Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 07	March 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody MacDonald

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

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she's only written the one book as far as I can tell, and I haven't turned up anything else that would count for notability. She's not even mentioned in the one citation that's on the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV either (via Google Search). No Merge material (that isn't already in Wilhelm Feldberg). The one ref presently in the article doesn't actually mention the subject. There is a low chance that old press material exists that would make her meet WP:GNG. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:18, 8 March 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 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Salient

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because its subject seems non-notable (see WP:GNG).

I noticed this article had no sources, so it was my plan to add sources. However, I was only able to find this article here (republished here) mentioning it. Additionally, because the author of this source is a former editor of The Harvard Salient, I don't know that the source is "independent of the subject".

The notability guidelines for student media described in WP:STUDENTMEDIA don't seem to make exceptions to the more general notability guidelines described in WP:NMEDIA. Therefore, because the subject of this article does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and because it does not appear to be cited in reliable sources, I think the subject of this article is non-notable, and the article should be deleted. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Conservatism, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing any sources out there, one way or another (the bare handful of items I've found merely namedrop it, mostly in association with Ross Douthat). It doesn't help that the link to this publication's site is broken. The article sources none of its assertions, has never been adequately sourced, it punctures holes in NPOV, it is substantially unimproved in fifteen years, it's been tagged for nearly a decade, and violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the GNG. (Heck, it isn't even the most prominent right-wing paper on campus.) Ravenswing 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the previous AfD was rejected on the basis of 'bad faith', in that another longstanding publication had also been nominated for deletion. This is not a reason to keep the article now. I can't find significant coverage of this publication, fails WP:NMEDIA. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:50, 21 March 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabuyao Poblacion

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

WP:VERIFY in question. The City of Cabuyao and its baranggays exists but these "districts" might not. WP:BEFORE search just points to Wiki mirrors. Also,

the Philippine Statistics Authority's Cabuyao page just list the baranggays.
the City Government of Cabuyao just mentions their baranggays.

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same verification issue:

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:29, 10 March 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 03:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parulia High School

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is unreferenced and I couldn't find jack about it. Except for a few trivial name drops in articles about other things, which don't work for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:06, 9 March 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!} 03:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Dhori

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands no one cared enough to add a reference in the year since this article was created, nor in the nearly two weeks that this article has been on the block for deletion. BD2412 T 22:21, 21 March 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 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kumardubi Drakhuli High School

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely able to verify its existence, let alone notability undet this name or Kumardubi High School Star Mississippi 02:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 21 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar International School

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

No indication of Notability. The sources are either to school directories, primary sources (school's website) or trivial mentions in local media. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like an notable article. In google trends and facebook, this institute has considerable notability. There are so many schools of similar repute in wikipidia. Even the creator of this article is not interested to reply, so I can't trace it out more about this or expand or find sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugvugvgu (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator as this is referenced to a bunch of ridiculously trivial sources that are either primary or otherwise not usable for notability. The fact that it is massively ref bombed doesn't bode well for notability either. Instead it just comes like an attempt to fake things. Nor does Facebook or Google Trends' opinions of what is notable matter here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination.--SM7^--talk-- 19:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article has no notability, almost all articles of the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_in_Erode_district has no notability. I feel this page has some good scope of expansion. It can be made stub rather to delete. Malay231 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:REFBOMB that uses mostly primary sources and directories to make the subject seem important. Secondary schools don't have assumed notability, and there doesn't appear to be secondary sources to meet other notability guidelines. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests merging with the school district, but merging with Erode District#Education seems like WP:UNDUE. The keep arguments above are based solely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 30 March 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 List of Hindu temples in Kerala. The redirect can be challenged at RfD because there is disagreement here between delete and redirect. Sandstein 13:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurunathanmukadi Sri Ayyappaguru

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NRELORG. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NRELORG and WP:GNG. No independent coverage of the temple. No evidence of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindu temples in Kerala: The page lacks sufficient information to indicate notability. A redirect to the list will provide a place to build information. Gusfriend (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to the list, so if enough sources and information is added there it could be remade in the future. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the redirect, this is a totally worthless and unencylopedic entry, clearly made up story for promotion and escape speedy deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL what "story"? The page only lists a location exists and says where it is. Are you suggesting the temple is made up? YuriNikolai (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YuriNikolai I was referring to the unsourced legend of the temple, that I and another editor had removed. You can look at the page history. Venkat TL (talk) 07:04, 25 March 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. The article has been rewritten during the AfD to treat the topic from an out-of-universe perspective, and as a result the discussion has been trending towards keeping it. Sandstein 09:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Denver

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

Non-notable fictional title. Avilich (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver. The Scott-Giles book clearly constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source, so we are looking for a second source. There are lots of results in Google Scholar, but most are for the 16th Duke himself, rather than the title. But Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver actually redirects to this article, even though the character is clearly notable in his own right, per the scholarly coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a spoof history of a fictional family constitues significant coverage of a fictional title. Avilich (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like Harper-Collins actually published it in dead tree form, so, yeah, that counts by default. I'd never really looked into Sayers before, but the amount of academic commentary on her fiction appears to rival those authors I know better--per StAnselm, I don't see a quick way to sift through all the Google Scholar references to see if there's enough, but a first pass review sure looks like there ought to be. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another work of fiction isn't valid significant coverage, and Google hits isn't an argument either. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could probably write a good article, possibly framed around Sayers' aristocracy as a whole with literary analysis relating it to the real world rather than an in-universe portrayal of a fictional Dukedom, without reading the books at all.
- Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Duke's Denver". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
- Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Wimsey, Gerald (Duke of Denver)". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
- Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Aristocracy". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
- Kuhn McGregor, Robert; Lewis, Ethan (2000). "Lord Peter Begins a Career". Conundrums for the Long Week-end: England, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Lord Peter Wimsey. Kent State University Press. pp. 24 et seq. ISBN 9780873386654.
- Brown, Janice (1998). "All Have Sinned: The Competent Delineation of Character in the Early Novels". The Seven Deadly Sins in the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers. Kent State University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 9780873386050.
- Lewis, Terrance L. (1994). Dorothy L. Sayers' Wimsey and Interwar British Society. E. Mellen Press. ISBN 9780773491021.
- …
Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these sources constitute real-world coverage of the title itself? Avilich (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see the word "rather". Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is no real-world coverage of the title, but "rather" of something else, what is even the point of all this? You could just as well drop this refbomb in some appropriate talk page where editors that are actually interested can look it up. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point is clearly stated. I encourage you to read it again. Only you and the article's creator seem to think that real-world coverage of a title is the way to write about this stuff, when the Duke of Denver is actually a character in a book, so the fact that one cannot meet this arbitrary bar that only you think is the way to write in the first place is not really relevant to what I said and what the sources show. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't care how you think Sayers and her aristocracy should be written about, the article is very clearly about a fictional title and a listing of its fictional holders, and it's not up to standards. You just cited a bunch of sources that don't discuss the real-world significance of the title "Duke of Denver", and so have zero relevance here. Again, you can either post this in some wikiproject or talk page where interested editors can actually look this up and do some productive stuff with it, or you can keep wasting your time here. Avilich (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I cited sources that are about the Duke of Denver character, one of which exceptionally clearly so as it has it in the very title of the source. You seem to be not reading quite a lot, from what I wrote to the titles of the citations, let alone the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very weird one. I'm plumping for weak keep. The problem for keeping is (1) the current article is almost entirely "in universe", and (2) because Sayers and Scott-Giles communicated about the Wimsey dynasty, they are joint creators and the Scott-Giles book is therefore a primary, not a secondary source. But Uncle G is as usual right about the academic side of this: Sayers is an enormously important figure in English literature, and this is an important part of her contribution, so there's no question an article can exist. I don't think redirecting to Sayers' own article is a good option because too much Wimsey-genealogy would unbalance it, and because a redirect wouldn't give due weight to Scott-Giles. But were it not for Sayers' huge stature, and what her writings say about society, and how they are written about (see Uncle G's suggestions above), I'd be sceptical about keeping a load of fiction. I would like to see the article say more about the meaning of this fictional dynasty, and quote more secondary sources, rather than merely reproduce a fictional family tree - which is probably inappropriate for WP. As it is, Sayers is widely-read, and I think it reasonable that our readers might want to know more about the wider significance of her creation of the Duke of Denver, which spans more than one (notable) book. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an awful lot of secondary sourcing on Sayers. After I'd found and picked out the aforementioned myself, I found the Dorothy L. Sayers entry in Janik, Janik & Nelson 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJanikJanikNelson2002 (help) which has a "secondary sources" section that's about 5 times as long as my list. Then there's stuff like McGlynn 2019 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcGlynn2019 (help), which we have as further reading in Dorothy L. Sayers and which is all about Sayers's portrayal of the aristocracy.
  Per Special:Diff/62599765 the article's creator modelled it on real universe peerages, which was the wrong approach, because obviously it isn't real. Whereas Colin Watson's statement that Sayers portrayed the aristocracy sycophantically, which others have counterargued, gets not a mention. There's all sorts of things that one could say, such as the assumption by the Duke of Denver of almost a droit du seigneur, which presenting fiction as fact will not, and does not, say. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Janik, Vicki K.; Janik, Del Ivan; Nelson, Emmanuel Sampath, eds. (2002). "Dorothy L. Sayers". Modern British Women Writers: An A-to-Z Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313310300.
  - McGlynn, Mary (Fall 2019). Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). "Parma violets and pince-nez: Dorothy L. Sayers's meritocracy". Clues: A Journal of Detection. 37 (2). McFarland. ISBN 9781476637532.
Delete per WP:TNT. There may be something notable to be written here, but there is nothing salvageable from the current mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - in-universe refs, no evidence of notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There are no useful references, the pedigree section is wholly unsourced and is is written in an inapropriate in-universe style, and once all that has been removed nothing useful remains. The text should be deleted and the title should become a redirect to Dorothy L. Sayers for now. If anyone is able to to dig through the sources mentioned above and draft something reasonable, a new article could be created at that time. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a kernel of useful content there. If I were going to zap this and start again, I'd keep the section on the actual book character, which is easily sourceable to Sandberg 2022. And I'd probably keep a mention of Scott-Giles, although I'd discard everything from Scott-Giles. In fact, let me give that a go. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Out of interest, I checked the Scott-Giles book at the British Library some time ago, as I wondered whether the pedigree was a copyright infringement lifted straight from it. It wasn't, but that does raise the question of exactly which sources were used to create the pedigree, and whether the fictional information given will ever be checkable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Perhaps some of the delete !voters would like to reconsider per WP:HEY. St Anselm (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, MichaelMaggs, and Loew Galitz: The article has been rewritten by Uncle G and your evaluation in light of the rewrite is requested. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Thanks for the ping. That's a far, far better article, and I'm happy now to change my !vote to keep. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G:, you haven't !voted yet. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs But the article is a possible forkish mess. It is now covering two characters, one has his own article Lord Peter Wimsey, the other does not but we do have articles on books he appears in (Whose Body?). Note that the current article has content that is relevant to the books/series but not to the characters or the concept of the Duke of Denver ex. the section on the Wimsey Papers, second phalf of the 'In Sayers's works' section which contains paragraphs on portrayal of aristocracy in the series, most of the collaboration section, th eother section which talks about 'fictional genealogies'. Considering the existence of the Template:Lord Peter Wimsey which implies we are dealing with the "Lord Peter Wimsey series", having looked into this in more detail, I think this article (Duke of Denver) needs to be merged to the Lord Peter Wimsey, which likely needs to be tweaked to be an article about the book series. On a side note, I am concerned whether the articles other characters from the series are notable as well. Some might, but some may need merger too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not perfect, but an article with this title or something like it does seem the best place for a discussion of Sayers' collaboration with Scott-Giles. I would (now) keep the article, but wouldn't be adverse to it being renamed if necessary. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:03, 21 March 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!} 05:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dony Valle

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic on the article is not very notable. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack WP:SIGCOV and thus does not meet inclusion criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted when consensus is clear? LibStar (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems a bit unusual. AssumeGoodWraith what was the reason for relisting as opposed to closing? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a bit more reason than "not notable" or "fails gng". This afd can still be closed at any time if I made another error. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? LibStar (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GNG is a clear enough reason. It means there aren't enough sources about it to pass GNG. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be doing admin/experienced editor level tasks like relisting. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 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. assertions that the subject passes GNG have not been met with compiant sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Omar Vásquez

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of curiosity, was a WP:BEFORE done before the nomination? I did a short search and quickly found this substantial coverage so I'm wondering if a thorough search has been done or if the nomination only based the GNG failure on the sources in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be an interview, and isn't independent from the subject? BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is independent from the subject, it's a valid reference.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not if it doesn't include any significant coverage apart from what the subject said. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to clarify, I was interested in knowing whether the nominator had looked for any more sources, because if not then I was thinking about trying a thorough search as I found the above source promising. BilledMammal is absolutely right about that if there isn't any significant coverage apart from what the subject said in an interview then it shouldn't count towards GNG. Interviews often do include various statements about the subject by the interviewer which could count towards GNG but whether that is the case here is a matter of an opinion. However, all of that would be mute if there weren't any other significant sources as GNG requires multiple significant sources. While I haven't done a thorough search yet, I did come up with this one while Googling his name+nickname. I will probably do a better search tonight, right now I'm bouncing between weak delete/weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no.T v x1 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, also not notable as a coach. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 31 March 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 Draftify.
Interpreted consensus:

It is not ready for mainspace
It may or may not be notable. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meshroom

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

Thought this felt a bit WP:PROMO, but the lack of sources doesn't help. When I did a google search I see a documentation and downloads for it. I don't see reviews or how this passes basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It was never my intention to fully write this article. I don't know enough about the program(!), but felt it should be included here. Here are some links that might help with its inclusion (from here):

It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

e.g.

- Virginia Tech

- University of Oxford

- maastricht university suggests it is part of an MA course

- University of Maryland (not sure what purpose this blog indicates)

- University of Nottingham (ditto)

It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

e.g.

- Comparative Analysis of Open-Source and Commercial Photogrammetry Software for Cultural Heritage conference paper

- University of Queensland (review/comparison)

used for making music videos

- Everything Everything - In Birdsong

I can do some more digging if needed

Pluke (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- What the article needs is improvement, not more digging. Independent sources, a neutral style and tone is necessary. The Banner talk 10:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Completely agree, but I think we need to dismiss the AfD before we spend too much effort on this. The above list should serve as a good starting point to improve things. Pluke (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. You made a low quality article as a way to deflect this discussion. Now it is up to you to bring the article up to standard before an admin comes with the decision. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure that's how things work around here. I've not done much serious editing for a very long time, but it used to be that articles can be created as stubs for other people to improve on. If this has changed, please point me to the policy. I'm not trying to deflect the discussion, I asked you for the policy you were referring to for inclusion on the list you are maintaining, you appear to have your own criteria, which I'm not wanting to get into a huge argument about as you're clearly doing a good job of maintaining the list. I met your criteria, created a stub, have now pulled together a load of potential sources to improve the article. As I noted in the other discussion the question here was about he notability of the software product, as evidenced by this AfD, not about it having a page. There is no obligation for me to do anything, this site generally runs on good will, I hope to come back to this when I have a little more time. Pluke (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Throw something over the fence and others can do the work??? But in the present state, the article will most likely not survive. The Banner talk 16:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have time right now to convert the multiple sources I have provided above into a full article. Wiki writing, for me at least, is an iterative process, and if you note what I've said, I'm intending on working on this article, just not now. If you think that the article should be deleted, please make the case here, this is what this page is for. I believe that I've provided enough evidence for this article to survive as a stub, which will hopefully be worked on by me and others. Pluke (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commend Pluke's effort, to which I will add [1] as evidence that databases of scientific papers should be searched before the article can be deleted. I will note that the Notability (software) essay linked is not official policy. Despite this, and the article's current lacking state, I believe it can be improved to a suitably encyclopedic state and has a sufficient claim to notability, so deletion is not the solution. Toadspike (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion on available sourcing will help determine whether this has viability as an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow Pluke and others the time to work on it. It's not in shape for mainspace right now, but believe it could be brought into compliance with more time than an AfD provides. Star Mississippi 01:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Star Mississippi. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable would be my vote, but I have no problem with Draftify - we can afford the electrons. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the more complete draft article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AliceVision_Meshroom

As well as articles in other languages: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.198.18.33 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as a redirect)- there is a much better version of this topic linked above and here. The Meshroom page will then redirect to the more complete page. Pluke (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the four times rejected draft?? The Banner talk 22:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's due another review as it has had several updates since the last one, from what I can see. Rather than drag on this AfD, maybe efforts should be put into reviewing the draft article? Pluke (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace redirect to a draft? That won’t work. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've used this software before (and it works well). However, during this time I would have expected the page to continue to expand in the past 30 days. However, I would see Draft:AliceVision Meshroom being a replacement, as it's been translated from the italian/french versions. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 30 March 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 11:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Galloway

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

Fails WP:BIO. 4 of the sources provided are primary. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage mainly comes up with an assistant coroner with the same name. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since she is considered notable enough to be included in UK Who's Who by its publisher https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U289873 Also she was described as a "High-flying Diplomat" in the Jewish Chronicle under her maiden name Rachel Edis Piecesofuk (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage:

https://meta.mk/en/interview-with-the-uks-ambassador-galloway-200-countries-agreed-that-coal-is-a-major-problem-for-global-warming/

https://shqen.mia.mk/ambassador-galloway-at-cop26-countries-need-to-show-how-theyre-going-to-deliver-on-climate-change-so-far-failing-to-meet-commitments/

https://bigorski.org.mk/en/reports/events/the-british-ambassador-mrs-rachel-galloway-visited-the-bigorski-monastery/

https://uacs.edu.mk/home/british-ambassador-madam-rachel-galloway-at-the-opening-of-uacs-eighth-annual-reading-competition/ Piecesofuk (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who UK is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia-wide consensus. See 2022 RfC. ~~Please stop suggesting otherwise, you've been told before.~~ Pilaz (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you let me know when I was told before the 9th March 2022 when I posted the above comment that I can't use Who's Who. If you're unable to do so I hope you'll provide a correction here and on my Talk Page User talk:Piecesofuk#Who's Who (UK) at your earliest convenience.Piecesofuk (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my comment. I was making a reference to this discussion, and I was mistaken in the timelines. It appears you posted the comment above (9 March) before I made you aware of the RfC (11 March). Please accept my apologies. Best, Pilaz (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming that Who's Who is not a reliable source for establishing notability. People are selected for WW on the basis of their notability; they would not be selected if they were not notable. The only reason the RfC (a very poor one not publicised in the correct places and certainly not on any way "Wikipedia-wide consensus") found that it was not reliable was because of its fact-checking, a completely different issue. In fact, please generally stop your implications that WW cannot be used as a source, as that is not what WP:RSP says at all: The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Diplomats aren't inherently notable, and the sources provided above and in the article are either not independent (interviews in particular), do not provide significant coverage (the Jewish Chronicle), and are of unknown reliability. Who's Who (UK) has been considered generally unreliable ever since the 2022 RfC at RSN, and I'm pretty sure all UK ambassadors get an entry in the volume regardless. Pilaz (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. We have decided not all ambassadors are notable, so a source that seeks to cover every ambassador, especially one that is held to be generally unreliable, cannot be used to demonstrate we need to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources in Gnews or newspapers. Her name turns up, back as far as the 1870s, but zero coverage about her as a diplomat. North Macedonia wouldn't seem to be a notable diplomatic post either, one small country in southern Europe. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 16 March 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 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maikel Pérez

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

Fails WP:MMA notability criteria; doesn't have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked in the world top 10 of his division. WP:GNG is also failed, most of his coverage is through routine sporting reports. Also competed at the 2008 summer olympics but did not win a medal. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Cuba. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and was never ranked high enough. He did appear at the 2008 Olympics, but finished 19th of 19 in his division. My search found database listings and routine sports reporting, but nothing to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no indication of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable. Many people including me never heard of this person because of a lack of notabilty. Felicia (talk) 17:39, 11 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Apisah

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

Extensive junior career but does not meet WP:NTENNIS. Runner up in junior grand slam is close but not enough. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Oceania, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Player as she has competed in Fed Cup competition before. Keroks (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still an essay. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis is considered the notability standard which does not include Fed Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many tennis player articles which are based of their participation in Fed Cup / Davis Cup competition. If you delete this one, I also suggest you go through many of the other thousand articles and delete those too for consistency. Keroks (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do this soon when I have the time. Many of these Fed/Davis Cup-only players have no possibility for any reasonable expansion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Has participated in a major international tournament for her nation in Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources added since nomination satisfy WP:GNG, with the Sydney Morning Herald and The National articles all SIGCOV. Jevansen (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jevansen, I think the article now passes WP:GNG. WP:NTENNIS appears to be in flux. Bonoahx (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 14 March 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.