Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 02 July 04 >

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 speedy delete (A10) by Jay. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagging (TV series)[edit]

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

Lagging (TV series)

After research, it appears that this is not about Lagging (TV series) or Princess Mirror-Belle, but is a (messed-up) copy-paste of So Awkward. The title Princess Mirror-Belle has already been salted due to repeated recreation, and so this seems to have been renamed to game the name. This is probably a candidate for speedy deletion, maybe as A10, but is being nominated for deletion so as to write up the issue. I was originally planning to nominate it for deletion because it has no independent sources, but it has no independent sources because it is a copy-paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author of these articles needs to stop copy-pasting material from unrelated existing articles and instead writing content about the actual topic of the articles. JIP | Talk 00:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/salt/block The user is a timesink who needs to be forced to find something else to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 4 July 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. If there is an argument for deletion, no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination. Star Mississippi 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability article reads like a WP:Advert 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I abstain because I haven't kept up with what WP:N is. Have the notability standards changed? I've been profiled by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reuters, and a front-page article in USA Today, and many of those have reported on my work or interviewed me in other articles beyond the profiles. I agree the article is poorly written (it leaves out most of my last six years of legal victories, my First Amendment work, the Leif Olson issue, the Stericycle case, the State Street case), but that's the consequence of the weird politics of the article being created years before I was actually notable when people were trying to use my real-life identity to win Wikipedia editing battles with me on trumped-up charges of conflict of interest. (It's not a coincidence that I started doing more notable work when I stopped wasting time trying to edit Wikipedia.) Generally the answer to a poorly written article is WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. But maybe we've tightened up notability standards like I argued for a couple of decades ago, so being regularly profiled and quoted and winning court cases doesn't qualify by itself. -- Theodore H. Frank (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this nomination an accidental error? The article has been vetted by the community and has "good article" status, and lots of sourcing. If there is promotional language that needs to be cleaned up, that can be fixed. AfD is not clean up. WP:NOTCLEANUP. With all due respect to the new editor who nominated this, I suggest the nom is withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. AfD is not clean up. It has Good Article status and perfectly fine sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 11 July 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. Star Mississippi 14:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ben Affleck Nike film[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. This should have been a draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask if people don't agree, don't vote for deletion but rather for dratification, so the info doesn't get needlessly rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Principal photography has commenced, and the sources cited constitute significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding here that I'm unconvinced by the merge/draftify !votes below. I'm having a hard time fathoming what about, or according to what policy/guideline/consensus, being "routine" makes the coverage not significant. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sonny Vaccaro Until film is titled; this should be under the name of the subject of the film, not the actor (who's directing and not performing in the film, which adds double confusion to the title). That way RAP's concern is addressed, but the content isn't stuck under the dreaded "untitled bla-bla-blah" title at the same time. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is there consensus that a film needs to have a title in order to have its own article? And he is performing in the film as well as directing it, though I'm at a complete loss as to how it'd be confusing if he wasn't—the director's name is often the most defining or identifying aspect of an upcoming film, and Affleck is pretty well established as a director (his film won Best Picture you know). Nardog (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just trying to identify an WP:ATD or draftifying an article, and on the surface most loathe anything with 'untitled' in the article. I don't delve into WP:FILM that much but as a film consumer most gravitate to those actually starring in the film rather than directors because outside a few of them, we aren't titling things Craig Gillespie's Cruella. Also, please don't condescend folks; I know Ben's filmography, I just don't think the article should have his name in the title. Also per Bovineboy the coverage is indeed routine and we have time to develop this somewhere before it gets a title/starts production. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Sonny Vaccaro, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify The coverage for this project has been very routine, just announcements of names, production details, etc. There is nothing notable about the production itself. The coverage is not significant as demanded by WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 17:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is unless you're a Marvel or Star Wars film, the production details will always be "routine", this makes it difficult for basically any upcoming film to be able to be in mainspace. Regardless, the film's production has constantly shown up in the media, Daily Mail even writing up multiple articles about given days on set. Rusted AutoParts 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And? Perhaps Wikipedia should only have articles about released movies, not the routine stuff under some stage of production per WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A film doesn't have to be released to be notable, so I do not agree with this assertion. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Until the production commences and gains the necessary coverage to pass NFILM, this just isn't notable enough for an article. What we have now just isn't heavy enough to show that the production is noteworthy. If things fell through at this point in time, there wouldn't be enough coverage to justify an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am very surprised to see this up for deletion, given the talent involved. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Capt. Milokan: I'll guess you'll have to make a note at WP:NFILM so everyone knows a movie's notability is based upon "the talent involved". Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you being so snotty? The talent involved is why the film is being reported on as it films. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Draftify or Merge? There is no consensus here that this page should be deleted but the desired outcome is under dispute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 July 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. Coverage has been shown to exist. Whether it should be moved to Ray Spiller is a discussion that can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Football Statisticians[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has an entry of over a page in a print encyclopedia from a reliable publisher, as well as other sources. Do we aspire to cover less than such print encyclopedias? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Over a page" is disingenuous. It has three paragraphs of coverage. One paragraph of which is that they collect "interesting and informative information", and then mentions examples of some of the facts they have used. That leaves two paragraphs, much of which of the remaining information is now outdated as this encyclopaedia is from 2002. Do you really think this is significant coverage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing disingenuous about saying that an encyclopedia entry about the subject of over a page has over a page. That it consists of three long paragraphs rather than ten short ones is neither here nor there. And yes, this is very clearly significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For a start there were two in the article before you made that comment, and many more can be found by clicking on "books" and "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 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! 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user is trying to delete my vote claiming it as a personal attack, i just brought a vital issue into attention, it is no way a personal attack also deleting other people's vote is a pure policy violation, let admins decide then. This is not your personal talk page and you can't remove other people's votes and I will readd this a 1000 times if needed. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted a personal attack that has no relevancy here, and bears no merit in your criteria for keeping or deleting an article. Also, this is actually the first time I have started an AFD for this article, not the third. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and has no bearing on whether the article passes SIGCOV. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbaggg said that this is the third time that you tagged this article for deletion, not the third time that you started an AfD for this article. It was actually the fourth time, including where you edit-warred a speedy deletion tag back into it after it had been declined. That is, however, a behavioral issue that should have no bearing on this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting one edit isn't an "edit war". CSD, PROD and AFD are completely different things which I have put forth in order to delete this article; it's not against any rule to attempt different methods, what on earth does this have to do with anything? And so, this isn't a "behavioral issue", and even bringing up the CSD and PROD attempts has absolutely no relevancy in the slightest, so I ask you as well to refrain from personal attacks. Please could somebody kindly remove this quite frankly pointless and distracting discussion? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are different things, and there is no "rule" against using them. Re-reverting to reinstate a speedy deletion tag after it has been declined is however edit-warring, which is a behavioral issue, and pointing out that you did so is not a personal attack. Can't you just get back to explaining how significant coverage is not significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 6 July 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. SpinningSpark 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Downey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ryan J. Downey (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:SIGCOV. References are profiles, passing mentions and social media links, and a Spam link. Nothing of depth or quality. scope_creepTalk 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with these criticisms. I've pared it down to actually notable information and am fixing up the sources as per what you've noted. VictorCreedxXx (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So far nothing has been to effectively improve the references. Ref 1,5,10, 13 are non-rs. They are unreliable sources. Looking at the other references:
There is no real WP:SECONDARY sources here. There is a hint being an author but no reviews of the work to prove it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The coverage of this individual has been moderate to say the least, but the presence he has made is quite large. I think the podcast links should be considered in the future as a form of historical archive, as many a time have they corrected mistakes that authors on this very platform have created. Also, there are numerous articles on this platform with fewer references and works to back up notoriety. Nevertheless, there is enough here to maintain the article's importance. Despite the user who continually removes the history of this individual, regardless of what they feel is important, there is plenty of sources remaining to maintain this page. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The article references have been redone such that 1,5,10,13 are non-rs but they show passing mentions, for example Hearst Digital. It is the same references before. For example hollywood reporter, a passing mention. The form here is to produce three secondary sources per WP:THREE that show the person is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:56, 11 July 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! 06:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Joshi[edit]

Dhruv Joshi (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)

Refs are passing mentions at best. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about Dhruv Joshi's notability as a tech entrepreneur and music industry executive. This article is a stub, meant to be built upon as new references are available. Not necessary to delete. Copeland.powell (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide quality sources, as the ones given are only mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 5 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! 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will examine the current references:

I was planning to do all the references, but the first five are all about Joyner Lucas, with a mention of Dhruv Joshi. There is a not a single primary source, never mind secondary that pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I don't know why they are all Joyner Lucas? scope_creepTalk 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete passing mentions about the individual, seems utterly non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dhruv is an entertainment and tech executive. This article is meant to be a stub article, so that other editors can contribute content over time. This article should not be deleted – instead, perhaps we put a tag on the article that states it needs stronger references. Not a nominee for deletion. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are more references online, just added this one from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/joyner-lucas-interview-tully-app-music-distribution-venture-2022-5?amp Copeland.powell (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the only created this article because of the app? Also, its an interview and per policy can't be used to establish notabilily. scope_creepTalk 13:49, 6 July 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 00:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lorenzo[edit]

Brandon Lorenzo (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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 15:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would strongly argue that there is sufficient mention of this notable person with multiple external citations and factual information as per the terms and guidelines. WikiHuman2021(talk) 12:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the discussion for deletion of article Brandon Lorenzo I don't agree the article should be deleted. The RS, citations and content are reliable and within the Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest it remains as is. WorldCitation123(talk) 11:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are not sufficiently notable. airdrielife is some lifestyle blog that will publish anything for cash, while cochranenow.com is local in scope only. calgaryguardian.com, also local, and also just an interview. When 90% of the Career section is covering the subject's appearances on a daytime talk show, it is rather plain to see that a biography of the man is being stretched to cover obvious non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack sufficent reliable, secondary indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 27 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! 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pay for play sources, rest aren't much to help reliability. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 5 July 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. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields (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)

Now that the television discussions have died down some, I figured it was time to revisit this.

Since the first AFD, I have done a second search for "Evans and Novak" + "CNN" and "Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields" and variants thereof. I used Newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and ProQuest. To a one, every hit I found was either a directory listing, a passing mention of some figure being on the show, a transcript of the show, a statement from the show being cited in an unrelated work, or false positives on unrelated works in which Rowland Evans and Robert Novak collaborated. Not a single source said anything about the show more substantial than X said Y on Evans and Novak today. The show may have journalistic merit, but this is not the same thing as notability; as Mackensen (talk · contribs) said in another AFD, a source can be reliable without being notable.

As I said in the first AFD, it's massively telling that the show doesn't even have an IMDb page, nor can anyone seem to agree on when it started or ended. One article even claims the show became The Novak Show in 2006, which contradicts other sources stating that it ended in 2002. For a show's timeline to be this muddy despite an alleged 20-plus-year run is quite telling.

In the first AFD, Nfitz (talk · contribs) cited an entry in The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present, but this is a barely one-paragraph entry in a television encyclopedia and does not warrant WP:SIGCOV on its own. Also presented were two obituaries on the hosts, but these only mentioned the show in passing. The last source given was catchall article on various news talk shows that only mentioned Evans Novak and Whatever for a single sentence. Questions about the reputability of these sources went unanswered. I am still not convinced that an encyclopedia listing and two obits give the show notability on its own. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were clearly notable journalists, but the show isn't automatically notable just because they are.

The first AFD saw every participant calling for a different result, and discussion abruptly died off with no further participation even after two relists. As a result, the first AFD closed as "no consensus". It is my hope to find a consensus this time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did not cite a television encyclopaedia, User:TenPoundHammer; I cited the NY Times and the LA Times. There was no consensus to delete this a few weeks ago, and I see absolutely no point in resurrecting it again. Even if it's not kept, how is this not a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained this. You cited two obituaries and a "capsule" article, all three of which only mentioned the show in passing. When I questioned these sources in the last AFD, you went completely silent. Personally, I find it a waste of time when I start an AFD and it suddenly goes stone cold silent for two weeks. Re-nominating after a "no consensus" is a perfectly valid move if the argument to delete is still valid, which I feel that it is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to where I mentioned a capsule article/encyclopaedia? Because I don't see it. As you noted in your response (which wasn't a question and didn't tag me) I assume that you hadn't read the articles I mentioned, as you were clear that there was one Proquest reference, not the two I noted. Also you claimed that it was just a trivial namedrop - which is also not true for the LA Times article - with over a dozen reference to Novak, even though the article was about Evans! Given all the false claims you make, I'm not sure why I'm beholden to respond to your last word - when it's clear clear that you are just making stuff up. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the article that I considered a "capsule". It only mentions Evans and Novak in passing, in the greater context of other similar shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I cite The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present? Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: There was no consensus to redirect, either, which is another one of the reasons I re-nominated. Do you still feel that the sources you cited are valid? Because I still do not believe them to be sufficient for the reasons I stated above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said there was a consensus to redirect; though why a redirect wouldn't be the automatic default for such an article. Yes, I still feel the sources are valid - which is why I said keep above. And I still think you are completely wrong about nominating this for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I realize there's no timeframe after a no consensus result before another discussion can take place, but I feel a month and change is too soon. If last edit was the closing of deletion discussion, these concerns could of just been brought up on talk page imo. Personally from what I've found I feel Evans & Novak could have an article on their own(as duo), in regards to their work in in writing together and working on television, and this rename and such could be expanded into that, that ain't my vote but an option for future. Anyways back to keeping, The Times Tribune has sigcov, Spearfish Star has 2nd paragraph covering the show itself, USA today had a small blurb that Bill Clinton did a video tribute to the show's 15th anniversary (King, Larry (October 27, 1997). "Happy 15th to Evans and Novak". ...Rowland Evans and Bob Novak will celebrate the 15th anniversary of their talk show on CNN. President Clinton taped a congratulatory message:...). Ignoring that Larry King wrote it, as I'm focused on the fact a sitting president did a video tribute for the shows anniversary shows notability is/was well established. 30 years ago there were a lot more newspaper, and a lot less internet, and if we are able to find a few articles that made it to an archive, we can assume there are more out there. Regardless passes WP:GNG with what we have found, so as I said keep. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a multi-page article in the Washington Post. For this and the discussion above, I'm happy that there is enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Here's some other stuff that might be helpful to others. There's this in Politico.This, which I believe is a repub of a New York Times article, looks useful. There are several collections at University libraries, that are only accessible in-person. We don't need them to establish WP:N, but if anyone wants to pursue...[2],[3],[4], there was one at U of Wisconsin, but I lost the link. Oh, did anyone talk about the book references? I'm not going to bother, to me this one is a cut-and-dried keep. More digging is fruitful, everywhere you look. Jacona (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where were all you guys last AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the volume of AfDs is just too much. AfD is not my life! Jacona (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure I added the old AfD and article to my watchlist with plan to search for stuff later, but there wasn't any activity either place until the closing so it never bumped up on my watchlist and I forgot about it until it was nominated again. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH, you literally prodded and AFDed hundreds of articles. You can't both do that AND complain that people didn't defend it better last time. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found, unlikely to find anything further. The show existed (and I have a vague memory if it), you can find a three line mention in TV Guide online and it seems to be indexed in Library and Archives Canada. That said, we'd likely need paper sources to be used to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 July 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! 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Taylor Hart[edit]

Nicole Taylor Hart (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)

Zero sourcing found. Current roles stated are not notable. Prod contested because of ASCAP award, which seems to be insufficient absent any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search by the name "Nicole Hart" comes up with many other Nicole Harts. No evidence this meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find sources about this woman. There might be stuff offline or on the databases, but my access is limited. The ASCAP award could mean she's a keep per WP:ANYBIO 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times;"), but I don't think the ASCAP awards are well-known or significant enough to count. But IDK that much about music awards, so I'm just going off of the bit about the ASCAP Awards on Wikipedia. We do have coverage (albeit not in-depth) of Hart's winning of this award, so if anyone can demonstrate the significance of this award, I might change my mind. Samsmachado (talk) 02:37, 5 July 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! 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PicNet[edit]

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

I placed a PROD on this article last week with the rationale "A longstanding article about an IT Services firm of questionable notability, created in mainspace after a draft had been rejected multiple times. The article describes a small company going about its business without indication of notability. Searches find occasional listings for their products (e.g. PredictBench) but nothing to demonstrate that notability has been attained.". An Admin noticed that a previous article instance had been deleted at PROD in 2015 and so declined the PROD, so I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as noted above. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 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. Sources have now been added to the article (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton flood of 1934[edit]

Bridgeton flood of 1934 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article cites no sources at all. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of hits in Gnewspapers confirming it happened, [5], causing a million dollars in damage, not sure if they're beyond routine media coverage of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Someone needs to add Citation. However lack of Citation is not sufficient to delete an article Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A superficial search found sources from 1934 to 2015 discussing the flood, from books, newspapers and magazines. The search required by WP:BEFORE would have uncovered these sources, if it had been done properly. The notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing problem was fixable, and I don't think there are any other problems with the article bad enough to require deletion. --ais523
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 Solar Saros 151. ✗plicit 02:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191[edit]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191 (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)
Solar eclipse of October 9, 2200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i fail to see how an event happening 169 years from now (that also covers another event millennia from now) can possibly be completely encyclopedic - it's certainly possible it might happen but any number of things could change in the universe that would make this unlikely or impossible. so, WP:CRYSTAL and some other stuff applies. Even NASA isn't sure. Maybe a list of NASA predicted events might be appropriate but I don't think a standalone article is, much less one that says something will definitively happen so far in the future in wiki-voice PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Then the article Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 would thus also fall under the page. It's 164 years away. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably should. We cannot state something will definitively happen in Wikivoice that isn't even close to the realm of possibility of happening. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Solar Saros 151 but not per WP:CRYSTAL. This event has a 99.999999999% chance of happening. Instead it fails WP:NOTDATABASE, because there are hundreds of these events and none of them are particularly notable. I'd suggest a mass AfD on all partial eclipses post-2070, maybe 2050; I think that'd be fairly uncontroversial. A similar mass AfD on total eclipses may annoy some umbraphiles, but I'd still support it per WP:NOTDATABASE. (Note: saw this article on the Wikipedia Discord) Ovinus (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eclipses are very predictable events, thanks to centuries of work in classical mechanics and detailed astronomical data-gathering, so the concerns in the quoted guideline are beside the point. There could be an argument for condensing multiple predicted eclipses into a single page, but that's a question of how to present the information most conveniently, not a question of expunging it. Nor do I see how articles on predicted eclipses are "indiscriminate"; they're not just piles of statistics quoted without organization. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about one list per Saros cycle containing all the eclipses of that cycle, images for each such eclipse within 500 years from now (plus or minus), one GIF of the Saros cycle, and an external link to the correct page NASA's database of these eclipses for each eclipse (incl. ones outside of the 1000-year range)? Ovinus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not unreasonable, but it's also a bigger question than one deletion discussion page can resolve. We're talking about dozens of articles, after all (the exact number depending on whether we draw a line at 2050, 2070, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair. Perhaps we should start a broader discussion on how to treat eclipses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Ovinus (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The only thing completely predictable about anything 169 years from now is that, you, me, everyone reading and participating in this and anything else on Wikipedia currently, and their children will all be dead. An astronomical event happening is not guaranteed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, Praxidicae, it's far more likely that we'll invent a method of immortality than move the Earth or Moon far enough to prevent this eclipse from happening. ;) XOR is right that this event will happen, unless astronomers since Galileo were/are collectively out of their minds. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a good idea. I don't think I'll have time today to compose a decent opening for such a discussion, so feel free to start one if you'd like. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've opened an RfC there. Ovinus (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ovinus. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Not only will every participant in this AfD be dead and gone long before this happens, so will any of our children. If Wikipedia and humanity somehow still exist in 2191, the article can be recreated then. But that's not my problem, I'll be dead long before that happens. Unless we discover the secret to immortality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe we'll discover the secret to immorality instead. :D PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or turn into a list. Bizarre hypotheticals about mortality and cosmology aside, this fails GNG and ROUTINE. It has no significant coverage beyond lists of eclipses, so Wikipedia should reflect that by including it only in a list, not in a separate article. Toadspike (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ovinus to Solar Saros 151. I agree that the event under discussion will happen according to calculations as XOR'easter pointed out. This is thoroughly known science. But according to NOTDATABASE we should not have an article on events that don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, yes redirect is called for. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable based on a lack of significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or add it to a list somewhere, we don't need a stub article for something 200 yrs down the road. Hopefully wikipedia will still be around then, draftifying until then seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. We should reform the eclipses articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect option proposed by Ovinus is the most logical for our reading public. Innumerable articles on individual eclipses without differentiating content is not valuable to readers. But I must reject the theory that something 169 years distant cannot be notable and may not happen because "any number of things could change in the universe". 169 years is an incredibly small blip in history of the universe, and the universe does not change its laws willy-nilly like it is the US Supreme Court. Thus cool articles about the future like Timeline of the far future are great entries. I dearly hope this article gets recreated sometime closer to 2191 and that some descendant of mine finds this AfD and my comment! (....psst, ggggggrandchild of mine, go look up Birds Aren't Real and tell everyone we believed that in 2022, I wrote that one!!! Look at us funny 21st century humans!)--Milowent • hasspoken 19:27, 7 July 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! 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pascale Guiton[edit]

Pascale Guiton (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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF and does not state why it is notable. (One can also see this discussion.) Biosthmors (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In agreement with the nom at the moment, but happy to proved wrong. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:31, 4 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mercy in Mexico[edit]

No mercy in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an A7 candidate as a claim of significance (namely, going viral and being the subject of commentary) has been made, but still likely fails WP:NWEB as the coverage is in KnowYourMeme and other sources of dubious encyclopedic reliability (DeathMilitia, Sportskeeda). ChromaNebula (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Notability not demonstrated. Page creator clearly has a fascination with the grim but a good article that does not make. --Pokelova (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral content, that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. No reliable sources even cited. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources found, the article only has tiktok and knowyourmeme as sources. You can find it on websites, but no critical discussion about it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find other sources, but the article is accurate. Casint (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Mexico. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above can't find any usable sources to base this article on. If WP:RSes write about it, then we can have an article. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 9 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Aviation India[edit]

Titan Aviation India (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 is not an aviation company and a broker. Does not hold any AOC / NSOP as per DGCA India website. Promotional page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:32, 3 July 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! 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Air (India)[edit]

Spirit Air (India) (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)

As per DGCA website , no such charter company exists. Google search does not reveal anything. Even their own website does not claim that their have or had any AOC / NSOP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Aircraft bearing registration VT-IAT shown on WP page belongs to State Government Training institute. Even the source cited does not claim the aircraft belongs to Spirit Air. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the page should be deleted. It seems like the page is based on some fake airline. When you go to the website of the airline they don't mention anything about commercial flights. They don't offer any commercial or even charter flights. The destinations list on the page is completely fake as well because most of those airports were never operational for flight operations. User:Yellow alligator
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! 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jal Hans[edit]

Jal Hans (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 records on DGCA or independent sources found that this airline existed. Kindly review.. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:13, 3 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brewer[edit]

Steve Brewer (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)

Nomination Withdrawn - Previously deleted article on a writer who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR criteria for notability. The article had previously been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Maps Imaginary, thank you for taking the time to look for additional sources, I didn't see these when I did a BEFORE search, although I found a lot on the politician with the same name. The Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly are good finds, as are the ABQ Journal articles. It is now clear that he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I am withdrawing the nomination. Great research work! Netherzone (talk) 19:02, 8 July 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. There isn't a clear consensus that draftification will solve the issues that a long main space tenure didn't, but nor is there a clear consensus that it isn't an appropriate solution. I will protect the mainspace title to enforce AfC, but have no issue with an experienced AfC reviewer or other admin removing it when the time is right. I do not need to be consulted. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Tausch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arno Tausch (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 has already been at AfD three times, with decisions being keep, delete, and keep. In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC. So why then are we at AfD again? The reason is that this article is irredeemably promotional. Going through the history, it becomes evident that it has been promotional from the very beginning. One sign of this are the descriptions of Tausch's work sourced almost exclusively to his own publications, or to articles that mention him in passing. The article is also excessively refbombed with 196 (!!) references. The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions... Given the foregoing, I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history. However, cleaning this up so that it becomes an acceptable neutral bio will be a major undertaking and given that I haven't found a neutral version in the article history, I argue that it would be better to start from scratch and that WP:TNT applies, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should move this article to the Draft namespace as soon as possible. Peaceray (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you, but why would moving it to draft result in a neutral article when 9 years in main article space did not succeed? --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this is one of the reasons for the Draft namespace. In fact, there is an entire page devoted to the draft rewrite of notable academics.
  • Second, there are different deletion rules that apply to drafts versus articles, specifically WP:G13 that covers abandoned drafts. Whereas something in the main space can exist for years until an AFD discussion comes along, a draft that has been untouched for over six months can be speedily deleted. Peaceray (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cesar, Circus Maximus, Thumb up, Thumb down? User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before.
But more neutrality, please. This morning, I visited the website of one of the best libraries of political science in the world, the Dudley Knox Library of the United States Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey in California. Any Wikipedia decision maker now deciding in this deletion Circus Maximus process is kindly invited to look at the Tausch entries in the Monterey library system, [1].
User Randykitty stated in her present contribution in a sentence that could imply a lack of the necessary neutrality and a rather sweeping value judgement about the curriculum vitae of a living person stating that:
"The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions...". But Wikipedia is not the personnel service office of a University.
This non-neutral statement, together with the other non-neutral statement:
„In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC“
And
„I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history“.
Well, if user Randykitty were more familiar with the academic system in Continental Europe, she would realize that it is quite normal that "Privatdozenten" [2], i.e. "adjunct professors" are working nowadays for hundreds of institutions, like government bureaucracies, think tanks, etc, and not only for the Universities. Arno Tausch, at age 71, joined the ranks of the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992, became Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, and then, from 1999 onwards, worked for the Austrian Ministry of Social Affairs in Vienna until his retirement in 2016. [3]
In the framework of improving Wikipedia coverage of Austrian debates and Austrian political science, I will certainly do my best to improve the article over the coming weeks, and especially to shorten it and to free it from citation overload.
As to independent sources from the world press, I will refer to an interesting and very lengthy article published by Al Jazeera on Tausch, it's in Arabic, and I will certainly refer to it in the improved version which I will present. The reference is:
Springer, one of the world’s biggest and most important publishing houses, now lists none the less than 70 entries with Arno Tausch as author, from 1980 onwards to the present day. [4]
At the end of the day, there are not too many Austrian political scientists, who have made it to the pages Le Monde and Al Jazeera and of think tanks like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) in Tel Aviv. His regular contributions to Wiener Zeitung are a proof that this author also contributes to the defense of the values of the open society in Austria, so Wikipedia should handle this “thumbs up thumbs down” issue with great care. Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://nps.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,arno%20tausch&queryTemp=arno%20tausch&queryTemp=&tab=Everything&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&vid=01NPS_INST:01NPS
  2. ^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatdozent and https://www.uibk.ac.at/politikwissenschaft/institut/team/emeriti/
  3. ^ https://jcpa.org/researcher/arno-tausch/ and the older editions of the Österreichischer Amtskalender, available at the major public libraries in Austria, including the Ministerial Library at Stubenring 1, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichischer_Amtskalender
  4. ^ https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=Arno+Tausch&date-facet-mode=between&showAll=true
  • Comment: You write "User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before." This is incorrect. We are at AfD here, not speedy deletion and I did not propose this for deletion three times before (in fact I !voted ""weak keep" in the third AfD and none of the previous AfDs was initiated by me). --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I did my best - I hope - to clean up the article. I translated the essence of the important Al Jazeera article as well, so the percentage of independent assessment and critique is now sufficient, I hope, so PLEASE remove now all these tags, SHALOM, SALAM, PAX Austrian political observer (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article, IMHO, is still not ready for prime time. Many citations are poorly formatted. With citation templates, there are no reason to have URLs displayed, except for the website parameter. There are extraneous new lines. Statements like External reviewers included Ulrich Albrecht and Wilfried Röhrich. just do not belong; maybe if Albrecht & Röhrich were notable, but without articles they are clearly not.
    I fail to see the justification for entire sections, such as Publications & Presentation of Tausch’s work in the 70th Anniversary Issue of the International Social Science Journal.
    I agree with Randykitty that 9 years in main article space is too long for something this poorly crafted. Moving it into the Draft namespace will force resolution of these issues. Peaceray (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remains promotional even after cleanup attempts. There is no reason to think that pushing it into Draft space will result in any actual improvement; at best, it will languish there until it is deleted out of staleness. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a paper synthesis and largely promotional. A draft would not fix it after 9 yrs in main space. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article now changed substantially I did my best to remove materials which might look like promotional. Austrian political observer (talk Austrian political observer (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify: Even with the cuts made above, the article still reeks of promotion, but as nom admits, he's probably notable. So why don't we just take the axe to the article? Curbon7 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    we could do that in the Draft namespace. Peaceray (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The axe to the article: Dear user Curbon 7, an excellent idea. I admit that I am not a very experienced Wikipedia writer, and no Wikipedia:Edit warring is in front of you, and I wish you well in your endeavours. The Wikipedia category needs lot of work, and the same applies to Austrian historians, economists, sociologists etc. I simpliy cannot shoulder all these tasks alone. But on the talk page of the Tausch article, I will at least provide you with additional sources from the world press which might be useful for "the axe to the article" Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Putting page through AfC process would be a good way to fix the issues identified with the page. Gusfriend (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think he may pass WP:AUTHOR: A quick search found three reviews of his books [6] [7] [8] and I suspect a more thorough search would find more. The article could use cleanup but I don't think it's quite bad enough for a WP:TNT delete. And I don't see the point of draftification: keep or delete, don't pretend you're doing something else only to delete six months later. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible Error: The second review linked to by David Eppstein just above is to a review of a book by Arno Tausch published in 1954 Die Lautentwicklung der Mundarten des Trièves which can be translated as The sound development of the Trièves dialects . This book is not written by the Arno Tausch under discussion here - who our page says was born in 1951. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reviews Thanks to user David Eppstein. The point he is making is a valid one, indeed. All those acquistition editors of international publishers, which printed articles and or books by Tausch since 1980, like Springer Nature, Palgrave Macmillan, and - one article - Oxford University Press would have been grossly negligent in their work, if there were not any reviews about this author. The following reviews and articles featuring the work of Tausch could be used in a re-written article, and as you immediately will see, the journals include real high impact journals like the Journal of Common Market Studies and Political Studies. So here are the titles:
Extended content
  • Achilov, D. (2019). Review of the Monograph ‘Islamism, Arab Spring, and the Future of Democracy. World System and World Values Perspectives’ by Leonid Grinin, Andrey Korotayev, and Arno Tausch. Journal of Globalization Studies, 10, 1, May 2019: 139 – 142.
  • Brunet, F. (2008). Review: A. Heshmati and A. Tausch: Roadmap to Bangalore? Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 46, Issue 3, Page 741-741, June 2008.
  • Cammak, P. (1995). Review: A. Tausch and F. Prager: Towards a socio-liberal Theory of World Development. Political Studies, Volume 43, Issue 4, pages 730-731, December 1995.
  • Chase-Dunn, C. (2019). Commentary on “Globalisation anddevelopment: the relevance ofclassical ‘dependency’ theory for theworld today” (Tausch, 2010). International Social Science Journal, Volume 68, Issue 227-228, Special Issue: 70 years of International Social Science Journal, March-June 2018, Pages 77-78, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/issj.12179
  • Duina, F. (2004). Review: A. Tausch and P. Herrmann: Globalization and European Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 42, Issue 2, Page 437-451, Jun 2004.
  • Elsenhans, H. (2004). Review: G. Kohler and A. Tausch: Global Keynesianism. Zeitschrift fuer Weltgeschichte, 5, 1 (2004); p. 135-137.
  • Fornet-Betnacourt, R. (2001). Review: A. Müller, A. Tausch and P. M. Zulehner: Global Capitalism, Liberation Theology and Social Sciences. Theologie im Kontext, Missionswissenschaftliches Institut Missio e.V. Aachen, 22, 1, 2001: 109.
  • Nollert, M. (1988). Rezension: A. Tausch: Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 14, 2: 354-359.
  • Nolte, H. H. (1989). Rezension: A. Tausch: Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien. Das Argument, 173: 134-136.
  • Nolte, H. H. (1992). Rezension: A. Tausch: Russland’s Tretmühle. Das Argument, 34, 3: 478-479.
  • Nolte, H. H. (2012). Rezension: A. Tausch Armut und Radikalität? Soziologische Perspektiven zur Integration der Muslime in Europa, basierend auf dem ‘World Values Survey’ und dem ‘European Social Survey’ Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte, 13, 2, 2012, p. 198-200.
  • Tetenyi, A. (2015). Book Review: Arno Tausch, Almas Heshmati and Hichem Karoui: The political algebra of global value change. Nova Publishers, New York, 2015, 532 p. ISBN: 978-1-62948-899-8. Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, (37), 4, December: 543-545.
  • Wheelwright, E. L. (2001). Review: A. Müller, A. Tausch and P. M. Zulehner: Global Capitalism, Liberation Theology and Social Sciences. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 47: 148.

In addition, the following few selected works, referring to Tausch's publications, could be used in this context:

Extended content
  • Bleich, E. (2011). What is Islamophobia and how much is there? Theorizing and measuring an emerging comparative concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1581-1600.
  • Bleich, E. (2012). Defining and Researching Islamophobia. Review of Middle East Studies, 180-189.
  • Cesari, J. (2017). Religion and Diasporas: Challenges of the Emigration Countries. In Migrant Integration Between Homeland and Host Society Volume 1 (pp. 173-199). Springer International Publishing
  • European Trade Union Institute (2011). Social developments in the European Union 2010. Brussel: European Trade Union Institute.
  • Fox, J. (2019). Civilizational clash or balderdash? The causes of religious discrimination in western and European christian-majority democracies. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 17(1), 34-48.
  • Fox, J. (2019). How Secular Are Western Governments’ Religion Policies? Secular Studies, 1(1), 3-33.
  • Fox, J. (2020). Thou shalt have no other gods before me: why governments discriminate against religious minorities. Cambridge University Press.
  • Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021). Why do people discriminate against Jews? Oxford University Press.
  • Frank, A. G., & Denemark, R. A. (2015). ReOrienting the 19th Century: Global Economy in the Continuing Asian Age. Routledge.
  • Gat, A. (2017). The Causes of War and the Spread of Peace. But Will War Rebound? Oxford, London and New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Haller, M. (2010). European integration as an elite process: the failure of a dream? London and New York: Routledge.
  • Nolte, H. H. (1990). Perestroika und Internationales System: Zur Rolle der Rüstung. Das Argument, 32, 183, September/Oktober, Heft 5: 759-768.
  • Nolte, H. H. (2003). Die Osterweiterung der EU - eine historische Perspektive (pp. 45-70). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Nolte, H. H. (2003). Why is Europe's South Poor? A Chain of Internal Peripheries Along the Old Muslim-Christian Borders. Review (Fernand Braudel Center, State University of New York at Binghamton), XXVI, 1, 2003, 49-66.
  • Nolte, H. H., & Goehrke C. (2007). Transformationen in Osteuropa und Zentralasien: Polen, die Ukraine, Russland und Kirgisien. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau-Verlag, Studien zur Weltgeschichte.
  • Ricci, A. (2018). Unequal Exchange in the Age of Globalization. Review of Radical Political Economics, 0486613418773753.
  • Senghaas, D. (1977). Weltwirtschaftsordnung und Entwicklungspolitik. Frankfurt a.M.: edition suhrkamp.
  • Senghaas, D. (1988). Konfliktformationen im internationalen System. Frankfurt a.M.: edition suhrkamp.
  • Senghaas, D., & Menzel, U. (1986). Europas Entwicklung und die Dritte Welt. Frankfurt a.M.: edition suhrkamp.
  • Solomon, H. (2016). Islamic State and the Coming Global Confrontation. Springer.
  • Solomon, H. (2016). The particular role of religion in Islamic State. South African Journal of International Affairs, 23(4), 437-456.
  • Solomon, H. (2017). The evolution of Islamic State’s strategy. Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies, 45(1), 21-44.
  • Solomon, H. (2020). Exporting global jihad. (T. Smith, & H. Solomon, Eds.) (Vol. Volume 1, critical perspectives from africa and europe /). I.B. Tauris.
  • Somel, C. (2004). Commodity chains, unequal exchange and uneven development. Economic Research Centre, Middle East Technical University, Ankara (METU) Working Papers in Economics, 4(11), 1-27.
  • United Nations Development Programme (2017). Arab Human Development Report 2016: youth and the prospects for human development in a changing reality. United Nations Publications.
  • Vogli, R. D., Kouvonen, A., Elovainio, M., & Marmot, M. (2014). Economic globalization, inequality and body mass index: a cross-national analysis of 127 countries. Critical Public Health, 24(1), 7-21.
  • Wallerstein, I. M. (2014). Gendered commodity chains: seeing women's work and households in global production. (W. A. Dunaway, Ed.). Stanford University Press.
  • Xianbo, Z., Juwei, L., & Yang-Fengli Y. 2009. A Nonparametric Estimation Study on the Marginal Effect of Globalization on Economic Growth. World Economy Study (China, in Chinese) (No. 3, 2009, Serial No. 181) World Economy Study, 5, 6, (Source: China Academic Journals, Full Text, China Knowledge Network).

Some of the think tanks, which published Tausch's work o er the years, include

• Hoover Institution, Stanford, California;

• Institute for National Security Studies (Israel);

• Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS Institute), Moscow;

• IZA Institute of Labor Economics

• Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jerusalem, Israel,

Open Syllabus, which is a database with nine million English-language syllabi from 140 countries and which was founded at The American Assembly, a public policy institute associated with Columbia University [1] lists 59 global classes using materials by Tausch on their syllabi. [2] By any standards, this would be an argument to keep.

Keep, weak keep, notable, not notable, thumb up thumb down? Isn't all that, in a way, absurd?

Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://opensyllabus.org/
  2. ^ https://opensyllabus.org/result/author?id=Arno+Tausch
  • Comment: The article creator was clearly a Tausch SPA and spammed his name and writings all over Wikipedia: [9]. That said, DGG says on that editor's talkpage that Tausch deserves a decent article (but that this isn't it). I'm at a loss as to what to do but Draftify (and making it pass through AFC) or TNT spring to mind. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Cleanup: I provided a still shorter version of the article, relying on primary sources. I hope that all these tags are removed. Jokingly said: User Randykitty will protest perhaps against the mentioning of the UNDP Arab Human Development Report, but they really refer to Tausch's work; and I am not going to comment extensively on what recently has been written in major papers like Frankfurter Allgemeine on the decline of Wikipedia and its cumbersome editing process; but - how on earth can a relatively new Wikipedia writer know what TNT and all these abbreviations mean? I hope that with my new edits, this matter is now closed for good, and I can use my energy for other Austrian social science projects (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Austrian political observer, WP:PRIMARY sources are exactly what a Wikipedia article should NOT be relying on. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 12 July 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 USL League Two. I find the first keep has been adequately rebutted, and the second makes no argument whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia SC[edit]

Caledonia SC (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 only two sources here are press releases and I can't find others. Doesn't seem to be notable in the slightest. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — As you said, article does have sources. Notability is rather subjective criterion. As I said in earlier change comment, this article is one of 100s of articles for semi-professional teams in America. Most of other teams do have similar stub pages, and this one is correctly marked as a stub.
Ђидо (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ђидо: On Wikipedia, "notable" means something different than it does elsewhere. It refers to the amount of independent coverage a topic has received from reliable sources. Although at times it can be a little ambiguous, for the most part, it is not a subjective criterion here: the coverage either exists or it doesn't. In this case, both sources in the article are a single press release distributed by United Soccer League: not independent, and therefore not contributing to notability. All the other sources I could find were event announcements, routine statistical coverage, and the club's own websites; not significant, and therefore don't contribute to notability. Merely "having sources" is not sufficient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read about notability on Wikipedia here. I suggest you do; it is the backbone of deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your single-word assertion that the subject is notable isn't in the least bit useful. If you can actually provide a couple of independent sources providing significant coverage of this club, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USL League Two. No significant coverage that I can find. GiantSnowman 19:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USL League Two due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The argument that other similar articles exist doesn't help the notability of this one. I did a search and turned up no significant coverage, and frankly I bet many of those other articles wouldn't turn up significant coverage either. Still it is a plausible search term, so I think a redirect is preferable to deletion. Jay eyem (talk) 05:02, 6 July 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! 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Otago Rambler[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:SINGER. Subject has not been published in reliable and independent sources. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 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. Agreement that this is WP:TOOSOON. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in politics and government[edit]

2023 in politics and government (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)

WP:TOOSOON – the one event included here is already mentioned at 2023 in public domain (and a redirect there would be inappropriate), and there's not much to add that would not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Alternatives include redirection to 2023, or a better target if one exists, or draftification, though per WP:REDDEAL deletion would encourage later recreation, similarly to many other not-yet-created 2023 articles. ComplexRational (talk) 16:40, 3 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brewer[edit]

Steve Brewer (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)

Nomination Withdrawn - Previously deleted article on a writer who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR criteria for notability. The article had previously been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Maps Imaginary, thank you for taking the time to look for additional sources, I didn't see these when I did a BEFORE search, although I found a lot on the politician with the same name. The Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly are good finds, as are the ABQ Journal articles. It is now clear that he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I am withdrawing the nomination. Great research work! Netherzone (talk) 19:02, 8 July 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 as rough consensus is there are sufficient sources. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Impicciche[edit]

Kelsey Impicciche (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; her time producing content for Buzzfeed confers no notability on this YouTuber, coverage is entirely incidental. And, incidentally, fails WP:WEB too. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexandermcnabb: are you claiming the sources in the article don't meet the requirements of WP:N? If so, could you briefly explain why. I'm seeing an article that is solely about her (so certainly not incidental) and others (e.g. [10]) with a few paragraphs. We also have an interview which seems pretty detailed [11]. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: I certainly am. The article you link to contains a para mentioning Impicciche's work on the 100 baby challenge at Buzzfeed, while the interview is an interview and doesn't contribute towards establishing notability. The other sources are, as I mention, incidental. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is focused on her in the context of fashion. The USA Today article has 3 paragraphs on her as does this one. Both of those are in the context of the 100-baby challenge, but I don't see why that matters. There are also two solid interview articles, so we have plenty of sources to write an article around. Hobit (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sources detailed by Hobit. the Gamerevolution piece is entirely on her completion of the 100 baby challenge. Also coverage in New York Times.--Mvqr (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Gamerevolution article is solely focussed on Impicciche. It does discuss her work at Buzzfeed, but it is primarily about her and so not 'incidental'. While that is the only article (IMHO) that by itself constitutes reliable, secondary, and in-depth coverage, the other articles cited in the article and listed by those above constitute the "multiple independent sources [that] may be combined to demonstrate notability" per WP:NBIO. While the interviews are interviews and not secondary, that non-secondariness, as I understand it, applies only to the interview itself and not (necessarily) to the pre-amble, which can be counted towards demonstrating notability. Also, WP:WEB is totally 'incidental', to borrow y'all's phrasing, as it is " rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia". And I'm pretty sure people don't count as web content?? If we're gonna turn to SNGs, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT are much more relevant. I would argue Impicciche meets WP:CREATIVE by criteria 3 for her work on the 100-baby challenge series and Spark'd and seems to meet criteria 1 in The Sims (and possibly the larger gaming) community, as demonstrated by the fact that she was a judge on Spark'd. She also appears to meet WP:ENT 1 if we consider her work on Buzzfeed to be a notable performance (which it seems to be, especially that the nominator seems to be implying the coverage is only about her work at Buzzfeed) in addition to her 'role'/'performance' on Spark'd. (disclaimer: I started the page.) Samsmachado (talk) 02:27, 5 July 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! 22:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Antiguans and Barbudans[edit]

White Antiguans and Barbudans (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)

There are very few sources regarding White Antiguans and Barbudans, other than statistical databases and stories regarding Christopher Columbus. CROIX (talk) 15:31, 3 July 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 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cameron[edit]

Joe Cameron (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:NSINGER. Seems to be very very early career. No coverage, no social media, no streaming. scope_creepTalk 14:38, 3 July 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 14:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split Decision (unreleased film)[edit]

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

Article about an apparently unreleased film, not properly referenced as notable enough to exempt it from the primary film notability criteria at WP:NFO.
As always, we do not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever comes out the other end as a finished and screened and distributed film or not -- with some exceptions for very high profile projects, our notability criteria for films generally require a film to have actually been released to the general public.
This, however, is a ten-year-old project whose article was clearly created to help promote the film's efforts to find a distributor -- it was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history concentrated almost entirely on this film, the filmmaker and the subject, and it somehow manages to contain a detailed synopsis of the film's content despite the lack of verifiable evidence that anybody without a direct personal conflict of interest ever saw enough of it to write a synopsis.
For sourcing, we have one piece written by the filmmaker (thus not support for notability), one Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is discussing his interest in boxing in the first person (thus not support for notability), and one very short blurb about his efforts to complete it (thus not substantive enough to carry this film over NFO or WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source the film has.)
I'm willing to withdraw this in the unlikely event that somebody can actually find evidence that it actually has been released which Wikipedians have somehow missed for an entire decade, but neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing on offer here suggest a reason why this film should be deemed permanently notable in the absence of any evidence that it's ever been released. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 3 July 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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taverna List[edit]

Taverna List (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)

It was just a personal electoral list created unsuccessfully by Claudio Taverna for the provincial and municipal elections in Trento in 2003 and 2005. The few subsequent information attributed to the party (support for La Destra and adhesion to the Pensioners Party) in reality seem to be inherent to Claudio Taverna himself. The sources on this list, apart from the poor election results, are non-existent. No encyclopedic relevance is deduced from the page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This regional political party was represented in the Provincial Council of Trentino and participated in a provincial election. If the article is deleted, its contents will be lost. Readers reading 2003 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections clearly benefit of this link. The article is properly sourced. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. --Checco (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    keep i fully agree Braganza (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would suggest merge, but as there is no standalone article for Claudio Taverna on en.wiki (at least not yet), I come down on the side of keep, in order to preserve the information.--Autospark (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor political party, no lasting effect. No sources found in Engilsh, can't comment on other languages. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realized that this Afd nomination is the 15th recurrence (the previous instances are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) in which Scia Della Cometa nominated an article, created by Checco, covering a minor and rather obscure Italian political party. Almost all nominated articles generally cover parties with limited territorial diffusion, very short lifespan and which have obtained a low number of votes (sometimes lower than 1%) and which didn't elect any representative at any level.
    Although I believe that the reasons for these nominations are valid and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything, it seems to me that all these nominations are part of an ongoing dispute between two only users. I would like to call both Scia Della Cometa and Checco to trying to sort their differences out in another manner, like for instance proposing updates on the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. I don't think that nominating for deletion all the articles created by one person is a constructive way to build consensus... Thanks to all. P1221 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@P1221 I think you totally misunderstood my intentions. I am definitely not proposing pages for deletion based on the author! Since the list of Italian parties will have to be completed in the future, I am simply proposing for deletion the pages that do not seem relevant to me. Many of these were created by Checco, but not only by him, there is nothing personal about all of this. I am proposing the pages for deletion only after evaluating their content, the author is irrelevant to me. It is simply necessary to slightly thin out the number of pages of parties, to make the list of Italian parties more usable in the future. Indeed, I think to have proposed for deletion only pages objectively not relevant for an encyclopedia. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. I have chosen all the pages to be proposed for deletion before verifying the author (indeed he is not the only author of the pages I have proposed for deletion). However, if a user has created a considerable number of unimportant pages in the past, I don't think this can be a deterrent from proposing them for deletion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scia Della Cometa, let me clarify that all your nominations are legitimate and valid for me (and in fact I concur with your reasons in most of them), and I don't think at all that you operated in bad faith. However, if I were the nominator and I would notice a pattern similar to what I described above, I wouldn't keep on nominating new articles for deletion, even if they clearly deserve deletion. I'd rather talk with the author for reaching a compromise, or if this doesn't get anywhere I'd seek for third opinions or the advice of other contributors, in order to reach a broader consensus. P1221 (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@P1221 Well, I would be sorry if anyone thought I'm not in good faith. However, I have no idea how to deal with this issue, other than via Afd. After all, Checco's position is clear and he reiterates it in every Afd: "Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organizing infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere." I am an inclusionist but I am aware that Wikipedia cannot cover everything. And the only way to involve other users, in this case, seems to me the Afd procedure. I don't think we have to push ourselves to re-discuss the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. In any case, I don't think this is the right place to address this topic, but if you have any ideas about the resolution of the issue, please to expose them to me in another seat (in my talk page, for example).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is simply a spill-over from Special:PermaLink/1087724241 this May 2022 dispute despite what is being said above. It appears to me that if the editors aren't willing to learn and continue with disruptive behaviour despite a narrow TBAN being in place, perhaps the original decision should be revisited. Pinging the blocking admin - Galobtter. HighKing++ 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Insinuating that these AFDs are a spill-over from the previous dispute is insulting towards me. What's disruptive in proposing the deletion of pages (whose authors are more than one) of three/five lines, can you explain it to me? These Afd had already been planned for some time, the proponent of the topic ban himself said that I could have started the afd procedures ("they may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic."), they were part of a well-defined procedure, read if you don't believe it!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole situation needs to be cleared up once and for all: we already knew that a considerable number of pages were created years ago that could meet Wikipedia's minimum standards of notability, and we also knew that most of these were created by one user. If on the one hand it would not be fair naming pages for deletion based on their author (which I am not doing at all), on the other hand it would not be equally fair to consider the fact that many pages were created by the same user as a deterrent: if a topic is not encyclopedic, it is not, regardless of who created the page. Let's consider the Taverna List: what's relevant on this page? The first two lines merely state that the list existed. The third line shows the (poor) result of 2003 provincial election, which can be seen directly from the page of the provincial election itself. The fourth and fifth lines do not refer to the party, but to Claudio Taverna's subsequent political career (without success). Would you consider it disruptive to submit a page like this for deletion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't change the topic ban unilaterally, and the current topic ban is very narrow so I don't see any violation. If you think there should be a IBAN or a ban from AfDs etc you can propose that at WP:ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:19, 12 July 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 Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Content can be (selectively) merged from the history if there is editorial consensus for it. Sandstein 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters[edit]

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (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)

Mostly unreferenced list. We have List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Fine. But we also have this more fancrufty companion. First, what is the criteria for determining if a character is minor or 'main'? Second, while a list of Buffy characters may meet WP:LISTN, a list of minor Buffy characters probably does not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fact that they're called "minor" in the name of the list suggests all by itself that these aren't especially significant characters. Those who have some level of third-party sourcing to establish their significance can be merged to the main list easily enough. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many of the characters here are ones that only appeared in an episode or two, and the ones that had slightly more significant roles are already also listed under the "Supporting Characters" section of the main List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. As stated by the nom, while the actual overall concept of the characters of the series very obviously passes WP:LISTN, that does not automatically extend to include every single minor character that ever showed up in the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. I see a few characters which should be listed, but they are already mentioned in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. However, I wouldn't rely on the number of episodes of a character to decide whether a character is worth mentioning, but it's remaining effect on the audience and whether it is discussed in magazines, books etc. or not. If the page will be deleted, it will mean a lot of work to remove all the links to that page... I am okay with removing some links, but not all. So there need to be some people who will do this afterwards. Maybe some of the sources for the characters, mentioned on this page can also be included in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, as that page doesn't cite any sources. --Dynara23 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please rescue all the sourced content, before deleting it: the first passage of Dracula, the first passage of Ethan Rayne, the 5th and 6th passage of Kendra Young, the first passage of Severin and maybe the part on Merrick. I think it would be too sad to lose all the sources, if needed on another page. As Daranios says below, it could be moved to the supporting characters section. I would add the passages myself, but I don't wan't to commit copy right violation. I don't know if it is somehow possible to move the page history for only these small parts to the other page? Maybe the old page histories for Kendra Young (1) and Ethan Rayne (2) can also help, as at least the parts on Kendra and Ethan are also added there? --Dynara23 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynara23: Your request reads just like my suggestion: rescue of sourced content could be achieved merging that to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters, and turning our page here into a redirect afterwards would preserve the history, thus avoiding any copyright issues. Maybe you'd like to amend your !vote into that direction? Daranios (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you clarify if you're interested in the sources only? Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, "Bare references" not associated with content do not require attribution. It is possible to merge directly from the character redirects' histories, but it would be best to build support first. Do you know the on-wiki sources of the other content you mentioned? Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flatscan: If I may jump in: the comment already says this is about the sources passages, not only the sources. The mentioned passages about those four characters are not present at List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am insterested in the sources and the content that is referenced. Well the Merrick part can also be found here. I just don't find the part on Severin and Quentin Travers anywhere else. I think it is bad if sourced content already exists and needed on another unsourced page is just lost. The people made an effort to research the topic. The fifth and sixth passage on Kendra forexample can just be added behind the stuff that is already mentioned on Kendra Young. If there would be no other way to keep it, I would propably change my vote to redirect. Dynara23 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the characters mentioned, and I think they're all covered. It will be a little more work than merging from this list. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Character data
Name Mentioned in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters Redirect with history Content
Dracula Red XN quote, can be rewritten from source
Ethan Rayne Green tickY Special:PermanentLink/716753682 merge from redirect directly
Kendra Young Green tickY Special:PermanentLink/346631673 merge from redirect directly
Severin Green tickY quote and sentence that can be rewritten from source
Merrick Red XN Special:PermanentLink/81651890 merge from redirect directly
Quentin Travers Green tickY Special:PermanentLink/168836438 (no sources) plot summary cited to episode, redirect's content seems similar
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. Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Green[edit]

Elijah Green (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)

Slywriter had draftified this article because he said that the subject failed WP:NATHLETE. Then, I have recreated the redirect to Pumpsie Green. After that, Debartolo2917 had queried me about the redirection at my user talk page, so I have restored the draft back to the article namespace. Now, here is an AfD to determine whether the subject still fails WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft Specifically, WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG is not met as the sourcing is a press release and multiple articles from a scouting company. Given subject is likely to be drafted, they will meet GNG sooner or later but at this point they are just an undrafted prospect with no guarantee of ever playing a single game of professional baseball or future coverage Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, redirect to Pumpsie Green pressbox.com looks like a RS, and it does presume the assumption of lasting notability, but none of the accomplishments at present guarantee it. Therefore, his mention should be in another article – his father's. However, since "Elijah" was also Pumpsie's first name, it should redirect there with no hatnote since this Eljiah does not yet meet GNG. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per above. WP:TOOSOON for an article on this player, but given his status as a likely draftee, he may become notable in the future. The title "Elijah Green" should redirect to Pumpsie Green and eventually become a DAB page to the two players if an article on this Elijah Green is made in the future (though this is not the forum for such a discussion). Frank Anchor 13:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft The athlete is not yet notable. He is getting some coverage that reaches WP:BARE at the moment. But we can draft. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft -Needs more coverage & thus notability. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 10 July 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 14:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinstation[edit]

Thinstation (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)

Similar to OpenThinClient (AfD discussion), here's another bit of commercial fluff on a similar topic sourced only to a primary source and with no other sourcing readily available. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 3 July 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 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Australian musicians (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 already have Category:Australian musicians and this list does not provide a huge improvement over the category. It also has no real criteria for additions. A separate list with this title was deleted back in 2007 and very little has changed since then regarding lists on Wikipedia ... if anything, we've become stricter about them. This list was created in 2019 and largely edited by David AH Morton, basically a single-purpose account ... it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this list but it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Graham87 14:00, 3 July 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 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison University[edit]

Morrison University (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)

University distinctly and clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:NSCHOOL and, as a commercial institution, WP:NCORP just for kicks. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:39, 3 July 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. Star Mississippi 19:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA – List for Veneto[edit]

IDEA – List for Veneto (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 subject, which is introduced as a political party, was in reality just a local electoral list like many others in Italy, composed of two parties: Solidary Ethical Movement and Greens. This electoral list only got a mere 0.7% of the votes in the 2010 regional election in Veneto, I do not see any encyclopedic relevance on this page... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This political party was a very interesting political experiment and, while it did not achieve success, it deserves a space in Wikipedia. Moreover, from this experience, a green local political party obtained notable electoral results in the city of Padua (8.1% in 2014, 11.5% in 2017 and 6.0% in 2022)—it could also have an article of its own, as Livable Rotterdam and others. A minor party in a polity like Veneto, counting 5 million people, is definitely more relevant than minor extra-parliamentary parties from small countries, of which Wikipedia is full (and, as an inclusionist, I happy of that too). The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with the Federation of Greens, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing is how many votes a party/list has received (few in this case) and how much is known and treated in the sources (and also in this case the sources are very few). The results you've showed were obtained from other civic lists, not from IDEA – List for Veneto. And even if the Civic Coalition (not IDEA – List for Veneto) has achieved not negligible results in a city as important as Padua, it is not exactly the same as a party like Livable Rotterdam has obtained 30% of the votes in a city with more than 600,000 inhabitants (even if the relevance of a party should not be demonstrated by comparing it with other pages). Honestly, I don't see how a list that scored 0.6% in a single regional election could be merged with a party with thirty years of national political experience: the Italian Greens have created a multitude of such local lists... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A short-lived electoral list, not even a political party. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge An electoral list isn't the same as a party, and it's untrue that every little thing deserves a space, or at least not an article. Can be mentioned in respective election or party articles, but poor performance at the local/regional level doesn't win you a stand-alone page. Reywas92Talk 22:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete political parties are kind of notable, however I see it was not a classical party but a electoral list-project in local region. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Italian users needed here I suppose 2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep kinda special coalition Braganza (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is special about this coalition?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scia Della Cometa it deserves remaining in Wikipedia. 95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes... but why?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well its a merger of greens (which are more ecosocialist than green liberal in italy) and christian democrats Braganza (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly still do not see anything special in this local list which, moreover, has obtained a forgettable electoral result...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep, even given the minor nature of the electoral list, as there is no current natural choice of article for the information within to be preserved elsewhere via a merger. --Autospark (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the last part has nothing to do with the list, the little initial information could be integrated directly into 2010 Venetian regional election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Wikipedia does not need to contain articles on all parties who got 0.x% at regional elections. Unless they are notable enough to have extensive coverage in sources, which is not this case. Yakme (talk) 14:34, 12 July 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 Venetian nationalism. Star Mississippi 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lion of Saint Mark (political party)[edit]

Lion of Saint Mark (political party) (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)

An unknown party that existed and nothing more. The very few and only existing sources, indeed, just mention the fact that this list did exist. If there were a page about Italico Corradino Cappellotto (founder of this list), it could be merged to it, but the page on him does not exist either. It seems really difficult to find the usefulness of this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This AfD subject is particularly notable because it was the first political party representing Venetian nationalism. The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia, an ideology and movement that has long become dominant in the 5-million region of Veneto. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with Venetian nationalism, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was simply one of the many lists that participated in the 1921 elections. The page merely indicates its leader and ideology, nothing else. A page is not just for stating in two lines that something existed. However, a mention on the Venetian nationalism page through a merge would be a sensible solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is forerunner of many Venetian nationalism and generally im the opinion that most pre-WWII parties should have articles Braganza (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation as to why this party has encyclopedic relevance would also be needed...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I particulary agree with User:Braganza. Of course, it is difficult to find sources and more information on pre-WWI political parties (please note that most articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short), but the subject is clearly encyclopedic and I would ask User:P1221 and User:Autospark to re-consider their position in favour of an outright "keep". However, I will try to find more information and sources. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short, but they are parties with well-defined histories and which have won seats in the Chamber of Deputies. In this case the list did not win seats and there is not even a well-defined history, the only thing we know is its leader and its participation in the 1921 general elections...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Venetian nationalism as it is; I would consider to keep it only if the article is expanded. P1221 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per P1221 – would prefer if the article could be expanded upon and maintain its standalone article status, however.--Autospark (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am in favour to keep this article, even though it would be nice to find other sources for expanding it. It is indeed a precursor of late XXth century autonomist and regionalist parties in Veneto. I do not generally agree with the utilitarian use of Wikipedia pages: if the sources are verifiable, reliable and all the other requirements from the Guidelines, therefore even minor articles deserve to stay here. Filippo83 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:30, 12 July 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 The Sandman (wrestler). Star Mississippi 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Fullington[edit]

Lori Fullington (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, only famous for appearing with her husband The Sandman, not notable in her own right. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, listicles? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lists appear to be a form of secondary and sustained coverage, all include more than her name on a list, and are publications specific to this entertainment industry, with an independent focus on her roles over time. And this is in addition to coverage in the several books in the article. The sources listed above also appear helpful for further developing and expanding the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity here, Sportster article number one says: "Raven played mind games with The Sandman by involving his wife Lori and son Tyler...Lori Fullington was Sandman's legitimate wife". Number two says: "The Sandman’s real-life wife Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, often teaming up with her husband". Number three says: "The Sandman’s family became part of the show... the man’s wife, Lori Fullington". The Cageside Seats article has four paragraphs about her, all of which mention The Sandman. None of this is significant coverage. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the sources that clearly indicate she had a role more than simply "wife", i.e. bystander, e.g. Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, and The Sandman’s family became part of the show. Just because she is a wife does not mean she is not also notable 20 years later as "iconic" and a 'great manager' and a noteworthy part of a noteworthy episode, and we have a variety of sources to support her independent WP:BASIC notability, because this guideline includes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and this is not trivial coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sandman still living the dream" by Jan Murphy Kingston WhigStandard/The Gananoque Reporter (Online) 2016 (via Proquest) includes mention of "Lori Fullington - who had her own role in ECW" in addition to the divorce etc; and "PRO WRESTLING: MERO, ASSAD IN TITLE BOUT" by Alex Marvez, Dayton Daily News 1996 (via Proquest) includes mention of "Hyatt may have suffered a broken arm when clobbered by Lori Fullington with The Sandman's cane." Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just for clarity, as you didn't include the full quote, so here it is: "The Sandman’s real-life wife Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, often teaming up with her husband". So, she was only part of the show because of her husband, and with her husband. This is all trivial information and minor coverage at best, it's just rankings in list articles on content farms, and a brief mention in an "On This Day" article, and brief mentions in the sources already included in the article. Her fame is not independent in any way from her husband, and none of the sources demonstrate otherwise.
The article from "The Whig", which you haven't linked to, so I will here, is an article about The Sandman with one minor mention to his wife. The other article you mention is, again, clearly a minor mention and demonstrates no notability whatsoever. None of this is significant coverage. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noted these as sources in addition to the books cited in the article, as additional support for how it is clear she had an independent role, even though she happened to be married to the Sandman. There does not appear to be an objective basis to dismiss her due to her marital status, given the variety of sources that acknowledge she had an active and independent role. Beccaynr (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of the sources you've brought up here, or in the article, acknowledge that she had an independent role. You have wilfully misrepresented several articles now. Her fame and her participation in wrestling are solely due to her husband; she started because of him, all her storylines and matches were with/against him, her career ended because she was no longer with him. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources noted above that I quoted states, "Lori Fullington - who had her own role in ECW", and it seems clear from my review of the sources that she is discussed for her participation, not only due to her relationship, which is how I understand WP:INVALIDBIO to apply to this discussion. If the sources only discussed her as an actual wife, instead of as a character in a long-running entertainment enterprise, then I would have a different opinion. That her character was "wife" does not invalidate the coverage of her as an actor and manager. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't discussed for her participation, it's literally the only mention of her in the article. The article, about The Sandman, her husband. She receives one mention in this article. There's more discussion about Sandman losing friends in real life in that paragraph of the article alone than there is of her participation in ECW. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report also wrote about 1996 events in 2009, which includes noting her role as an active and independent participant. And The Sportster has an editorial and news team, so it does not appear to be a "content farm". Cageside Seats is produced by Vox Media, as noted in the Editorial Ethics and Guidelines section of its website. Beccaynr (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Bleacher Report's content pre-2013 was user-generated, so no, that article by "Tommy Nolan", which mentions Lori Fullington once, probably isn't a reliable source. Having an editorial team has no bearing on whether something is a content farm. The fact you posted three listicles says it all. I've not mentioned whether Cageside Seats is a reliable source, it has no bearing on my description of a brief mention in an "On This Day" article, however if you want to go down that road, the project deemed it an unreliable source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sportster is on the unreliable list as well, which leaves us with the books and news sources, which still seem like a sufficient objective basis for finding her role as a "wife" character is not enough of a reason to delete an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you know, just put any information worth keeping in the article about The Sandman, seeing as most of the information in this article is about his storylines anyway. The one who is actually notable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Sandman (wrestler) could work well for both articles and help avoid a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, unless additional reliable sources can be found to help develop her BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, merge is probably a better conclusion to this than just deleting. She (and Tyler Fullington) were part of major storylines with The Sandman. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she was featured on television and pay-per-view on multiple occasions from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. McPhail (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was only ever featured on television and PPV's due to her husband, he fame and notability is solely dependent on him, and not due to anything she did. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, per the above discussion. Her notability was never independent of her husband, so it makes the most sense to put whatever in her article that is DUE into The Sandman's page. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 8 July 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 23:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalaf[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohamed Khalaf (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)

Previous AfD in 2009 closed as 'no consensus' as it was unclear as to whether he played for Al Ahly. Now that WP:NFOOTBALL has been deprecated, the debate about whether he played a game or not is irrelevant. All that matters is WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage for this Egyptian defender when searching "محمد خلف" in conjunction with clubs that he allegedly played for. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 3 July 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 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AIRO Group[edit]

AIRO Group (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)

Aerospace company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE corporate articles about mergers, stock-market launches, etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources. Routine coverage. --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:16, 6 July 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 Italian Liberal Party (1997)#Back in Parliament. Star Mississippi 15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Italy[edit]

Free Italy (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)

Very small party that functioned mostly as a parliamentary sub-group for a few months (from November 2012 to February 2013). It does not seem to me that this article meets the principles of general notability and has autonomous encyclopedic relevance, as an alternative to deletion it could be merged to Italian Liberal Party (1997) as already done with the Liberals for Italy, as they shared the same (short) political path. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:10, 3 July 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 11:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honeytrap[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BAND: sole claim to fame seems to have been a passing mention by Bowie in his Times column. They seem to have broken up, as I can't find tour dates listed after 2010. No significant coverage in mainstream or notable music press, and no charting singles or albums. The unsourced detail (and creator's account name) suggests that it was written by a member of the band. I couldn't find evidence of them being played on the BBC or XFM. Editors wanting to dig for more should note that there are at least two other bands with similar names: HoneyTrap from York, and Honey Trap from NYC. Storchy (talk) 10:42, 3 July 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedians from Quebec[edit]

List of comedians from Quebec (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 satisfy WP:NLIST. An unmanageable list that would be better as a category. – Meena • 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It has in independent reliable sources :

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/03/01/sondage-leger-le-barometre-des-plus-grands-chanteurs-et-chanteuses-quebecois, https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1166702, ;

The list is useful for research, and you have plenty of lists of people in wikipedia such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Syracuse,_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_actors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dutch_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_actors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_CataloniaPatrick.N.L (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A valid navigational and informational list. I have removed some of the entries that don't have their own Wikipedia article. More pruning is required. Enough blue links to justify having a list article. Dream Focus 08:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and finished removing all the entries that didn't link to a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 18:26, 4 July 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. Discussion on whether and where to merge can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 15:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bathinda-Rohtak line[edit]

Bathinda-Rohtak line (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 meet GNG as it does not have any WP:SIGCOV; all I can find is passing mentions. – Meena • 10:15, 3 July 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett White[edit]

Bennett White (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)

Youtuber, sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MB 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With tens of thousands of views this guy probably has a bigger platform than many things we do cover, but I’m not turning up anything that looks like an RS so it’s probably a merge or redirect to Channel Awesome unless something turns up. Artw (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, White left Channel Awesome in April 2018 along with most of their other content-creators in the "management controversy" walkout, and all of his work formerly hosted there has been purged. The RS conferring notability located so far for the article (see Keep below) post-date that departure.--Froglich (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sourcing found under this, his former name "Bennett the Sage", or the names of his individual shows. Doesn't even seem worth mentioning in the Channel Awesome article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've located two interviews with White and added them[1] to the article.--Froglich (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources and do not count toward notability absent anything else. Further I'm not sure either sources is a reliable one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some points from the primary sources page:
    1) "...a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material..." I maintain that the particular interviews included are such a mix, as each writer of the cited article ia a "...secondary source (who) provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" (i.e., his interview with the subject).
    2) "...Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved..." Neither commentator/interviewer appears to be close to or directly involved with Bennett White, Anime Abandon, Channel Awesome, (etc), or the creation of anime itself as an occupation as far as I am able to determine, or even write preferentially about anime over other topics such as music, gaming, or mainstream film and television.
    3) Interviews are labeled by name as primary sources only in Note d. at the bottom the page, with the relevant sentence concluding "...(see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations)...", upon which page the word "interview" does not appear at all. (In other words, how editors are to treat interviews for the purposes of notability is currently much less clear than it ought to be.) The first bullet-point to Note d. begins: "...The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing 'an inside view of a particular event'..." Neither interviewer of White is such as "insider".
    The interview quandary here stems from lack of specification, and the overly broad applicability of the term to completely different types of events. For example, if a reporter interviews a random witness on-the-street to some disaster, that interview is a primary source in need of corroboration. This is categorically different from a writer seeking out a subject-of-interest (i.e., a celebrity who is already notable in that writer's view) to cover. GeekNewsNow and SOTBNerdy sought out White in the latter capacity.--Froglich (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennett_White&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1093998038&oldid=1093947494

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a query, if this article was merged or redirected, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they nuked most of the walk-out creators' content and even purged their internal search-engine of returnable mentions, Channel Awesome certainly doesn't deserve any free click traffic from inputted creator's name redirects. (That was a primary motivation for this article, and Bennett White is only one of potentially several other former Channel Awesome/Anime Abandon personnel that could warrant independent recognition. E.g., Marc Swint comes to mind.)--Froglich (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No hits on this fellow, either hits on Naftali Bennett from Israel or other versions of his name. The discussion above doesn't seem to show any further reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldfaced the pertinent sentence in the discussion above. Sufficient RS already exists to maintain this article. (Also: Naftali Bennett is a different person who already has an article on Wikipedia, and for whom "hits" are easily located.)--Froglich (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: searching for "Anime Abandon" or "Bennett the Sage" will locate more applicable material than "Bennett White" since Google upranks (especially in "news"-restricted returns) hits on Israeli politician "Naftali Bennett’s White House visit", "Bennett, White, and Cook" (etc, a football team's last names), and Bennett-style furniture painted white.--Froglich (talk) 04:38, 6 July 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. Star Mississippi 20:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sekthaus Carl Graeger[edit]

Sekthaus Carl Graeger (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)

Poorly-sourced stub on a non-notable winery. Search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and the like. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wine and Germany --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Citing: "At the break of the 20th century it was one of the finest German sparkling wine brands , earning multiple wine exhibition awards". notability remark coming from the neutral source: The Hessian Economic Archive. There was no internets at this time, you know, so you know, the google search is useless. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being one of the finest wine brands is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? being among the best in kind is not a notability? You must be kidding. Anyway, receiving multiple awards is. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the relevant guideline where either of those is given as a notability criterion. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. None of the ones cited meets this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad or wikipedia if awards and world fame are not among the criteria for notability. I am not well versed in wikilawyering. But you are wrong about sources: two of them are independent, reasonably in-depth and reliable. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not that attached to this particular article; I simply like to write articles on subjects I find interesting and are neglected in wikipedia. I knew that sooner or later I will fall victim of deletionists. So be it. I will no longer be flogging a dead horse here. Bye. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero hits in almost everything except for Gbooks, one thing in German and one in Who Owns Whom. I would suspect there would be German-language sources in a library somewhere, but I have no idea how to find them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 5 July 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 11:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier General rank in the Philippines[edit]

Brigadier General rank in the Philippines (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)

Original research on what constitutes as the "brigadier general" or rough equivalent in each law enforcement agency in the Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:57, 3 July 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 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General rank in the Philippines[edit]

General rank in the Philippines (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)

Original research on what constitutes as the "general" or highest rank in each law enforcement agency in the Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 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. Merging can be done at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-line rule[edit]

Yellow-line rule (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 feels like it's a WP:CFORK of NASCAR rules and regulations#Track limits, especially after the recent edit also expanded it to road course track limits. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to NASCAR rules and regulations, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 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 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lehn[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NCURL. Hitro talk 09:05, 3 July 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel of Our Lady, Echt[edit]

Chapel of Our Lady, Echt (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 satisfy WP:NBUILDING as there is no significant in-depth coverage from WP:RS, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. – Meena • 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Meena • 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it’s a national monument in the Netherlands (see this ref). Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- We do not allow an article on every listed building. The reference cited is a very brief register entry, though that certainly is authoritative third party coverage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:GEOFEAT, yes we do. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worked a bit on the article to provide inline citations and additional info. The building is a National Monument. As a church, it has an interesting and well documented history, including as a pilgrimage site. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT as a heritage-listed national monument. Also meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a historic building and recognized monument. Pikavoom Talk 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and all above. gidonb (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a Rijksmonument and I note that (at least now) it is properly included in Category:Rijksmonuments in Limburg. It and others in that category should be used to create a table for the Limburg ones, within List of Rijksmonuments. The membership of that list currently skews greatly to molen (windmills) due to good work of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. I will try to add a historic sites infobox (Rijksmonuments are set up already within wp:HSITES system) to the article. --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 7 July 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schilberg (Echt)[edit]

Schilberg (Echt) (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 satisfy WP:GEOLAND and has no WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. – Meena • 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Meena • 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added two more references and de-orphaned the page. Schilberg has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Its identity as a hamlet-turned-neighbourhood is mainly because it is a pilgrimage site for Our Lady of Schilberg.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The status is somewhat unclear. It is an official entity in the statistics and has quite a decent population, but seems to have been swallowed up by Pey for quite a long time now. As stated by Ruud Buitelaar, it is a pilgrimage site with significant coverage.KittenKlub (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does appear to have once been a separate village, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Enwiki has no rule against sources in foreign languages. This nomination seems totally random. gidonb (talk) 10:49, 8 July 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. Star Mississippi 20:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namecoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Namecoin (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)

Minor cryptocurrency with limited actual coverage. Sources found are the usual cryptonews sites of questionable reliability and connection. Fails WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bansal, Mukesh Kumar; Sethumadhavan, M. (2020). "Survey on Domain Name System Security Problems – DNS and Blockchain Solutions". In Singh, Pradeep Kumar; Sood, Sanjay; Kumar, Yugal; Paprzycki, Marcin; Pljonkin, Anton; Hong, Wei-Chiang (eds.). Futuristic Trends in Networks and Computing Technologies: Second International Conference, FTNCT 2019, Chandigarh, India, November 22–23, 2019, Revised Selected Papers. Singapore: Springer Nature. pp. 643–644. ISBN 978-981-15-4451-4. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Namecoin works with the same code as Bitcoin and it is considered the first fork, both operate independently as separate blockchains. This gives an additional feature to store the identity of the users within blocks. The information that is kept can be any personal or digital identity and is stored as a key/value pair. Namecoin is an opensource technology that can be used to improve the speed, security, privacy of the internet setup for DNS and identities. Namecoin is resistant to any attack as they are tamper-proof and every user in the Namecoin platform must be altered to perform attacks. As mentioned, it is decentralized and transactions take place in a peer-peer network."

    2. Judmayer, Aljosha; Stifter, Nicholas; Krombholz, Katharina; Weippl, Edgar (2022) [2017]. Blocks and Chains: Introduction to Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies, and Their Consensus Mechanisms. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 47–49. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02352-1. ISBN 978-3-031-01224-2. ISSN 1945-9742. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Namecoin is an alternative cryptocurrency (i.e., an altcoin) derived from Bitcoin. It was the first fork of Bitcoin and, hence, the second distributed cryptocurrency in history. Besides being a cryptocurrency, Namecoin intends to provide an alternative to the Domain Name System (DNS) and offers the possibility to store arbitrary name-value pairs in its blockchain. The underlying design of Namecoin is heavily based on Bitcoin but extends the Bitcoin protocol by introducing transaction types, which introduce a structured approach toward handling the storage and management of additional information in the blockchain (e.g., DNS entries).

    3. Haferkorn, Martin; Quintana Diaz, Josué Manual (2015). "Seasonality and Interconnectivity Within Cryptocurrencies – An Analysis on the Basis of Bitcoin, Litecoin and Namecoin". In Lugmayr, Artur (ed.). Enterprise Applications and Services in the Finance Industry: 7th International Workshop, FinanceCom 2014, Sydney, Australia, December 2014, Revised Papers. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 110. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28151-3. ISBN 978-3-319-28150-6. ISSN 1865-1348. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Namecoin can be considered as first big strand of Altcoins, which became created in 2010 and can be described as decentralized name registration database on-blockchain. In other words namecoin represents a top level domain (TLD) address ending with a ".bit", which can be bought and sold, and thus can be considered both as sort of backed cryptocurrency and a non-fungible but tradable asset. ... In contrast to Bitcoin and many other Altcoins Namecoin represents a backed virtual currency, backed by a scarce resource in terms of an unique ".bit" TLD address."

    4. Karame, Ghassan; Androulaki, Elli (2016). Bitcoin and Blockchain Security. Boston: Artech House. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-63081-013-9. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "One of the first examples of the application of the blockchain is Namecoin. Currently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) governs nearly all top-level Web address domains such as ".com." Namecoin acts as a decentralized Domain Name Service that is resilient to censorship and serves as a new domain name system for registering Web addresses that end in ".bit." By doing so, Namecoin empowers its miners to distributively control domain names. ... Recent studies have however shown that most users of Namecoin are not active and that the existing market for domains is almost nonexistent. For instance, [3] reveals that among Namecoins roughly 120,000 registered domain names, only 28 have nontrivial content."

    5. Bheemaiah, Kariappa (2017). The Blockchain Alternative: Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy and Economic Theory. New York: Apress. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4842-2673-5. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Namecoin was designed to overcome this limitation (also referred to as Zooko's triangle). While OpenID solved security and human meaningfulness attributes of Zooko's triangle, Namecoin completed it by including decentralization. Namecoin used the blockchain as an intermediary between the user and the service requesting their identity. Using Namecoin, a user can register their name into the Namecoin blockchain by sending a transaction with their name embedded in it under the /id namespace. When the user sends the transaction, Namecoin stores it if it's unique."

    6. Franco, Pedro (2015). Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. West Sussex: Wiley. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-119-01914-5. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Namecoin (NMC) is both a crypto-currency and a decentralized key/value store. This decentralized key/value store is used to implement an alternative Domain Name System (DNS). ... Namecoin implements an alternative DNS using the .bit top-level domain. The Namecoin protocol adds new transactions to interact with the key/value store: ... Users running a Namecoin node have a fully copy of the key/value store and can access it at any time. Or some users might prefer to connect to a Name-coin node and query the node for specific information, much in the same way that an SPV wallet queries a full Bitcoin node."

    7. Kalodner, Harry; Carlsten, Miles; Ellenbogen, Paul; Bonneau, Joseph; Narayanan, Arvind (2015). "An empirical study of Namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design". Workshop on the Economics of Information Security. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "Namecoin is an alternative cryptocurrency, or alt-coin, modeled after Bitcoin [4]. Furthermore, it is the first altcoin in the sense that it was the first to create its own block chain, separate from Bitcoin’s. Namecoin shares many similarities with Bitcoin, including the same method for proof-of-work, the same coin cap, the same block creation time, and all of the same transaction operations (with a few additions). Namecoin was inspired after discussions about a BitDNS [5] protocol using a block chain to manage a domain name lookup service. The motivation was that a central authority managing domain names, such as ICANN, requires too much trust in a single entity and represents a single point of failure. The first Namecoin block was mined in April 2011, and as of this writing, over 215,000 total blocks have been mined in the Namecoin system."

    8. Kirillova, Elena Anatolyevna; Pavlyuk, Albert Valentinovich; Mikhaylova, Irina Aleksandrovna; Zulfugarzade, Teymur E.; Zenin, Sergey S. (2018). "Bitcoin, Lifecoin, Namecoin: The Legal Nature of Virtual Currency". Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 9 (31). Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Central and Eastern European Online Library.

      The abstract notes: "The current article examines the peculiarities and legal nature of Bitcoin, Lifecoin, Namecoin, Quark, WebMoney, Ripple and other virtual currencies."

    9. Chang, Tao-Hung; Svetinovic, Davor (2016). "Data Analysis of Digital Currency Networks: Namecoin Case Study". Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICECCS.2016.023. ISBN 978-1-5090-5526-5. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The abstract notes: "Namecoin is an alternative crypto currency, based on Bitcoin, with additional features such as DNS. Namecoin network has more than 2 million nodes and almost 17 million edges. The analysis of such a crypto currency network can help us model or predict the future growth of the transaction networks. In order to analyze the transaction network graph over time, we analyzed the Namecoin blockchain data in 7 six months intervals. Our findings suggest different user behavior and developing pattern compared to Bitcoin."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Namecoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2012-12 (closed as merge to Bitcoin) ← 2011-07 (closed as ✗ delete)
Related discussions: 2020-10 Muneeb Ali (closed as no consensus) ← 2018-11 Primecoin (closed as no consensus) ← 2014-03 Primecoin (closed as no consensus) ← 2014-02 Kraken (digital currency exchange) (closed as ✗ delete)
Logs: 2011-07 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Cunard's research above. Previous article didn't have the sources being presented now (as, indeed, many of them didn't exist in 2012). This looks like WP:SIGCOV to me. A news search brings up a substantial amount of stuff as well, much of it industry press, which is generally the case for software topics. I'm unsure of which of those sources are considered reliable here, so I won't mention them, but what's above ought to be enough for anyone. jp×g 23:29, 4 July 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 albeit possibly weakly. JPxG raises some concerns about one of the sources, but on the whole, Cunard's have not been refuted. Star Mississippi 14:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peercoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Peercoin (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)

Minor cryptocurrency with little to no reliable sourcing. Any sources found are the usual cryptonews of questionable reliability and connection. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will add that previous nomination was keep but seems to be based on different standards of reviewing cryptocurrencies. Notably, passing mentions were accepted. While notability is not temporary, believe the previous AfD does not show a level of notability that meets current standards. Slywriter (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not a Wikipedia editor, but a student researching blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. This page was useful in my research as it describes the first cryptocurrency to implement the proof-of-stake system and I think deleting it would do a disservice to others interested in this topic. I also don't understand why you say that the sources are "cryptonews" sites as the sources cited are the New York Times, Ars Technica and The Review of Financial Studies. While the page itself is very short and doesn't contain a lot of information, the external link to the official website was very useful to me. 70.80.218.49 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Zhao, Wenbing; Yang, Shunkun; Luo, Xiong; Zhou, Jiong (2021-07-20). "On PeerCoin Proof of Stake for Blockchain Consensus". ICBCT '21: 2021 The 3rd International Conference on Blockchain Technology. pp. 129–134. doi:10.1145/3460537.3460547. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      According to the conference's website, papers published by the conference are peer-reviewed. The abstract notes: "PeerCoin was the first blockchain system that incorporated PoS in block creation. Unfortunately, there is no known documentation on how PoS works in PeerCoin. In this paper, we fill this gap by presenting a detailed explanation of the PeerCoin PoS algorithm based on PeerCoin source code. We also dispel the misconception that PeerCoin PoS is based on Proof of Work (PoW) and hence would consume a lot of energy just like proof of work (PoW). In fact, it resembles PoW only on surface and differs from PoW substantially in terms of how to meet the difficulty target."

      Peercoin is discussed in further detail on pages 360–368 of this book written by one of the coauthors:

    2. Millner, Michael (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Bitcoin. Indianapolis: Que Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-7897-5324-3. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Peercoin (PPC) is a cryptocurrency that uses a different mining system than does Bitcoin. Instead of Bitcoin's proof-of-work approach, Peercoin uses a system called proof-of-stake. The primary benefit of this approach is that it's designed to create more new coins automatically, based on the number of coins that a user already owns. The proof-of-stake system also addresses a potential vulnerability in Bitcoin's proof-of-work system ... Peercoin isn't nearly as popular as Bitcoin or Litecoin. Fewer exchanges deal in Peercoin, and it's unlikely you'll find any retailer accepting Litecoin payments. As of August 2013, Peercoin is trading at $1.14/PPC with 21.6 million coins in circulation. That results in a market cap of close to $25 million."

    3. Van, Hijfte Stijn (2022) [2020]. Blockchain Platforms: A Look at the Underbelly of Distributed Platforms. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 145. ISBN 978-3-031-00676-0. ISSN 1932-1228. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Peercoin calls itself "the pioneer of proof of stake" and is based on a paper that was released on August 2012 by Scot Nadal and Sunny King (who is also the creator of Primecoin). As you might have guessed, it is a proof of stake-based network that generates new coins based on the holdings of individuals. ... Peercoin also sees cryptocurrency more as a store of value, as your changes of reward increase over the time you are actually holding the coins in your wallet. The main goal when this network was created, was to reduce the high-energy consuming proof of work algorithm that is in use by the Bitcoin network, but also wanted to provide increased security and energy efficiency. There is also no limit on the number of peercoins that can be generated, as the proof of stake algorithm ensures a 1% yearly inflation of the minted coins."

    4. Chowdhury, Niaz (2020). Inside Blockchain, Bitcoin, and Cryptocurrencies. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-138-61815-2. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Scott Nadal and Sunny King created Peercoin (PPC) in 2012. The principal innovation that Peercoin offers is the use of a hybrid consensus mechanism using a proof-of-stake (PoS) and proof-of-work (PoW) system. In this coin, a portion of the new blocks are mined by holders of tokens in proportion to how many coins they control. Because PoS does not involve solving a partial hash inversion problem, it requires minimum electricity consumption; hence Peercoin is often regarded as the green alternative to Bitcoin. In Peercoin there exist two types of blocks generated using PoS and PoW techniques respectively. ... As of December 2018, Peercoin's market capitalisation is just over 0.02% of Bitcoin."

    5. Artzt, Matthias; Richter, Thomas, eds. (2020). Handbook of Blockchain Law: A Guide to Understanding and Resolving the Legal Challenges of Blockchain Technology. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. ISBN 978-94-035-1763-6. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "In 2012 Peercoin became the first blockchain to use Proof of Stake as a consensus mechanism. In Peercoin's model, owners of Peercoin's token (PPCoin or PPC) pursue a 'minting' process to confirm transactions to be added to the Peercoin blockchain. ... Minting works largely like the Bitcoin mining process, with the following important differences: ..."

    6. Kriskó, Andrea (2016). "Crypto currencies – currencies governed by belief: Bitcoin, Piggycoin, Monero, Peercoin, Ethereum and the rest". 5th Interdisciplinary Doctoral Conference (PDF). Pécs: Doctoral Student Association of the University of Pécs. ISBN 978-963-429-039-1. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "A secure and sustainable crypto coin which has been in existence among digital currencies since 2012, thus it is one of the oldest ones. Its rate of inflation by annum is below 5%. It is the first proof-of-stake coin (it uses a proof-of-work and proof-of-stake hybrid system), and there is no need for a intensive calculating power to operate the system. An innovation of the system is time stamping, a very important operation in the financial sector. The coins are equipped with a time stamp, therefore they are aging. There is a performance reward issued after the currency if it is retained for 30 days, at a level of 1% per annum. The coins do not „age” any further. Based on the age of the coins, the user may generate a new block for him/herself, increasing the quantity of coins. ... In the case of Peercoin, 51% of issued currency (coins) is required to intervene, but in this case the intervention/attack becomes counterproductive, as the user would be weakening the value of his/her own money. This is how it becomes apparent that Peercoin is attempting to remedy the „growing pains” of BTC."

    7. Steadman, Ian (2013-05-11). "Wary of Bitcoin? A guide to some other cryptocurrencies. You can fill your virtual pockets with Litecoin, PPCoin, or Freicoin". Wired. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Ars Technica.

      Peercoin is also known as PPCoin. The article notes: "Peer-to-Peer Coin, or PPCoin for short, presents itself as an improvement upon Bitcoin by changing one of the latter's fundamental ideas: proof-of-work. ... Beyond improving security—it's a lot harder to steal PPCoin than Bitcoin this way—it reduces the chance of a 51 percent attack by making the counterfeiting of coins extremely difficult. You have to gain 51 percent of all proofs-of-stake instead of mining power. ... Currently, PPCoin has a centralized checking system in place to verify transactions, so it doesn't qualify as decentralized in the same way that Bitcoin does."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Peercoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard. Here's a Google Scholar search with a list of academic articles that discuss PeerCoin (assuming its the same currency discussed as the one in the article). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This paper from the article, which I managed to get a copy of, did not mention "peercoin" anywhere (it's just an introduction of proof-of-stake). The sources in the article also mention it in conjunction with other similar coins. However, per Cunard's sources above, it does seem like there is a fairly decent amount of literature; I still have some reservations, since it seems that most of the mentions in available literature are talking about it as part of a longer list of coins, rather than WP:SIGCOV. There's also the issue that the currently existing article is extremely bad, and would be much better off as a subsection of something else. That said, "the article is crap" is not a good AfD rationale, so I won't move to delete based on that alone. I will have to see how this whole discussion shakes out (and if the article improves) before I commit to a position. jp×g 23:36, 4 July 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 which does not preclude a redirect if someone would like to create one. Star Mississippi 20:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute on the Environment[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG ElKevbo (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we need sources that attest to the notability of this specific institute, not just its individual employees. ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 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! 19:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not meet GNG. No objection to redirect if a due mention can be made in UoM. Femke (talk) 16:44, 3 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Rajeev[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER. The singer has released around 20 songs in their 16-year career. Most references are focused on poet ONV Kurup, the subject's grandfather.

Note: The "vote" above is not technically a vote because User:Slowvansz is the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Lacks independent coverage for GNG. Aoyoigian (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Contributions seems not negligible and her awards are considerable Onmyway22 talk 09:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks independent coverage. 5 of the sources are about ONV Kurup and other sources are press releases, interviews or brief mentions. Zinjan32 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like to see some more input from experienced editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I couldn't find any sources mentioned in the article reliable or independent, additionally this article lacks sources with significant coverage of the subject of this article. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable and her fame is not depended to her Grandfather Srinda446 (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you improve the article by adding references to prove the notability according to WP:GNG and WP:SINGER The current version lacks sources with significant coverage of the subject. Slowvansz (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I came to this AfD because it has been relisted twice and I figured I could help clear things up, but all I can come up with is a "weak keep" that probably doesn't help much. I did find that when searching under the English version of her name, not much comes up except typical social media sites and industry directories. However, there is more to be found from a search under her Malayalam name, അപർണ രാജീവ്, and it appears that she really has won some important awards as already cited in footnotes #10-11, and she has some other media coverage in that language. We might have to settle for a "no consensus" here, but the article does need to be cleaned up by someone who can process those Malayalam sources properly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 8 July 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 per WP:SNOW. The arguments here are clear about a lack of notability, closing early since there's no real chance of this surviving even if it ran for the full 7 days. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable book by a non-notable author, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Wilde. Previous PROD nomination from Kudpung was declined. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources found. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It says it sold hundreds of copies world wide. LOL! The guy created an article for himself and his book, not many other edits. Dream Focus 08:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On Amazon, you can read a sample of the text. That will help you understand the sales figures. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Best Sellers Rank: #2,535,677 in Books. Dream Focus 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would possibly be eligible for speedy deletion since the article is clearly publicity, but hey, why hurry these things? Elemimele (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my original PROD: 'Non-notable book by a non-notable author' . Just noting here that the creator made the mandatory minimum number of edits to become autoconfirmed, by making very minor edits to Anthony G. Forlini such as making and removing commas or very slightly modifying some prose to no benefit of the article. When this Afd is closed, please salt all the titles created by this user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be a misuse of salting. Salt should only be used to stop repeated re-creation of a non-notable article. There has not yet been any recreation here. It is likely that the author misunderstood the point of WP (this arises regularly at the teahouse; a lot of people fail to understand that WP isn't just a variation on wordpress). Further, in the event of the author's career taking off, premature salting creates an unnecessary obstacle to producing a proper article further down the line; we should reserve the salt for cases where it's genuinely needed. Elemimele (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that I fully concur with Dream Focus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 3 July 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, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Heller[edit]

Hans Heller (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)

Only source here is a YouTube video. A BEFORE search doesn't turn up much, and definitely not enough for notability to be established. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again a very lacking WP:BEFORE although this may have been hindered by inaccuracies in the article (Heller's full name, date of birth etc were wrong). There are also many discrepancies in sources about Heller - I've seen three different DoBs in sources and a New York Times article talks about him being interned in France in 1940 despite moving to the US in 1938. Regardless of this, he received an obituary in The New York Times as well as an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. An NYT obit and listing in a major encyclopaedic work (now added with other sources to the article) are enough to pass GNG. @Mako001: do you want to withdraw the nom to lighten the admin load? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir.copic: Are you totally sure you have the correct Hans Heller? There is more than one Hans Heller who was a composer, but one died in Berlin and the other in Queens. This one died in Berlin. I'd like to confirm this before withdrawing the nom, I did find stuff for Hans Heller, but for the other one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think I’ve got confused here. There seem to be two Hans Hellers who were composers with similar lives and died in the same year. The article is now a confusion of the two. It looks to me that Hans Hermann Israel Heller does not meet GNG but Hans Ewald Heller does meet GNG. Not sure the best way to proceed now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir.copic: Probably pull everything you'd added about Hans E. Heller to a new draft or article about Hans Ewald Heller and delete this one? This would avoid (inadvertently) hijacking the article. I'd agree that Hans Ewald Heller seems to be notable, but since this was originally about Hans H.I. Heller, it should be deleted. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending my vote to Delete. Previous vote was due to confusion with Hans Ewald Heller. I cannot find significant coverage that justifies GNG for Hans Hermann Israel Heller. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think Vladimir.copic has cleared things up, and thanks to him for developing the new article for Hans Ewald Heller. As for this Hans Heller, he has an interesting story if it's true, but I suspect that the article was an attempt to promote the recent musicology effort to rediscover his long-lost music. The problem is that the rest of the world has not noticed, and until that happens it is an esoteric project without encyclopedic value here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 8 July 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! 04:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medallia[edit]

Medallia (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)

Per WP:SERIESA, lack of notability. Coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

    Analyst reports

    https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/MDLA/price-target/Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

    Date Brokerage Action Rating Price Target Upside/Downside on Report Date Details
    7/26/2021 Berenberg Bank Reiterated Rating Buy ➝ Hold $33.00 ➝ $33.59 -0.74% View Rating Details
    7/26/2021 Needham & Company LLC Downgrade Buy ➝ Hold $33.60 View Rating Details
    7/26/2021 BTIG Research Downgrade Buy ➝ Neutral $33.60 View Rating Details
    7/26/2021 William Blair Downgrade Outperform ➝ Market Perform View Rating Details
    7/26/2021 Craig Hallum Downgrade Buy ➝ Hold View Rating Details
    9/4/2020 Roth Capital Reiterated Rating Buy View Rating Details
    8/9/2021 Truist Financial Downgrade Buy ➝ Hold $34.00 +0.44% View Rating Details
    8/5/2021 Robert W. Baird Downgrade Outperform ➝ Neutral $32.00 ➝ $34.00 +0.95% View Rating Details
    7/27/2021 Stifel Nicolaus Downgrade Buy ➝ Hold $40.00 ➝ $34.00 +1.19% View Rating Details
    7/27/2021 Citigroup Downgrade Buy ➝ Neutral $50.00 ➝ $34.00 +1.19% View Rating Details
    6/3/2020 Wells Fargo Boost Target Overweight $30.00 ➝ $35.00 +18.24% View Rating Details
    6/3/2020 Oppenheimer Boost Target Outperform $33.00 ➝ $35.00 +18.24% View Rating Details
    6/3/2020 SunTrust Banks Boost Target Buy $28.00 ➝ $33.00 +21.95% View Rating Details
    7/29/2019 Stephens Initiated Coverage Overweight $52.00 +22.99% View Rating Details
    3/29/2021 Credit Suisse Group Reiterated Rating Neutral $34.00 +25.14% View Rating Details
    1/19/2021 Bank of America Initiated Coverage Buy $50.00 +26.52% View Rating Details
    8/13/2019 CIBC Initiated Coverage Outperform ➝ Outperform $55.00 +32.21% View Rating Details
    8/13/2019 UBS Group Initiated Coverage Outperform $55.00 +40.00% View Rating Details

    Additional sources

    1. Blechynden, Daniel (2020-07-30). "Medallia experience management platform review. Versatile experience management software designed for your business". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The review notes: "Medallia is a popular experience management (opens in new tab) platform which comes with a range of powerful tools. Founded in 2001, it has rapidly grown to become a global provider with over 1000 employees and 15 offices across the world. ... Medallia offers a few different customer service options, but there is a notable absence of live chat support. ... Medallia is an industry-leader in the business analytics and customer experience field, but there are plenty of alternatives available if you don’t have room in your budget for its high price tag."

    2. Gage, Deborah (2012-09-26). "Medallia Aims to Improve Service at Big Companies With $35M From Sequoia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "Medallia, 11 years old and profitable, has technology to bridge this gap, and it's raised $35 million from Sequoia Capital as part of its first institutional funding round, VentureWire has learned. Valuation is not disclosed. Medallia was founded in 2001 by Borge Hald and Amy Pressman, two veterans of the Boston Consulting Group who noticed when they were on business trips that they preferred the service at smaller companies and hotels. ... Medallia's early years were lean. The company had talked to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, which ultimately became a customer, on Sept. 10, 2001, and had plans to raise venture capital, but 9/11 scuttled those plans. Instead, Medallia was bootstrapped month-to-month until revenue started coming in a year or so later."

    3. Konrad, Alex. "Medallia Shares Soared 76% In First-Day Trading. Here's What Its CEO Had To Say About The IPO 'Pop'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "Eleven months ago, customer feedback company Medallia hired an industry veteran named Leslie Stretch to guide it to IPO. On Friday, he delivered – but so well as to raise questions about what constitutes a successful tech IPO in the era of high-flying enterprise debuts such as Slack, Zoom and CrowdStrike. After pricing its offering at a higher-than-expected $21 per share on Thursday night, shares of Medallia raced up 76% and then largely held on afterward, finishing the company’s first day of trading at $37.05 a share. The day was a big win for Stretch and Medallia, an 18-year-old maker of software that helps collect, measure and interpret customer feedback and sentiment for big businesses like Bank of America, Citi and ExxonMobil. ... When Stretch took over at Medallia in 2018, he inherited a then-17-year-old company known as one of the pioneers of using software to measure customer feedback and sentiment through surveys and social tools."

    4. Roof, Katie (2019-07-22). "Sequoia Sees Another Billion Dollar Exit With Medallia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "Medallia’s market value was over $6 billion as of Monday, including warrants, options and restricted stock. The company raised more than $325 million in its offering."

    5. Adams, Faith (2020-04-22). "Medallia + Voci: Smart Move". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article is written by Faith Adams, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. The article notes: "Medallia continues its buying spree — adding to its numerous acquisitions in 2019 and its purchase of video feedback platform LivingLens in February of this year. ... Technology is just one piece of the puzzle, though, when it comes to CX transformation. For Medallia to continue its success, it will also have to help customers grow and evolve their CX initiatives — a continuing challenge for both technology and service providers in the CX space."

    6. Fazio, Colleen; de Quintanilha, Joana; Warner, Rusty (2022-01-26). "Medallia + Thunderhead Is A Boost For Brands On The VoC Maturity Journey". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article is written by Colleen Fazio, a senior analyst, Joana de Quintanilha, a VP, Principal Analyst, and Rusty Warner, a VP, Principal Analyst. The article notes: "How will Thunderhead be integrated? Reference clients for The Forrester Wave™: Customer Feedback Management Platforms, Q2 2021 expressed skepticism about how Medallia’s new acquisitions would be integrated. The Thunderhead announcement is the latest of a dizzying number of Medallia acquisitions in the past 18 months, including digital experience platform Decibel, contact center coaching and quality management platform Stella Connect, and speech-to-text platform Voci Technologies. For clients to fully realize the benefits of these offerings, Medallia will need to focus on enabling data integration and analysis in a seamless and user-friendly way.

    7. Pound, Jesse (2019-07-19). "Medallia soars more than 75% in market debut as investors flock to another cloud software IPO". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "Medalia’s competitors include SurveyMonkey, which went public last September, and Qualtrics, which SAP bought for $8 billion in November just ahead of the company’s IPO. ... Prior to the offering, Sequoia Capital owned 40% of the company, an unusually large stake for a venture firm at this stage. At Friday’s high, Sequoia stake was worth about $1.8 billion."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medallia to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Routine reporting on financial transactions doesn't establish notability though. FalconK (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that analyst reports can be used to establish notability. I have provided 18 analyst reports about the company. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cunard, "Ratings (by analysts)" are not "Analyst Reports". The "ratings" linked above in your table do not contain sufficient CORPDEPTH to be considered as meeting NCORP criteria. But the links to Analyst reports by Forrester and Gartner for example meet the criteria as the provide in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing++ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of the columns of the table says "Upside/Downside on Report Date". These are not merely analyst ratings. These are analyst reports that contain analyst ratings alongside research into how the analysts reached their conclusions. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Marketbeat's Upside/Downside ratings are explained here. It's effectively comparing the stock price performance to other indices. I don't believe that qualifies as in-depth information sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. If these analyst ratings contained CORPDEPTH information I would expect to see the "content" of these reports in the article (or any article about a business) but ... we don't as far as my experience goes. Whereas the longer analyst reports will nearly always contain information that may appear in the article. HighKing++ 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I finally found a way to get the Craig Hallum report of 26 July 2021, and it absolutely does not contain the type of information meant in WP:ORGCRIT. Of three pages, the second is merely financial accounts over time and the third is required disclosures. The first page announces an acquisition deal (routine) and discusses how financial and operational ephemera will affect the stock price and acquisition. It's very good analysis if you're trying to price the stock, but it's not stuff that is of all that much use when trying to establish the company's role in the broader context. FalconK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Related discussions: 2017-07 Kampyle (software) (closed as ✓ keep)
Logs: 2011-12 ✗ G11
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a company therefore NCORP is the most appropriate evaluation criteria. Ratings are not Analyst reports and they do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. But there are sufficient Analyst reports such as the one from Forrester linked above by Cunard and the one from Gartner linked above by me. Topic therefore meets NCORP. HighKing++ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 3 July 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. Star Mississippi 20:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trady[edit]

Trady (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)

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. The small amount of prose in the article is not what it appears in places. It says " She released her single titled "Dare to Live" as Promotional Song for 2021 Summer World University Games." and linked to Dare to live and referenced and reference the promo album. However the song at the link was the original which hers was only a cover of, and she is not even mentioned at that article. Also she is not even mentioned at that album reference. The award she won was "Music Pioneer Awards" is flagged for notability and is one issued by a single radio station. Nothing even approaching a GNG type source. There is no material on her on album and the reference for it is a link to Spotify. Tagged by others for notability since April. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and China. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The Chinese wiki article is about as long as this one and appears to have a track listing. Try as I might, I find no English sources for the singer. Delete unless other sources are found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a UPE article. No streaming evidence, no social media coverage. Nothing comes on cse or before search on web. Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 07:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Hu, Minjuan 胡敏娟 (2021-11-12). "和金牌制作人崔迪一起，从成都大运会创造"生命奇迹"" [Create a "miracle of life" from the Chengdu Universiade with gold medal producer Cui Di]. 红星新闻 [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20 – via Sohu.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "This rhythm is bright and warm, full of vigor and vitality of the song, from the global Chinese song annual golden song producer Cui Di hand. ... In Cui Di's creative career, it is one of her few experiences to create with sports as an element, and it is her "first time" to create for an international sports event such as the Chengdu Universiade. ... In her spare time, Cui Di, who likes sports, also invites three or five friends to exercise together. While exercising, music also accompanies her. Tweedy believes that the relationship between music and sports has never been separated, and the two are a whole that promotes and promotes each other. ... International expression and Chinese culture and power are the two parts that Cui Di wanted to express in the process of creating "Dare to Live"."

    2. Robert 罗伯特 (2022-01-17). "崔迪首获唱工委奖项提名，揭秘金牌唱作女声首专幕后" [Cui Di was nominated for the Singing Work Committee Award, revealing the behind-the-scenes of the gold medal singing female vocal debut]. Toutiao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20 – via 吉祥日历.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Bel Rumore's female vocalist Cui Di was nominated for the "Best Electronic Music Album" award with her first solo album "TRADY 1.0". Following her nomination for the "Best Mandarin Female Newcomer Award" at the 13th Chinese Golden Melody Awards, she received another affirmation from the awards. ... Before appearing as a singer-songwriter, Cui Di won the reputation of "Gold Medal Female Producer" by creating many popular hits for singers such as Zhang Liangying, Han Geng, Yao Beina, Yu Kewei and so on. She has always dreamed of being a singer. Before the release of her first solo album "TRADY 1.0", she was invited to record Zhou Huajian's music album "Water Margin Trilogy", and also wrote for the animated film "Sidu" with the theme of the Revolutionary War. Chishui sang the theme song "Summoning". Her splendid performances in many musical works made her colleagues in the music circle sigh with emotion that Cui Di is not only a professional songwriter and music producer, but also a composer, arranger, performer and singer. , Production as one of the all-round female singer-songwriter. In 2018, with the encouragement of her musician husband Wan Jiaming, Cui Di began the preparations for this music album."

    3. "崔迪个人首张唱作专辑《TRADY 1.0》 先行曲《挣脱》全球同步发行" [Trady's first solo album "TRADY 1.0", the prelude song "Break Free", was released simultaneously worldwide]. 南方娱乐网 (in Chinese). 2020-01-06. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "At 0:00 on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the past year, music producer Trady (TRADY)'s first solo album "TRADY 1.0", the prelude song "Break Free", was released simultaneously at home and abroad. ... The song incorporates a large number of modern retro synth sounds, and the Synthwave synth wave is strong and impactful, giving people a sense of power from the inside out. The rhythm of the whole song is dominated by the use of Roland drum machines and bass bass synthesizers, and the solid bass interprets a firm strength and confidence to break free from the injustice of fate."

    4. Qian, Hong 钱虹 (2020-07-30). "音乐制作人崔迪首张专辑《TRADY 1.0》正式上线" [Music producer Trady's debut album "TRADY 1.0" officially launched]. 中国娱乐时报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

      The article notes: "Music producer Cui Di, the first official album "TRADY 1.0" released as a singer, was released online at 0:00 on July 30, 2020. This is an album that has been carefully produced for two and a half years, and is personally written by Tweedy's husband, Wan Wan ..."

    5. "崔迪联手三大音乐人共同创作音乐先锋厂牌" [Cui Di teamed up with three major musicians to create a music pioneer label] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2011-01-26. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

      The article notes: "Cui Di has produced many artist albums, including Han Geng's "Umbrella", Zhang Jingying's "Light" and many other excellent works. She and her friends Wan Jiaming, Li Zhiwei and Wang Zitong jointly established the cutting-edge music label "Making Sound". Cui Di also hopes to create a new music production label in the mainland to make a little contribution to the original music in the mainland, and also hopes that his works can be loved by more people."

    6. "制作人崔迪携陈楚生尚雯婕大玩韩流风(图)" [Producer Cui Di and Chen Chusheng and Shang Wenjie play Hallyu (Photo)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2010-08-16. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The albums that Cui Di has collaborated with and produced by domestic gold medal female producers include Han Geng's 2010 album "Geng. "Heart" title song "Umbrella" Producer:"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trady (Chinese: 崔迪), also known as Cui Di, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added these sources to the article and expanded the article. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just based on the awards it meets WP:MUSICBIO, but also Cunard has added more citations that would add to the notability. Zeddedm (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not entirely sold on Cunard's sources, but it does indicate a possible case for WP:NCOMPOSER or WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the refs above, one is a notice of the album being released, another one is a classic bit of PR, one does seem to mention her, on the ref for the establishment of a new A&R company "Making Sound". the last one has Cuī Dí in the studio. None is typical of singer who has a career. It is all PR. They are very poor reference and dont constitute [WP:SIGCOV]]. Updating the article per WP:HEYMANN with these references will make the article quality much worse. scope_creepTalk 20:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before she became a singer, the subject was a music producer. According to Toutiao, "Before appearing as a singer-songwriter, Cui Di won the reputation of "Gold Medal Female Producer" by creating many popular hits for singers such as Jane Zhang, Han Geng, Yao Beina, Yisa Yu and so on."

      After she became a singer, her album received a nomination for "Best Electronic Music Album" at the CMIC Music Awards and she was nominated as "Best Mandarin Female Newcomer Award" at the Chinese Music Awards.

      Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There is enough biographical coverage across a "combination" of these sources to show that the subject meets the guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:26, 3 July 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. Star Mississippi 20:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pretsel[edit]

Richard Pretsel (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)

According to WP:NCURL: Significant coverage is **likely** to exist for a curler if they 1. Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event. 2. Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling 3. Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, or Pacific-Asia Curling Championships. 4. Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships. 5. Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials. 6. Are member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame.

Richard Pretsel meets none of these. Also did search and found the following sources. Generally need two independent reliable significant coverage of the person for WP:GNG. Found none.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.edinburghcurling.co.uk/find-a-club/find-club-carrington-curling-club/ No Yes No no mention of name ✘ No
http://results.worldcurling.org/Person/Details/684 Yes Yes No stats only ✘ No
https://smcfpclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Internationalists.pdf No No STEWART’S MELVILLE COLLEGE FORMER PUPILS CLUB ~ ✘ No
https://www.perthmasters.com/perth-masters-trophy/ Yes Yes No name mention: Winners of the Mercure City of Perth Masters ✘ No
https://www.scottishcurling.org/comps/past-national-champions/scottish-champions-men/ Yes Yes No list of names, scottish championships ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 11 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! 23:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ANYBIO covers well-known and significant awards or honors, not generic sports achievements, and in any case "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". It's the sourcing that should be decisive, and it's quite clear that SIGCOV is lacking here. Even conceding that ANYBIO is met, a conflict between that and a failure of SIGCOV should surely be settled at the expense of the former, not the latter. Avilich (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If winning championships in whatever sport and for whichever nation was an acceptable ANYBIO argument we wouldn't have had support for repealing presumption of notability for sportspeople. There was resounding opposition toward presuming notability even for Olympic medal-winners, so clearly the "awards and honors" sufficient for ANYBIO do NOT include sporting achievements (which aren't awards or honors, anyway). The subject lacks the SIGCOV needed for GNG, and that's all that is relevant. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 7 July 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. There seems to be a basic disagreement over the quality of sources that won't be resolved by another relist so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus, an option i don't like to select but I can see points being made on both sides of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Cyclists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bangladeshi Cyclists (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)

Nomination in 2013 (surprisingly) resulted in "keep," but I fail to see how this Facebook group meets WP:GNG. No reliable sources with sufficient depth of coverage; Daily Star articles appear to be editorials written by a member of the group; only trivial mentions in other potential reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – @Joseph2302: Did you perform a source review of the sources presented in the last AfD discussion? Above you state, "the sources here", which comes across as basing notability upon sources presently in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Also, I'm not an SPA, and I provided several sources in the last discussion. North America1000 12:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is clearly wrong to mischaracterize and dismiss this as a Facebook group, it's clearly much more. Jacona (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has been covered in the BBC and the Guardian. I fail to see how this isn't significant coverage. Plus, the group holds a Guinness record. Ironmatic1 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are some sources I was able to presently find. Additional sources are present in my !vote at the previous AfD discussion, but some are now unfortunately dead links. Searching using the group's official name may be of further benefit to this discussion. North America1000 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is approximately 19 paragraphs. This is 8 paragraphs. From the previous AfD we have this. FWIW, there are many reposts of some of the dailystar articles in this AfD and in the article including this one. There are lots of (IMO) less useful sources like this one which provides a description of the group. There's a lot more in Bengali or other languages, I've not bothered with that. I tried to go through the articles in the previous AfD, but most of them are now dead, and archiving is terrible and translation is difficult as much of it is in Bengali. In any case, with these, plus the articles provided by North America, it meets WP:GNG without bothering to look at the native languages. Jacona (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of sources are reposts of each other, the "19 paragraphs" is mostly about the people, not the cycling club itself. Not enough significant coverage specifically about the club itself to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The people were members of the group, competing under the group name. That's like saying a discussion of the 9 members of SCOTUS and one of their decisions is not specifically about the SCOTUS. Jacona (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per a source review, including those provided by Jacona above, the topic meets WP:GNG. Of note is that my source searches have not included those in Bengali or other languages. More sources can possibly be found using the customized search links direclty below, depending upon what part of the world users are in. North America1000 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– TeamBDC: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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! 04:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pressterror[edit]

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

Subject has no notable sources online, except a brief mention in a Vice article and deleted (possibly hosted on streaming services) Vice TV spot. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this AfD upon request from 70.163.208.142. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:25, 26 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! 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Note that his name is sometimes in the form of two words, which makes searching a bit of a pain. Anyway, I agree with the nominator, as the Vice article is the only reliable source I can find, and even then the DJ was only mentioned very briefly as one participant in his larger music scene. Otherwise he is only visible in his own promotional sites and occasional social media chatter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 8 July 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals – Keith Urban[edit]

ITunes Originals – Keith Urban (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)

Album was not reviewed by any major third-party sources such as Roughstock, Billboard, Country Standard Time, etc. I could find no other coverage beyond the most superficial of mentions and one AllMusic review, which itself is insufficient without any other coverage. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hollywood Reporter [12] DonaldD23 talk to me 11:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not load for me at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So? You not being able to access something has no bearing on its merit. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the review and newly found source, as well as the Billboard chart entries make a strong case for notability. versacespaceleave a message! 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Charting is not an indicator of notability on its own. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Versacespace isn't saying that charting alone was the reason for their keep vote. Did you read the sentence? REVIEW and SOURCE and BILLBOARD. Three reasons were given. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is why i included the og and added source in my rationale. versacespaceleave a message! 17:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Only one short piece in the Hollywood Reporter is not enough to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Mutliple independent sources are required. And the two billboard charts for references list Keith Urban songs, but does not cover the topic, i.e., "ITunes Originals – Keith Urban." So these refs also do not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect: I'm the one who created this article when I was younger, and as someone who now doesn't edit Wikipedia as much as I used to (but still knows a thing or two about the criteria for notability), I don't really see the point of this article existing. It may as well be just as notable as other "iTunes Original" albums. In that sense, I completely agree with the Delete move, or at the very least a redirect to Urban's discography page. --Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iTunes Originals or Keith Urban discography, while I was able to find another source on top of the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter (which is a reprint of an article from Billboard), I don’t think two sources and charting for a bit provide notability MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 09:02, 25 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! 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between Keep, Delete and Redirect, still not seeing a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 3 July 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. Merger was mentioned as a possibility and that discussion could occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Todd mugging hoax[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ashley Todd mugging hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think our BLP policies have evolved since 2008 and this is the a WP:BLP1E which should not be retained as an article. Sourcing is all from the moment it occurred and no indication the event has had a lasting impact. Slywriter (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME may apply as no plea or conviction was ever entered as well as privacy concerns on the mental health discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not an incredibly significant event but I am seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it. For example, all of these academic sources talk about the event years after the fact: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], This textbook categorizes the case as "high profile." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is relevant to race relations in the United States, and seems as scrubbed clean of personal data as possible without re-writing it to exclude the perpetrator's name. Though if someone found a way to do that, and delete the redirect from Ashley Todd, I'd be fine with that as well. Also, as this story broke less than two weeks before the 2008 Presidential general election, it might be part of any complete telling of that story. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:11, 2 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! 05:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge: I wouldn't be entirely opposed to adding it to the Controversies section of 2008 United States presidential election and replacing the article itself with a redirect, but as Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d pointed out above it still constitutes a high profile event. -Pikavangelist (talk) 16:04, 4 July 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! 05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NTVSERIES. ––FormalDude talk 05:29, 3 July 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 04:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viniana Simmons[edit]

Viniana Simmons (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) 04:49, 3 July 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! 04:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states ranked per five-factor model personality trait[edit]

List of U.S. states ranked per five-factor model personality trait (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 list is based off of what appears to be a single study, recreating the findings of a survey from about two decades ago. It fails WP:NLIST. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ranking, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 4 July 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 Chandrakant Jha. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi[edit]

Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi (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)

Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi

This article about a television show is too soon and does not satisfy general notability or television notability. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage or coverage by independent sources. It only states that the series will air in two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 telenganatoday.com List of 2021 Netflix shows, does not list this show (which is 2022) Yes No Yes No
2 outlookindia.com Announcement that show is scheduled No Yes Yes No
3 timesofindia.com Announcement of show No Yes No No
4 shethepeople.tv Another announcement of the show No Yes Yes? No
5 indiatimes.com Announcement of the trailer No Yes ? No
6 indiatoday.in Announcement of the trailer No Yes Yes No
7 indianexpress.com Another announcment of the trailer No Yes Yes No

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect into Chandrakant Jha It's never a great sign when it takes me ten clicks to find out who this serial killer is because they want to build mystery around the subject in the PR (I assume so that the 'This Story Is a Wikipedia Article I'll Just Read That Syndrome' with many true crime subjects and their docs is avoided). Very short mention should be made there of this doc/ficitionalization. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chandrakant Jha: As mentioned above, sources aren't there for an independent article, but a mention in the actual serial killer's article makes good sense. Ravensfire (talk) 12:58, 8 July 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 listed for more than 3 weeks, no clear vision of whether the subject is notable or not. Less Unless (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Noorani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ahmad Noorani (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)

Pakistani investigative journalist, only notability here is that he was beaten up. While reprehensible, I believe it does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was not beaten up during any ordinary street crime. According to the cited sources, he had traced out some undisclosed assets of an influential person holding a public office, and as a result he was harassed in the line of duty.Insight 3 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While not my area of expertise, in some parts of the world standing up to people in power and going public with evidence of corruption is quite a feat. Perhaps the article should also elaborate on his journalism start up, "Fact Focus". Proton Dental (talk) 08:57, 24 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! 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:49, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 04:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mee's Bus Lines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The BEFORE search turned up nothing relevant to notability. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and Australia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't have access to the off-line sources, and seem to have misinterpreted their significance. Though I'll trust that they exist.
    Nomination withdrawn Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did you access all the sources in the article? There are several offline sources. NemesisAT (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with majority of cites provided being offline, not surprising a BEFORE search didn't bring much up. Redbulk (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be a fair amount of sources in the article as NemesisAT has mentioned. Jrbob 123 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 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! 06:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tibero[edit]

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

I am the creator of the page 'Tibero' that is the subject of this AfD, but I don't think it gained sufficiently significant attention by the information technology sector. There have been multiple proposed deletions of the article because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't see the topic merits a separate Wikipedia article, but please share your thoughts if the article is considered for deletion. --ted (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:38, 3 July 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Air Silencers[edit]

Dead Air Silencers (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)

WP:PROMO article that just lists the company's products and relies for references on only industry press and routine announcements; therefore does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Contested WP:G11 from another editor but I think this is a more appropriate venue. FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Also just to be clear this is not promotional and if such aspersions are to be cast the COI noticeboard is the place not here, @Falcon Kirtaran: either retract the aspersion or take it to the COI noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is definitely promotional in effect, though WP:NOTDIRECTORY would suffice. I am not accusing you of COI or even of spamming; I merely think this article does not meet the restrictive bar set forth in WP:NCORP specifically to prevent inclusion of articles that are for example just lists of products and transactions. FalconK (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what "promotional in effect" means, it is not a concept covered at WP:PROMO which was the very first thing you linked... If you merely think this article does not meet the restrictive bar set forth in WP:NCORP it seems odd to repeatedly cast promotional aspersions, no? PROMO and NCORP aren't related after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're listing products and describing why people might want to buy them, which is marketing, even if when written it wasn't intended as marketing. The vast majority of companies that make products that get reviewed and written about in trade press do not meet the notability bar, partially because the information to be found about them is all promotional. This means that even when you discard the interaction between Wikipedia and the flood of SEO and marketing professionals who tell companies to seek a Wikipedia article about themselves and the inherent promotional nature of that, an article written about such a company with information from available sources will tend to be promotional. FalconK (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"listing products and describing why people might want to buy them" isn't marketing and describes much of what we do on wikipedia because its much of what WP:RS do... If that was the case pages like Timeline of Apple Inc. products and List of Ford vehicles simply couldn't exist. I will accept that a reasonable person can interpret the article as failing our notability guidelines, what I can't accept is that the article is WP:PROMO because it meets none of the five listed categories. Unintentional marketing is not marketing for PROMO purposes and is an unavoidable fact with any wikipedia page involving a person, place, or thing regardless of how the content is presented (its mere existence is unintentional/accidental marketing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning weak keep. Being featured in American Rifleman and other stuff suggests industry recognition of some degree. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage for WP:NCORP --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article currently has NPOV issues, but the sources establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:37, 13 July 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! 02:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

College Roomies from Hell!!![edit]

College Roomies from Hell!!! (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 sources are:

  1. an article about another webcomic which only mentions CRFH in passing
  2. "Monkeys Fighting Robots", which is 404 and doesn't seem to have been an RS anyway
  3. Passing mention in an article about a sister project
  4. WCCA awards
  5. Another article about an unrelated comic

In the past, the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award has been deemed not to be a major player for WP:NWEB standards. The sourcing here is very superficial at best beyond the award (which, by the way, isn't even mentioned on the award's Wikipedia article), and a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing better. In short, I don't see any reason this is a notable webcomic. It's just another dusty piece of cruft from a different era of web content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:17, 3 July 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. Less Unless (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiani Wong[edit]

Kiani Wong (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) 02:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not confuse the footballer Kiani Wong with the softball player Kiani Wong; they are two different people. This Kiani Wong article and discussion is about the football player from Tahiti, French Polynesia, who played for FC Vendenheim Alsace in Strasbourg, France; then briefly for Cardiff City FC in Wales, United Kingdom; then briefly for Yeovil Town FC Women in England, United Kingdom; before moving to FC Saarbrücken in Germany. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (to not say keep) – Found sources → [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] – Nominator, seeing the current appearance of the article is not enough to nominate. Please, search for sources before doing this type of nominations.--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – If there are finally more "keep" than "draftify" votes, count mine as keep in that case.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's plenty about her in French (quick check on Tahiti Infos turns up multiple articles specifically about her, not just passing mentions, and it looks like she's fairly notable in French Polynesia). Unfortunately I don't have time to incorporate them tonight (and honestly, sports bios are not really my thing) --IdiotSavant (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per MosFrontieres. This stub needs a lot more work anyway, so let's save everyone some time and let MosFrontieres work on it. Unless If you are in Germany and/or have access to German newspapers, etc., and happen to be reading this, and are able to contribute sources to incorporate (because it can be very hard to access them from outside DE), whether they could help to establish notability or just as background. So far all I can see in DE is one passing mention in Saarbrücker Zeitung. In the UK, her signing with Yeovil has a passing mention in SheKicks, which is the main magazine for women's football. But there could easily be more; in any case it will require more time. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by MF. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I also found a lot of sources about her online. Also, she is capped internationally for Tahiti. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting capped is 100% irrelevant for determining footballer notability and is not a valid argument at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The sources found by MonFrontieres are: 1. Profile on the Tahitian Football Federation site (not independent). 2. An interview by Air Tahiti Nui, which is doubly non-independent since she is an ambassador for the brand. 3. Possibly substantial coverage in a TNTV piece, but is a) youth coverage, and b) not bylined. 4. SportsTahiti/Tahiti86 interview with a few sentences of intro commentary; again, considerations for youth coverage must be made. 5. DomTomNews piece that is identical to the TNTV source. 6. An interview on the Tahitian Football Federation site (not independent). 7. Article from Oceania Football Confederation, which is not independent. There's potential here, but if coverage is limited to her playing as a teenager, a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:53, 8 July 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! 02:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ujala (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability and WP:NF. An internet search of the databases only reveals trivial information such as IMDB, and this article is also a recreation of Draft: Ujala (TV series). CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:54, 3 July 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. Discussion on whether the article should be re-scoped to be about the week can continue editorially, but there is no consensus to delete the material. Star Mississippi 13:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Yacht Club[edit]

Chester Yacht Club (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 club is not notable Bruxton (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The club is very notable. It hosts Chester Race Week which is Canada's largest keelboat regatta. Fairly notable if you are aware of keelboat racing... I think the assumption that it isn't notable is fairly ignorant. NovaScotia06 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaScotia06 You are allowed to have a !vote. You can !vote by indicating "Keep" and bolding it like everyone else did below. Whatever the outcome, thank you for contribution to Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's author states above that the club is "fairly notable if you are aware of keelboat racing", but is it notable in the Wikipedia sense? I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; there appears to be one book about the club available on Amazon, but it looks to be published by a vanity press. I'm not finding much in the way of in-depth coverage about the regatta either. I am willing to reconsider if sourcing toward WP:GNG can be provided, but as it stands, there isn't much on which to base an article. --Kinu t/c 18:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding coverage for many seasons of this club, in major papers. An example is ProQuest 1924251146 in the The Chronicle Herald. Combined with the national coverage in the G&M article referenced in the article, GNG is met. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nfitz, can you explain further how the article you've linked to - which is about a boat race with comments provided by someone affiliated - meets NCORP's criteria for in-depth information on the *organization* WP:CORPDEPTH from some not affiliated with the org WP:ORGIND? Thank you. HighKing++ 21:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire article, as you can see, is an in-depth discussion of Chester Race Week; even noting it's history back to 1856. Perhaps this article should be renamed Chester Race Week - but GNG is easily met. Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that's the point being raised also by Jumpytoo. The source fails to establish notability of the topic organization - which is what is required to establish the notability of said organization. That source arguably cannot be used to establish notability of the race or the race week either as all of the information originates from people affiliated with this topic and is therefore considered a PRIMARY source (yes, even though it was published in a SECONDARY source, the content itself and the information is not independent). HighKing++ 15:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nfitz and Morpho achilles: I struggle to find anything that gets us close to WP:NORG. We need some in depth coverage that is not from the organization. Nfitz has called out references but I cannot access them. Morpho achilles you just state it is old. I am happy to withdraw the nomination if such in depth coverage of this organization exists. Bruxton (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proquest access is available to virtually everyone through Wikipedia Library. WP:CONRED suggests using Wikipedia Library WP:BEFORE nominating. Perhaps not necessary for a very recent subject, but I'd think that it be mandatory for a 100+ year old subject! Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Maybe you might consider summarizing? You also reference The Chronicle Herald but you link no reference. My own WP:BEFORE has not uncovered enough for WP:NORG. I have two newspaper accounts which go back 300 years and there is nothing. A notable private club would have in depth coverage. Bruxton (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Proquest article was for the Chronicle Herald. Lots of articles - look at this search. Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton if the references provided by @Nfitz aren't satisfying I think I will change my vote. Morpho achilles (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz and Morpho achilles: Thank you for the link, I found the same, I only find articles about races in relation to the club. Nothing about the club itself. None of the references discuss the club, we need analysis, investigation, and fact checking which are attributable to a source which is not the club. I have not found that yet. I will leave the AfD nomination for others to discuss. Bruxton (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on notability, but article could be redirected to Chester, Nova Scotia#Attractions and recreation. Another option is to create an article on Chester Race Week, which is closer to the primary topic of the sources in the article. Jumpytoo Talk 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources come even close to meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There might be a case made that the race is notable though but that's a different topic. HighKing++ 21:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As GNG is met for the annual regatta, it doesn't need to meet NCORP (I don't know if it does or not - I don't play much in that area). Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too early to say that GNG "is met" for the annual regatta just yet. We are only evaluating the notability of the yacht club for now. HighKing++ 15:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't right. WP:NCORP doesn't apply to sports teams. The guideline specifically says, "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." Even if you were to argue that a yacht club is more of a "club", the guideline to apply would be the alternate criteria for WP:CLUB. The notability guideline for sports teams is WP:NTEAM, which points you back to WP:GNG, unless alternative criteria are specified; for sailing, they are not. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it is a club and not a simple team. The club has a constitution and by-laws, assets, club house, non-competitive members, employees, other assets like cranes, storage, leases etc. So CLUB is the appropriate section of the NCORP guidelines. We can verify their non-profit status from this link where the club received emergency funding and also a small grant for Chester Race Week which also says it is non-profit. WP:CLUB is part of NCORP so we're still looking for sources that meet NCORP criteria. None of the sources meet either NCORP or GNG for the *club*. Not sure why you say that isn't "right"? HighKing++ 13:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that Chester Yacht Club (CYC) satisfies WP:CLUB as a nationally well-known local organization, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, over the club’s 120-year history. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reliable sources establishing notability, which are also outside Nova Scotia:
  • Wayne O’Leary, The Tancook Schooners: An Island and Its Boats (1994), published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, which has several pages on the early history of the Chester Yacht Club, including information on its role in the local economy, and its influence in boat building
  • 1956 Ottawa Citizen feature article on a model yacht event for children at the Chester Yacht Club (based on journalist’s own observations of, and information gathered on, the event, plus one quote)
  • 2001 article in The Kingston Whig-Standard (Ontario), which dedicates several paragraphs to the Chester Yacht Club’s participation ahead of the 29er World Championship on Lake Ontario, with all 5 of CYC’s 29er skiffs competing among 62 boats (includes quotes from 2 club members and coach, but also quote from external source, plus information compiled from other sources; neutral and balanced in tone)
Significant coverage in reliable sources outside Chester, Nova Scotia, which are less independent due to heavy reliance on interviews and quotes:
Significant coverage in other sources to be cited with extra care due to indeterminate independence:
In total, there is sufficient coverage to justify coverage of this yacht club. The article page still needs expansion, but could easily incorporate more information about Chester Race Week, CYC’s IOD fleet, and competitive yacht racing by the club historically and in more recent years, from these and many other sources that are available. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:SIRS, each source must meet *all* the NCORP criteria. Your descriptions and assertions about those sources are extremely misleading and despite our discussion above, you appear to have decided to ignore large swathes of NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Perhaps I'm not seeing whatever it is you're picking up but it isn't obvious to me. You're going to need to point out which paragraphs in which article you believe meets NCORP because for me, the quality is poor and most are mentions-in-passing or commentary on an event where the club is mentioned in some fashion or commentary on one or other of the teams (but not the club).
It would be helpful if in future you try to only link to the best WP:THREE sources that you believe meets NCORP. I'm not hopeful, given the paucity of the sources produced above, that notabilty has been established by the above sourcing. HighKing++ 15:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: To clarify: Yes, I only submitted three (3) sources at the very top which meet WP:CLUB, which is part of the Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, which clearly states:
The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements
  • these alternate criteria,
  • the primary criteria for organizations, or
  • the general notability guideline
and the article complies with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially with regards to avoiding indiscriminate inclusion of information.
I understand that you are saying that this article does not pass the strict criteria set by WP:NCORP, but the whole point is that for a non-commercial organization such as a club, we are allowed to apply the alternate criteria outlined in WP:CLUB or WP:GNG instead. I also completely disagree with your interpretation of what the three sources say. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the Alternate Criteria but it still requires significant coverage that is independent and in reliable sources. Of the first three sources, for me, the last two amount to nothing more than a passing mention. The best source you've linked to is the book but again, for me, the book appears to speak more about the area than the club and is not "significant coverage" as it does not address the topic directly and in detail. I will add though that after today and the amount of researching I've done, there's no longer any doubt for me that the annual regatta during Chester Race Week meets GNG. HighKing++ 16:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I thought the same, the race is notable the club is not. Bruxton (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could see an argument for having both a club page and a race page. I was actually more worried about the justification for a race page, because the coverage inherently tends to be more promotional and marketing-like in nature. But could also support having both. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of independent sourcing for the club that addresses the topic directly and in detail, I'm not sure there's a good sustainable argument for the club. It appears that the club gets mentioned because the largest boating regatta in Canada takes place in its environs. It is the race week that generates all of the publicity for the area. Sure, there are some promotional sources but the Regatta and Chester Race Week is written about in a lot of sources that meets our criteria. HighKing++ 11:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See our List of yacht clubs - most are not notable enough to have an article. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATA, that is equivalent to WP:WHATABOUTX Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG with the sourcing currently in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No vote on notability, but I also noticed that coverage seems split between the club and the race week. If the consensus is to keep this content, readers would be better served with a modified structure. It should be either a club article with a dedicated race week section, or a race week article with a dedicated club section. I also noticed that there's a book listed as further reading, yet it's unused as a source. That could tilt the AfD scales towards a keep for the club article, if anyone can access it and extract useful content. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Sailors and Rattling Teacups: A History of the Chester Yacht Club (2006): Yes, it would be useful for expanding the club article and the race week article with care. But for notability purposes, no one likes it because it is published by "Community Press" and the author's background is unknown. Based on your feedback (thanks for reading), I have broken out a separate section for the modern race week, but kept it minimal. I leave it to the race week fans to create the race week-specific article. I think the club article now demonstrates that while the history of the race week is important to the evolution of the club, the club's own story is much bigger than just the race week. The two articles will look very different. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author's background is not unknown, she was/is a member of the club. Claudette Sapp is mentioned as a member on the website here. I know we don't agree on the notability of the club as opposed to the race week but please point me to references that addresses the topic directly and in detail which is a criteria of WP:GNG. HighKing++ 10:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case; you've made yours. We disagree and have differing interpretations. We both need to stop now and let the process take its course. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to easily meet WP:GNG. "The club is not notable" does not seem a particularly good argument to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 13 July 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 Metagaming Concepts. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Fistful of Turkeys[edit]

A Fistful of Turkeys (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, there’s one ref provided, but it’s a capsule one and not significant coverage. There isn't a notability guide for board games, but the one for movies consider capsule reviews to be not significant: Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews". I could find another ref (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=b58pAQAAIAAJ&q=A+Fistful+of+Turkeys+game&dq=A+Fistful+of+Turkeys+game&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFmf3Uvdv4AhU0RWwGHT5OB_YQ6AF6BAgEEAI), a passing mention, bit this doesn’t have multiple reliable refs. Please ping me if you find anymore refs, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:43, 3 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_July_3&oldid=1100428250"