Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10

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 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Scholars, 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)

Fails to establish notability; references are mostly web archived links to first-party sources. Article subject of a previous successful AfD in 2007; subsequently recreated in 2010. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the sources are primary in nature (school board meeting minutes? seriously?) and what remains is weak local coverage that is insufficient to clear the notability threshold. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it doesn't sufficiently pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone is interested in working on this in draftspace, I will be happy to provide a copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watling Academy (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 meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Sources are all routine local coverage for a secondary school. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom. Sources are unlikely to exist for a school that has only existed for two years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This school is on target to have 1,700 pupils within four years and become the largest in the Borough of Milton Keynes. While it may well be true that it does not quite meet GNG today, there can be no doubt that it will become so. The nomination is precipitate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the above is such a common fallacious argument that we have an essay to respond to it - TOOSOON. 174.212.212.53 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep independently sourced, clearly a significant institution within the Milton Keynes area. This reductionist attitude only serves to diminish Wikipedia, not expand it...Bleaney (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Currently, except for the one MKFM source that could easily be replaced sometime in the future, there are nearly as many reliable sources as in the articles for The Radcliffe School and Ousedale School (two other local schools), and the missing objectives of the WP:GNG will almost certainly be fulfilled, and is likely to be soon due to the fact that 2 years have already passed, and the population of this area of MK is growing rapidly, and we should expect the school to follow suit. For the reasons above, and for consistency with secondary schools across the Borough of Milton Keynes, IMO there is absolutely no practical reason as to why this article should be removed now, only for it likely to be reinstated in the near or not-to-distant future, and as others have mentioned, removing this article from Wikipedia will do nothing but remove potentially useful information (however small it may be for a time), and so it defeats the purpose of this platform which is, per WP:About, a source of information on all branches of knowledge. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Referring to the state of other articles is not a valid reason to keep as WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. No matter how likely something is doesn't mean it's not WP:TOOSOON as per WP:CRYSTAL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sources in this article don't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG to establish the notability of the school at this time. (Note that the future potential notability of the school is irrelevant in determining whether this article should exist today. If the school becomes notable in the future, the article can be easily restored.) Per WP:AUD (a sub-section on WP:NORG), "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." That requirement has clearly not been satisifed here. Of the three sources in the article currently:
  1. Relatively significant coverage of the school, but in a very local publication. Additionally, this reads like a press release that was probably prepared by the Milton Keynes Council. You can find very similar press releases published in other places about other schools in the area that were built by Milton Keynes Council over the years, like these: [1][2][3][4]. Note the same structure in each article, with extended quotes by various staff, followed by the same tag-line at the end of each article: "Milton Keynes Council has committed to ensuring there is a good school place ready for every child."
  2. Another press release published on the website of a local radio station. The same extended quote structure has been employed.
  3. Broken link to a page on www.milton-keynes.gov.uk. It doesn't matter what the link was, because it would have been a primary source anyway, which is ineligible to be used for the purposes of establishing notability.

—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on above policy arguments and source review. This is basically a brand new high school in England. No inherent notability based on policy, taking into consideration the school's size and enrollment, so we have to look at the sources. Scottywong analyzed the current sourcing and showed it to be lacking in volume and scope. I did a quick Google search to try to supplement the current sources and could find little of import. To salvage some of this info, I just added a line to the schools section in Milton Keynes#Education saying Watling Academy, completed in 2021, is the largest secondary school in Milton Keynes., using this [[5]] to source it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - my edit was just reverted because the only source I could find spoke of the future, and not the present. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DRAFTIFY as a compromise. Not notable per WP:NSCHOOL, could become in the future. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify is just kicking the can down the road. If it's not notable it should be deleted and can be recovered by an admin if need be. Unattended drafts get deleted after 6 months anyway. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per source analysis by ScottyWong⁠. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the citations in the article are just routine news from local sources. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as suggested, seems a good compromise. I don't find much for notability, but it could happen soon enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify seems reasonable. It's not worth trying to summarise data when there's only one data-source to summarise (all the existing citations obviously come from the same press release) - our readers might just as well read the original. Nothing to write about now, but it will probably become notable in the future. Elemimele (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG or WP:NORG at the moment. Maybe somewhere in the future but now it is just routine covering. Being new or existing does not make a school notable The Banner talk 18:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even though WP:ORG says at the very top of the guideline, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) the article still needs to meet GNG. The GNG guideline, WP:SUSTAINED, says "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." Even after I added a few facts and sources, I don't find the sustained criterion to be met, and it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Reuben Prince House (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)

Total lack of notability (or is it known under a different name?). I couldn't find better sources, and of the sources currently in the article, source 2, 3, 4 and 6 don't even mention the house. 1 and 5 is the same source used twice, and I can't find a reference to the house in it either (without a page number it's hard to be sure). Fram (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Maine. Fram (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source [6] doesn't give any notability either. Fram (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The US Congressional Biographical Directory gives no evidence for a Congressman named Harlan Prince, as the article suggests. The article about Prince himself was created only three days ago. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a copy of the source mentioned in the biography. It appears he was a state representative, not Congressman. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. The home itself does not meet notability guidelines for an independent article but, taken as a whole, it is one of the historic buildings in the town.--User:Namiba 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine, for which this suits the bill completely.Djflem (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support that merger -- This is grand house, but the named architect only "did some work on" it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting isn't viable if the term is fabricated, and the argument that it is hasn't been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon-Levesque Era (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 way premature or lacks notability. This "era", which started two weeks ago, has no Google News sources (this is the only one, and it is from 2014!), and very few hits in general. We have [https://sportsobsessive.com/wrestling/wrestling-shows/weekly-tv/monday-night-raw-review-mcmahon-levesque-era-begins-at-msg/ this, and, er, that's it[7]. Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete As with a lot of these "eras" it seems to largely be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The insistence of wrestling fans to categorise everything into eras is often unencyclopedic and only works if there is widespread acceptance that this is, in fact, a defined period of wrestling. In this instance it's not (yet), and is derived by off-handed descriptions of the recent changes in WWE rather than genuine notability. — Czello 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Multiple sources have cited the begining of a new era in the WWE. Here is just one of many WP:RS which includes an ESPN interviews from several top stars such as Becky Lynch and more that a New Era begun with the change in ownership: [8]. Just one example, there are many other reliable sources beside it used in that article. In July 22, 2008 it was said that the WWE begun PG Era due to simple change in tv ratings from TV 14 to TV PG despite WWE having been PG before 1997. At that time I was an unregistered editor, I did not register until 2019 but I saw that Wikipedia supported the then so called pg era without any sources, when it was justa fan insult but WWE accepted it much later. Now tehre is a literal change in ownership and activities in WWE and multiple sources citing that a new era begun on WWE. So a strong keep from me due to the massive changes and the large amount of well established WP:RS that supports a new era in the WWE which begun on July 22, 2022. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this falls under the criteria WP:TOOSOON and I even mentioed this to the article writer draft talk page. there are already many WP:RS citing this new era but it would have been better to wait a bit, guess they are just too impatient, but there is no denying that a new era begun on July 22, 2022 and there are multiple WP:RS supporting it.. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, not a single one of the sources that I can see uses the phrase "McMahon-Levesque Era". There's no denying that changes have taken place within the company, but that's why we have History of WWE - I agree with OP that notability has not been established that this 2 week old period deserves its own article. We most likely won't even know that for years. This article is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. — Czello 12:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czello yeah its a bit too ealy, and the specific name McMahon-Levesque Era isn't stated but there are many WP:PW/RS besides the EPSPN source like these that agrees and also explicitly says new era already begun: [9], [10] and ths mainly happens with Stephanie McMahon and Triple H (Paul Michael Levesque) now being in charge of the company which the sources do mention, however the fact taht its too early to have its own article I agree with you. I am still keeping keep for now but ayway am sure a proper consensus will be reached.Dilbaggg (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You linked the same source twice there; I assume one was intended to be the Becky Lynch one from above. Nonetheless, this doesn't sound like a "strong keep" to me, as you concede that it's WP:TOOSOON; it seems closer to a "weak keep". — Czello 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, this is the other source i wanted to add [11] anyway good day [[Czello]] bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and redirect to WWE#History. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Czello that these "eras" have a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH going on... Have any reliable sources even used the name "McMahon-Levesque Era"? While many changes are going on in WWE right now, I would actually recommend that these be detailed in an article for the Retirement of Vince McMahon. High quality sources have been covering the events leading up to that for months. The changes in the on-screen presentation are far less noteworthy and it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article; the little that we have to go on can be detailed at WWE#History.LM2000 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly some eras of WWF/E are notable and well established, but an "era" that began a week ago certainly isn't!★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to History of WWE as not notable enough for a standalone article, not yet. Fixer88 (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely fabricated name. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or WP:OR. Fails notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAP (health technology and life science) (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)

No actual evidence of notability for the Australian company MAP Biotech. I couldn't find good independent sources about them (searching for "MAP Biotech" or for "MAP" "Bloch-Jorgensen"). Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mental health is one of the biggest scourges of modern society. It is encumbered upon all of us to disseminate information from reliable sources to the vulnerable. In terms of notability, please refer to ^[1]

• Comment That article fails as a reliable source since it is marked as an advertisement.

WAAPHC (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and the source you provided is a passing mention. I likewise cannot find sources that meet the particularly stringent sourcing requirements for companies. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with 'righting wrongs' - The article 'reports what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion'. MAP discovered Centeredness Theory and the significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources used show that this has had a demonstrable effect on science.WAAPHC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Written like an advertisement, fails our standards both for corporations and for medical topics. Kill it with fire. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden built around Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails our criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional and with no evidence (in our article or in searches) of passing WP:NCORP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehn Joyner (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found these sources which show he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player (4th most capped in his country) with an ongoing career who helped Northern Mariana Islands youth team beat Macau 2-1 their first international win at any level , one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I write this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you understand what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV is? I doubt it. The second article is not independent of the subject, as it primarily relies on quotes from the subject. #3 and #4 are clearly not significant coverage of the person. Both articles discuss the subject for less than 100 words, which means it fails the WP:100 words criteria. The fifth source mentions the subject's name four times, all in a trivial manner. The sixth source mentions the subject once, to introduce a quote, which of course is not independent of the subject. The seventh source mentions the source three times, all trivial mentions of the subject such as "Joyner provided the go-ahead point in the 53rd minute". Please stop spamming these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. It is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT says newspaper interviews (or any interviews for that matter) make the article not independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally WP:SIGCOV says "Independent of the subject". An interview with the subject is not independent of the subject lol. I don't know how else to put it, but clearly you are not understanding what WP:INDEPNDENT is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Go back and read it again. There is literally no mention of interviews - let alone articles that partially incorporate interviews in national newspapers. SIGCOV also links to INDPENDENT which also has no mention of interviews, etc. The issue is press releases and their ilk, not interviews by national newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources 1 and 2 cited above (which were never rebutted by nominator) are by themselves sufficient to get us over GNG, which is sufficient to keep the article regardless of whether the other sources provided also do. Although the sources are not currently cited in the article as allegedly required by NSPORT, GNG does not require that, and if the article meets GNG, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 2 as listed on the comment right above yours, is primarily quotes from the subject. This would fail "independent of the subject". One source is not enough to satisfy GNG or SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please point out the criteria that say articles that include an interview are not "independent of the subject". Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that is pretty self explanatory. A person giving an interview about themself, is not independent. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's not self-explanatory. It might not be the best reference for a particular questionable fact; but that a national newspaper is publishing articles that include in-depth interviews is meeting GNG. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies to support your claim. I asked for you to point out the relevant Wikipedia criteria about interviews, and you only waved your hands, and offered your opinion. Please stop nominating articles on this basis - it is disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources, the article on him making the USF dean's list is probably the best of the bunch but there isn't a whole lot there once you take away the qoutes from his teacher and parents. The other sources from saipantribune.com are a couple of match reports [12][13] and mention of him winning a student award[14]. But if we treat the first as sigcov, the others don't count towards GNG as multiple publications from the organization is generally regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Of the mvariety.com sources, this one is mostly based on his own words and thus a primary source and the other two are match reports[15][16] have trivial menions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article about non-notable individual with few sources. Making the Dean's list does not earn someone a Wikipedia article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the newspaper sources clearly meet GNG. Nominator is falsely claiming that newspaper articles that include interviews are not independent of the subject - despite there being no mention of such criteria in either WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first Saipan Tribune source, announcing he made his college honor roll, is pretty much the definition of "local news hype" and is not remotely encyclopedic. Every student making the Dean's list gets a letter sent home about it, and sometimes their parents send it on to their local newspaper because they are proud of their child -- which is clearly what happened here given the quotes from the father. This is totally routine non-news and doesn't count toward GNG N. The first Marianas Variety source has three non-quote sentences: not remotely SIGCOV N. The second Saipan Tribune ref is more hyperlocal news announcing he won the "TSL Foundation Male Student Athlete of the Month", which can be immediately disregarded per YOUNGATH N. The second Marianas Variety source is a namedrop and two quotes: obviously not SIGCOV N. The third ST source is a routine match recap N. The third MV source is one quote from him N. The fourth ST source is more of the hyperlocal youth coverage excluded by YOUNGATH N. Quotes, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, and whether explicitly part of an interview or not, cannot contribute to GNG as they are not independent appraisals of the subject (obviously) and are primary. There is no such thing as "the fact he was interviewed shows he's notable" because GNG is met through significant secondary independent published commentary on a subject in multiple RS, not achievements or other non-SIGCOV "evidence" that the subject has been recognized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC (No multiple independent sources where combining demonstrates notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.) and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources do not provide enough independent significant coverage for much more than a pseudo biography (nothing near "full and balanced") which is a requirement for a BLP. This is just a listing of a team player. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. This is a BLP and its insufficient. scope_creep^Talk 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I have to discount the one "keep" opinion because it contains personal attacks. There is just not enough substantive discussion here for consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cena–Orton rivalry (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)

No indication of notability. As it appears to largely be a plot summary, it fails WP:PLOT. There is only one source which comes close to indicating its importance, which is a primary source from WWE itself (no independent or seconadary sources which are preferred to establish importance) which simply labels it as Cena's top feud in a top 10 list. Again, this fails to establish notability. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Sports, and Wrestling. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As far as I see it this is a topic that potentially could be shown to be notable (same with other wrestling rivalries), but, since Cena and Orton already have articles that cover this topic better there is not really any use for this article as of now. I'd say delete since neither man is more of a primary target for a redirct. ★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Cena–Orton rivalry is equivalent to the Federer–Nadal rivalry rivalry in professional wrestling, both tp stars in the WWE with a lengthy acclaimed feud, acknowledged as John Cena (one of the biggest name in wrestling history)'s greatest rivalry per this and many other WP:RS beside this: [17], every line is well sourced so its notable, this is Czello vendetta against me, as his friend User:ItsKesha who has been topic banned from wrestling and is under 1 month GS due to numerous edit wars and content disputte, as proven here Czello crying ver his banning: [18], the duo have a hostory of teaming against other editors including myself as in the John Cena artcile: [19], so yes this is pure biased "meating" and neglecting countless unreliable articles they tartget the one I made which is WP:GTS and also this article is sufficiently sourced and this rivalry is well acknowledged in the world of professional wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have huge respect for Czello but am shocked by this vendetta and teaming with topic banned user, also there are many many sources besides WWE's own (which is widley accepted WP:PW/RS that cites this feud's greatness: [20] and [21] are just two out of many examples, people can google it to find its extreme notability. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

every line is well sourced so its notable No, this isn't how it works. You need to establish the importance of this feud, and so far no sources do. The one that comes the closest is the first one, which is simply a top 10 list. If you feel that you think any of the sources do establish its notability, please list them. I'm going to ignore the rest of this comment as it's a rather bizarre and conspiratorial violation of WP:AGF. — Czello 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected the two sources I pointed above, and I am adding yet another f countless WP:RS like this to the article: [22]. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report can only be used for minor statements like match results per WP:PW/RS. Republicworld is not reliable per the same link. I will grant you that Pinkvilla does say it is "arguably" on of the greatest feuds - but this link is nowhere to be found in the article. Would you like to add it? — Czello 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czello bleacher report said a minor statement here, that this is one of the feud that defined a generation, its a reliable WP:RS and even has its own article Bleacher report and PW is under WP:GS so their opinion on RS doesn't apply much at the moment. Anyway they only asked to refrain from pre 2013 sources, the source I gave is 2022, thank you for acknowledging the other one though. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor statement" means an undisputed fact like "Orton won this match", not "one of the greatest feuds ever" - which, again, the source doesn't actually say. What statement are you hoping to source with the Bleacher Report link? If you have a definitive source somewhere that Bleacher Report is reliable for more than that, I'll happily concede - but I took your suggestion and looked through the WP:RSN archives and I could find nothing but criticism. Also the pre-2013 comment means this is when it went from "not reliable" to "partially reliable".

I'm happy to add the Pinkvilla link - I know you believe I have some kind of vendetta against you or your articles, but honestly all I want is from this to be better sourced, which Pinkvilla does. — Czello 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Czello, thanks for acknowledging, we are fellow editors and we should do our best to make great articles like this, glad you understand how notable this is, best wishes bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think, Dilbaggg, you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith from Czello and not a conspiracy against you or your articles. Now, about the article, I think the Orton Cena feud is a good feud, but the article is just a list of results and reports. Worst, it's WP:In-Universe. Ex: "Orton then attacked Cena's father who was sitting at ringside by punt kicking him and seriously injuring him." The article has no mention about real life events. How the feud was received, why the feud it's so important. Just a 411Mania mention and Cesaro comment. But there are no other sources about the feud. If you work on the article, it may be a keep, but this adds nothing to the Cena/Orton articles. Sadly, there are no other wrestling feuds, the Hogan/Andre also has in-universe. The Federer/Nadal article has sections like Analysis, competitive dynamic... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All wrestlers aricles have some plot elements, but this also has many things like how the matches were seen, the praises of the matches, the criticims of the lenght of the feud and also how Cena and Orton views each other irl. Like Nadal-federer in tennis and Messi–Ronaldo rivalry in football this article shows emphasis in oe of the most prominent rivalry in pro wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: I think Federer–Nadal rivalry is a great example of what this article could be but isn't. The #Analysis section or the #Relationship and competitive dynamic details why their feud was so significant. If that kind of notability were established in this article I'll happily withdraw this deletion nomination. — Czello 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense. TTN (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Aninzo (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to enough content to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ARTN: "Article content does not determine notability" Robby.is.on (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found these sources which show he is notable in the Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 among other sources. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career,, one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad athe only one in England, nd is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would say this very lengthy Saipan Tribune piece and the M Variety article are enough for GNG. We need to be wary that there are only two decent newspapers in his country by the looks of things so it's difficult to gain the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, the M Variety source is too weak for this to be a GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The M Variety article is almost entirely direct and indirect quotes, and should not be considered independent SIGCOV. That leaves just the Saipan Tribune interview, which has just 8 sentences of non-quoted material and only ~3 that aren't primary or non-independent (like reporting that he thanked various people). Not seeing GNG from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I too like the Saipan Tribune 'Comfort Zone' article. The Marianas Variety article also looks significant - meeting GNG - yeah, there's some quotes in there, but there's coverage as well; I think some editors are looking too hard for reasons to delete articles. These are the two biggest papers in the nation. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a somewhat closer call than most of the other football-related AfDs we've seen recently, but I'm still not convinced that the available sources add up to notability. Of the seven sources cited above, four are clearly passing mentions and one is a Twitter post. That leaves us with two sources: the Marianas Variety article, which is entirely a non-independent interview (every sentence is either paraphrases Aninzo or quotes him directly), and the Saipan Tribune article, which is at best a few sentences of independent analysis. Since I've been unable to find any indication that better sources exist (either online or offline), he doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that there aren't many media outlets in the Northern Mariana Islands, but my view—and, judging from the consensus in the RfC, the view of others as well—is that hewing to the notability guidelines in cases like these is almost always going to be the best way to ensure that we're only keeping articles that can live up to basic policy expectations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the cogent argument by Extraordinary Writ above. Agreed that the sourcing is too weak to support even a presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I still think that the Saipan Tribune article linked multiple times in this discussion is good. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any other good sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auwal Farouk Abdussalam (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:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Individual lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. Reading Beans (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cleary far WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPROF, with minimal citations and a poster prize, and a lack of significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Harrysson (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 appear to pass WP:GNG, searching up "Per Harrysson fotbollsspelare" brought up what looked to be some promising sources, but on further inspection they unfortunately all turned out to be either passing mentions or interviews, I could find nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 05:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Covered in some detail (at least a page) in the book Boken om 500 AIK:are (content also found online here). Possibly also significant coverage in this news story, and some other newspieces. Borderline notability. – Elisson • T • C • 07:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, that book does not appear to be a secondary source. Based on the product page you linked, it looks like it was written by someone who works for AIK Fotboll, and is sold in collaboration with the club. Essentially, it's a primary source written by the club about its own players. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything about Johrén working for AIK, though he has had voluntary (non-profit) assignments. Idrottsförlaget is an independent publisher. Of course for many books of that kind, no matter the publisher independence, they will sell the book in collaboration with the club in question. And just to be clear, I am talking about if the book is an independent source or not—not primary or secondary which is something else, and the book is clearly a secondary or tertiary source (a collection of information from other sources). No matter that, I don't see how Johrén would have a vested interest in Per Harrysson, given the guidelines for WP:IIS. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but for a player with 50 top-division matches (most for one of the larger clubs in Sweden), top-scorer in the second division, and ~25 youth caps at that, sources establishing notability are very likely to exist besides the mentioned book. – Elisson • T • C • 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep - sufficient sourcing below and in the above book for the person to be notable. GiantSnowman 17:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per @Johan Elisson:. @GiantSnowman:, These sources show he is notable in Sweden: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32], among many many sources about him not listed here from skd.se, sydsvenskan.se, skanesport.se, etc. Having been a fully pro Swedish top flight footballer in the 1990s, there is also definitely offline sources about him. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10. By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. /Julle (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niveditha Gowda (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 meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The only claim to be notability is appearing on reality shows like Bigg Boss Kannada but as per WP:BIGBROTHER contestants are expected to receive coverage outside of the show which is absent here. --. Ab207 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Karnataka. Ab207 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless a suitable target could be made to redirect. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Division by infinity (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)

In former discussions, it was pointed out that moving this article to the main space would require a reliable source, and that it would be difficult to find a reliable source. However, this article has been moved to the main space without any reliable source being added. So I thought about moving this article to draft space, but decided to nominate it for AfD because it has been in draft space for a long time. --SilverMatsu (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. SilverMatsu (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The draft started as a student's class project; I happened across it and took a few stabs at making it into an article but never got quite far enough that I considered it mainspace-ready. I made another round of edits jut now and find it acceptable. It's not great, but good enough that I'm persuaded there's a topic here, and further improvement should happen in main space. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I went back and added additional sources, cleaned up some of the wording, and linked to the calculus wikibook. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikibooks is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated content: like Wikipedia, basically anybody can add to it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Newly added reliable sources satisfy requirements for significant coverage; there's enough to merit a standalone article. ^Complex/_Rational 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. A good enough start. - Nabla (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely not a research topic. But the notability in this case seems clear. Moving it back to the draftspace also seems problematic (as there is no guarantee it will be improved there). —- Taku (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This concept appears marginally notable, but much of the scope of the page seems to duplicate that of Infinitesimal, which is deeply related to this concept. I'm not sure if it's better to merge the two pages (in line with WP:NOPAGE) or to keep them separately. But it's certainly not worthwhile to delete the page and all of its contents given that the subject passes the WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as I agree that this is a legitimate article with reliable sources. How useful it is will always be debatable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Domi and JD Beck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JD Beck (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 is on a 19 year old drummer who is not independently notable. He is one-half of the duo Domi and JD Beck, which is notable. This article should be MERGED with Domi & JD Beck. Only one of the citations is independently about him; the others are about the duo. A BEFORE search shows many hits for the duo, but only social media for JD Beck independently. Fails WP:GNG. It is WP:TOOSOON, in a few years he may be independently notable enough for his own article, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Netherzone (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I looked and couldn't find anything about just JD Beck. Merging with Domi and JD Beck is the right thing for this article unless someone finds some more sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As per Dr vulpes. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Domi and JD Beck as suggested. In fact there is not really much to be merged beyond his couple of gigs before the band formed. Also, it might be worth having a similar discussion about the other member of the band, Domi Louna. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that article should also be merged into the duo's article. Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD for Mr. Beck ends without controversy, I can merge both his article and Domi's article to the band without the need for another AfD. We must wait for this one to run its course first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Jabal (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 WP:ANYBIO. Out of 5 references, 4 references are passing mentions only and 1 (ref 2) references is an interview. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Artists. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist seems to have caused this AfD to get lost due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting to get it back in the system.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fumiya Kitamura (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:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS, but also fails WP:GNG. If sources are found, then please let me know. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not have significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gharios (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)

Found one thing about the family, but I'm not sure if that would even pass notability checks (WP:NRVE). Unreferenced for twelve years. Open to merging but I'm not sure what article would be suitable for that, and if this is even relevant to any articles. The saint might be, but I can't find any information at all about them. AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons mentioned above. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Procedurally relisting to get it back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources found, none forthcoming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I looked again for sources but it was a fruitless search. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've !voted twice here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can’t find anything searching in Latin or Arabic script. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There appears to be some passing mentions in Google Scholar (using the search term of Saint Gurias the Ascetic of Edessa), but it seems to always be brief mentions alongside one or two other martyrs. SWinxy (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I haven't been able to find a WP:RS confirming the Gharios-Gurias connection, so a redirect is not appropriate.--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rework into an article specifically about the saint. There is significant coverage of him here. On second thought, a new article is probably needed. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Simon (presenter) (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even tough there are lack of citations here, as a presenter and a TV personality he meets WP:ENT requirements. Zeddedm (talk) Zeddedm (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do remember him as fairly prominent for his work on BBC children's programmes in the late 1980s, early 1990s so it I wonder if it may be that most sources that could establish notability would not be online? Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above comment, his past work would easily meet notability if it was on tv today with online sources, but without these his sources will all be magazines and news pieces offline. He easily meets notability, he was ubiquitous on childrens tv and even now is a well known personality, qv. most recent episode of Richard Herring’s RHLSTP ep 387 discussion of his work Mramoeba (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said, he meets WP:ENT requirements but the article does need more independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist seems to have resulted in this AfD getting completely forgotten about due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting so it gets back in the system.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though there are not many sources in the article, there are many others that could be added. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron. ✗plicit 01:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (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 conflated two USAF units. It begins with the 7th Photographic Squadron. That unit is covered in the article on the 7th Space Operations Squadron. It continues with the 7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, an unrelated unit that is covered in 7th Bombardment Squadron. After deletion it should be a redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron, the most notable of the designations of the unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineagegeek (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to have SIGCOV. Considering it confuses itself with similarly-named things, I don't feel that a redirect would... be of any utility? I guess? SWinxy (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron. A redirect is definitely valuable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Anyone looking for 7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron would be looking for the unit in Germany, covered in the 7th Bombardment Squadron article. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nominator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People TV (Atlanta) (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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final list, seeking more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This source seems to qualify, but unless other sources are found, it isn't enough on its own. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysoula Zogia Museum and Art Gallery (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:ORG and WP:GNG. could not find significant coverage in either English or Greek. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, other than wikipedia mirrors and social media links. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Aklouk (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - you don't get to the World Aquatics Championships without achieving an unusual level of talent and this should be taken into account. Deb (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it should not, because such reasoning has been explicitly rejected by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Point us to that agreement, please. Deb (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated participation-based presumptions of SIGCOV for sports subguidelines, in addition to removing all presumption of notability. Therefore, merely participating at the World Aquatics Championships does not even indicate that SIGCOV exists, let alone presume notability. On top of that, all athletes must have at least one source of SIGCOV cited in their articles for any of the SSGs or SPORTBASIC presumptions to apply, so even medalling at WAC wouldn't be a valid predictor of further coverage here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don’t believe that competing at the championships by itself is sufficient to Mt our notability standards. That would usher in many many hundreds of non notable individuals. Is someone thinks otherwise they can seek to revise our sports specific notability standard. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9CB2:BE71:9E3A:24FF (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources with in-depth coverage. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC which states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." The first three sources are database sources. The fourth (the Jordanian Olympic Committee) is not an independent source and lacks depth (7 words on Aklouk). Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per lack of SIGCOV and my and others' arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. czar 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baháʼí Faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina (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 article does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The entire article contains content that are just random facts that do not relate specifically to the topic of the Baháʼí faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina at all. According to Baháʼí Faith by country, there are no members of the Baháʼí faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article is bordering on WP:SPIP as the article discusses the Baháʼí faith in general and its persecution in Iran, topics not related to this article. Given these aforementioned factors, coupled with the fact that the sources in the article stem from Baháʼí affiliated organizations rather than other impartial sources, a deletion is warranted. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. I've updated some sources. I think for a small article about a small young country much affected by circumstances around it I think it's pretty well documented and framed with the points related to things in the current country. Smkolins (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 99% WP:SPIP. One of the sources here could be used to add 1 or 2 sentences in Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sennalen (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge selectively to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reviewing the sources, there really isn't all that much independent coverage from RS and WP:NOPAGE notes that [t]here are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I don't think the merge needs to be a mere 1-2 sentences; a section with a paragraph would be fully appropriate. But it's quite clear that the topic itself would benefit from being covered in the context of religion in Bosnia more broadly given the relative lack of independent coverage of this faith tradition within the country as a whole. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content related to Baháʼí Faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Redirect this title to that merged section. -Vipz (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. This is a soft delete so if reliable sources become available with future success, this article can be restored. I don't think Draftifying is a good idea with a 16 year old article that is unlikely to receive any attention and be deleted in 6 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Braun (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)

Put aside the promotional factors of this article, and it appears that the subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.

I struggled to find reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject. Only content the subject has written.

Thanks for reviewing and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He hasn't had tremendous success as a playwright, Here are some reviews I found:
  • The Hotel Vanya, or A Metaphysical-Paradigm at the End of Everythingness[33][34][35]
  • The Living Coast (multimedia production for which he was the writer)[36]
  • Savages[37]

--Jahaza (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject might be notable by the comment above (plays being reviewed? similar to authors' notability criteria? but the page needs work to establish criteria of notability. Maybe draftify the page? JamesKH76 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rafé Totengco (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)

Last AfD had minimal participation. Fails WP:BIO, lacking indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Philippines, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but no prejudice against recreation- I do stand by my conclusions in that AFD, where, whilst I do believe that he could scrape through if someone pulled together sufficient sources (particularly from Filipino language sources), and there is certainly a quantity of mentions and nods over sufficient length of time (and from noteworthy fashion curators such as Valerie Steele) to argue that sources probably exist but are just not very available right now. Mabalu (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the sources presented by Mabalu in the previous AfD. SBKSPP (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Douma (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)

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is coverage from the time of Douma's Miss Canada win and from a 2020 book of her winning Miss Canada (both clearly cited on the page). Coverage over the course of 60-ish years seems to indicate at the very least a minimal passing of notability. This duration, in combination with the coverage of her winning Miss Sydney, overrides any potential WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E (because there's no evidence as to whether she actually is still alive) problems, though that's not an issue that the nominator has raised. Samsmachado (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Swing (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)

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:BASIC with coverage of her winning Miss Canada, serving as a host for the TV show Just Like Mom, and a consultant for a later show based on Just Like Mom. The filmography section could use citations (it has none), and I noted that issue. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be enough news coverage from the 1990s, looking in Proquest. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nom by a Neelix sock of an article that is clearly passing WP:GNG. I would also mention WP:SNOW Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Teng (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)

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has a number of reliable sources, even if many of them are connected to the pageant winner. Also appears to meet WP:NBEAUTY and WP:ANYBIO. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of sources and the article is notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Teng appears to be notable per WP:ANYBIO. Article seems to be nominated for deletion as part of a mass deletion of many winners of Miss Canada. Coverage exists for Teng winning Miss Canada as well as regional pageants, so not a BLP1E issue (in case anyone tries to raise that as a concern.) Samsmachado (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as newspapers already referenced in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Elizabeth Tilley (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)

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though the nominator does not raise this issue, this article seems to me to clearly fall under WP:BLP1E. There's no coverage (that I can find) other than of her winning Miss Canada. If coverage exists, which it very well could (given the time of her competition and her alleged top-10 finish) off-line or in archive sources that I can't access, of her competition in Miss Universe 1985, I would change my vote. Samsmachado (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per BLP1E and seeing as how she is a winner of Miss Canada, it may be appropriate to, instead of deleting, redirect to Miss Canada#Winners. Samsmachado (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - searching for "Karen Tilley" generated multiple news articles about her work during her year as Miss Canada. I have added those to the page. With these additions, she has gone past WP:BLP1E and is notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is coverage of her in news clippings in multiple papers covering 1984-85, not just for winning Miss Canada itself, which seems to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Kereluk (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)

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage exists in RS (as reflected in the sourcing of article) of both her career as a tv fitness personality and as a pageant winner. I would guess, based on the fact that most of this happened in the 80s and 90s, that even more sourcing exists outside of what I could find on the internet. But regardless, she seems to meet GNG. This page is one of several Miss Canada winners seemingly being proposed for deletion because of their winning of that particular pageant, regardless of their other achievements/coverage. Samsmachado (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Mundial del Banano (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)

Funny to have an article about the Queen of Bananas but fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Hispanoamericana (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. Not even 1 reference. DownAndUp (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A quick google search shows many articles on this topic. Most of them are in Spanish but there is sustained coverage of this event. Might be a good idea to contact the author and see if we can send it to draft if they don't have time to fix it right now. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, Latin America, and South America. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss University Africa (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. DownAndUp (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pacific Islands (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. Not even 1 reference. DownAndUp (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a lot of news coverage of this event on Google News for example [38] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage (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)

Long-discontinued pageant that wasn't that notable to begin with. DownAndUp (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Filipina International (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. Take one look at those references. DownAndUp (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly sourced. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article's being poorly sourced, except in the case of BLPs, is not in and of itself reason to delete. Ovinus (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing an WP:NCORP pass here. There's some coverage of individual winners, but nothing reliable about the organization itself. Nothing in Newspapers.com either. Ovinus (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arab USA (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. DownAndUp (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Conducted a search of Newspapers.com and perused the existing sources. Unless this pageant has some alternate names of which I am ignorant, there's nothing independent. [39] is fairly deep on the organization itself but not independent, and certainly not WP:NORG-level stuff. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Teen Princess (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)

Existed for 8 years in the 60's/70's and has no references... fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Beauty pageants. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. International (pageant) (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant) for similar arguments for why this should be deleted. Basically, fails WP:GNG and also this pageant only ever existed for 8 years of little notability. DownAndUp (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International (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)

Excessively bloated article with all sorts of tables to make it seem important and fatigue a reader, until you take a step back and realize that references fail WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Muslimah (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)

Pageant hasn't been held in years. Article is a mess with claiming winners of future years, unless there's something I don't know about the Muslim calendar saying we're past 2025. Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, Islam, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Supranational Pageant (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. DownAndUp (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]