of course poor and needs improving, although in the description of the sources, the nominator neglected to mention the first source, which is the census data. Greenman (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't know that populated places are considered notable. I will withdraw the nomination soon. FYI the reason I neglected to mention the first source (reliable census data) is because WP:GNG requires two reliable sources rather than just one. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep- For the same reason Greenman has stated. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
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 05:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Miss Grand United States 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with the first source being the company's website, and the other not about the competition. A WP:BEFORE search provides no results, and an attempted redirect was contested. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 05:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Nausica Pedersoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no sources can be found about her, apart from stats profiles, making the subject fail WP:GNG. The only thing that I can find about her is that she was included in Italy's 1991 Women's WC squad, but nothing else that is significant. I don't know if that basis is enough to warrant notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Televisa telenovelas (1960s)#1968. Liz 03:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Cynthia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NTV. I searched on Knowledge (XXG) library, google and Microsoft edge and found nothing related to the show. I only found a actress named Cynthia which did not relate to the show. `~HelpingWorld~` 04:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Jackner Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions like 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. /Rational 01:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

2015 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN of mostly non notable children. Not covered in independent sources, also privacy concerns in listing personal details of children. Similar AfD to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2021 FIBA U16 Women's African Championship squads. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Karina Ignatyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Should be redirected to Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019, but this has been contested multiple times. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 Andrez Bergen. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

List of works by Andrez Bergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnecessary article. On one hand, Bergen is non-notable as an author (if at all), and none of his novels pass WP:NOTBOOK. On the other hand, the author's BLP is the scantest of stubs, so there is no reason why the "Bibliography" section (which isn't that long) has to be a separate article. Mooonswimmer 01:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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 06:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Institute of Innovation in Technology and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 05:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Lord Lamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recipient of a non-notable award. Sources are mainly tabloid fodder, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The comedian recieved an award from the Triple O. Entertainment Tesleemah (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. While there's various secondary sourcing, it's trivial like 2 sources that Lord Lamba got his third Mercedes-Benz in a year. The award is of unknown notability. While there is the possibility that it may be notable in Nigeria, this isn't self-evident from the sourcing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Terminal One Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, could not find indepth coverage under its current and former name. The article in Malay only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hubert Toyot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A photographer lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore not passing WP:GNG. Of the references in the article IMDb is an unreliable source and most of the rest are soft porn picture collections with no significant prose or links to film databases with no significant prose about him.Searching on Google I couldn't find anything better. I prodded the article but it was removed without giving a reason. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the links do not include any significant prose about him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑