Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 01 June 03 >

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 redirect to The Blasters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wyatt[edit]

Keith Wyatt (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)

Has been through BLPProd x3, so time for a conversation. He's a working guitarist who teaches and writes for publications, but I cannot find any evidence that adds up to notability for his writing or any other criteria. Star Mississippi 14:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 2 June 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 Indians cricketers (Madras Presidency). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. K. Sukumaran[edit]

AfDs for this article:
T. K. Sukumaran (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Indians representative cricketers which would need to be created List of Indians cricketers (Madras Presidency). As a side note, this guy was likely a Kerala based doctor, but can't find anymore on him. StickyWicket (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously played a couple of FC games, but not seeing enough for a GNG pass. As there's no suitable list page here, I'm delete currently unless a page as SW suggests is created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to redirect here, but there are some technical problems with the List of Indians representative cricketers - the way that CricketArchive has categorised players in this case includes those who played for touring teams from the earliest years until recently. We'd really need a list of Indian cricketers in the Madras presidency tournament. There might be a case for a redirect to Indians cricket team (or the rather niche Madras Presidency Matches article) whilst someone has the chance to work up a suitable list - I'm likely to be busy all week I'm afraid or else I'd do it. We have a list for the opposition (Europeans cricket team) so there's no reason that we couldn't work up a list on the Indian side as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Blue Square Thing: I have some spare time in my evenings coming up, so can lend a hand splitting the alphabet between us. Ironically, my focus is heading back to Europeans cricketers now the CTC is complete. StickyWicket (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AssociateAffiliate:: I'm away from my home computer which allows me to access CricketArchive easily, so it would be the beginning of next week before I can get anywhere close to this. I'm happy to do so, but we'd need time to get the page wrangled properly - perhaps a closing admin might like to give us a little more time on this one, or redirect to a red link? Let me know if you make a start anywhere in the meantime. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blur Square Thing:. I can make a start in the next few days. A search on CA returned about 80 matches involving the Indians and probably about 30 or so were non-Presidency Matches, so shouldn't take too long. StickyWicket (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 2 June 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 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Asprey (publisher)[edit]

Charles Asprey (publisher) (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)

Well, her we go again. 3rd or 4th time for puff-piece UPE. NO coverage. Refs are passing mentions, PR, event listing, catalogue entries. scope_creepTalk 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I couldn't tell you. It is thing with these folk that are desperate to get the article on WP. I've seen this at least twice in the last decade. This article has been sitting here since 2016, and I think that is probably when the previous one was deleted. It is the name and face for me. The name and the face are very distinctive. It will be back for sure. scope_creepTalk 22:43, 9 June 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 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuzuki Yamato[edit]

Yuzuki Yamato (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 notability. References either just list him as a participant or are bare statistics sites. From WP:SPORTCRIT: Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. Search just finds more stat sites. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 843,000 google hits for '大和 優槻', I don't speak the language but not all of them are stat sites as nominator falsely claims. Once again BEFORE has not been complied with. GiantSnowman 10:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is even a Deutsch article for the same topic (person [Yuzuki Yamato]). And as above stated by Snowman, a lot of google hits links to the person. His basic info, for example, can be found: At jleague.jp page, which is the official J.League page, already referenced in the article; At ventforet.jp, the official Ventforet Kofu page, his current club, in which he has a profile, and a joining announcement; At reysol.co.jp, in which he has a profile, and a farewell announcement; At jsports.co.jp ([1]) in which states he even was a captain for the Reysol U18 team at one of the most notable youth tournaments in Japan; And even a profile at Gekisaka, which also links with other articles mentioning him clarifiedly. I do think he is notable enough, and there is a lot of pages with the same "article style", as this is article is still a stub, so deleting this article of a J2 player and former J1 youth team captain, and leaving many other J3, JFL players with no appearance at J1-J2, don't make that much sense at all. I do think he has the required notability. Skydream1721 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the above two !votes mentions any significant coverage of the individual that would show notability. I favor deletion unless there is significant coverage of the person. (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it would be necessary to delete a lot of other stubs, as there is Wikipedia articles of players less notable than Yamato still public. Also, i still don't (sincerely) understand why can't coverage by jleague.jp, reysol.co.jp, gekisaka, ventforet.jp, jsports.co.jp, ogol, transfermarkt, sofascore, fbref, zerozero, besoccer, flashscore, soccerway, jleague.co, gekisaka, yahoo, soccersports, soccerking, kokosoccer and footballlab be considered significant enough. Skydream1721 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably a keep; he is the main subject of an article on his signing with Ventforet Kofu here, there is a Yamanashi Nichinichi Shimbun article about his role on the team here, earlier specific coverage here, etc. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are plenty of sources in Japanese.Fulmard (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage exists, even if the sources are not in English. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 9 June 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 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cosmic entities in DC Comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of cosmic entities in DC Comics (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 associated article, Cosmic entity (DC Comics), will almost certainly be deleted at its AfD, and this list has exactly the same problems as the main article — namely, it is pure WP:OR without any references, has unclear inclusion criteria, and fails WP:LISTN — except that unlike the embedded list at the main article, it includes additional characters who are not significant enough for inclusion in the more general lists of DC Comics characters. I'm not sure that the definition stated in the lead is the same as in the other list, and I can once again make the examples of Bat-Mite and Starro I gave in the other AfD. At the talk page, there's a discussion with similar concerns from 2005–2006 that I wish to embed here.

During the last AfD in 2020, users argued for trimming the non-notable entries, despite that the trimmed article would be exactly the same as the embedded list at the main article. The contents haven't changed one bit since then. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per the same arguments for deletion already described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic entity (DC Comics). Briefly, no real reliable sources validating the actual information on the concept, loads of WP:OR, and fails WP:LISTN. Most of the characters listed on here are extremely non-notable and do not even have independent articles, on top of all that. The best sources that could found in the last AFD were a small handful of "Top Ten" style lists that could hardly be considered reliable, in-depth coverage. At the time several editors, including myself, argued for redirecting to the aforementioned Cosmic entity (DC Comics), but the recent AFD for that article has demonstrated its own inadequacies, so that is no longer a viable option. Rorshacma (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough blue links to be a valid navigational list. I have the thing that shows which links are for their own articles and which ones are just redirects, there plenty of valid articles for these notable characters. Category:DC Comics cosmic entities also shows how many there are. Dream Focus 00:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And have you actually bothered checking to see how many of these valid blue links are actually to articles on the actual topic? Because many of them are not - they link to the articles on the actual figure of mythology/folklore/etc. that share the same name. These would not show up on your thing that shows which links are just redirects or not, because they are not redirects, they are simply links to articles that are not on the character from DC comics. Just from the first two letters, Abaddon, Adrammelech, Raguel (angel), Artemis, Astaroth, Belial, and Belk fall into that. That last one is especially hilarious, because it links to an article for a department store chain - but hey, its not a redirect so based on your thing, its a valid entry for this list of DC characters! Not to mention, simply stating that it functions as a navigational list completely ignores all of the actual reasons for deletion, including basic verifiability of the topic, described in the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not cleanup. Any problem that can be solved through normal editing can be. Verifiability about a fictional topic, can be done by looking at its article or Category:DC Comics cosmic entities. List articles and categories have the same basic requirements to include things. Dream Focus 01:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely ignoring the fact brought up both here and the related AFD that the very concept of what a "Cosmic entity" is in DC comics is completely undefined in reliable, secondary sources, and within the actual comics themselves. Verifiability cannot be done by looking at its article or the category, because the very basis of what the topic is, is completely WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction reads In comic books published by DC Comics, a cosmic entity (also referred to as a cosmic being) is a fictional character possessing superpowers on a universal, multiversal or even omniversal level, powers far beyond those of humans or conventional superheroes, and usually serving some natural function in the fictional universe in which the entity exists. Seems clear enough to me. Do you have a better name for them? I found some reliable sources call them "cosmic beings" and added a reference to ten things in the article now. Someone with an official book published by DC comics can see what they officially call them. Dream Focus 02:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are never going to convince anyone voting delete this is notable just like you will never be convinced it isn’t notable. What you are doing is WP:BLUDGEONING with stock arguments and non-arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Not “navigational” at all. Categories exist. DC wiki on Fandom exists. Dream Focus, stop trying to canvass to “rescue” blatant junk at WP:ARS. I’ve been as tolerant as I can but this instance borders on disruptive since the article is not realistically improvable. Dronebogus (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read what I wrote or look at what I did to the article? I fixed some problems mentioned and found a reliable source mentioning ten of the entries. The article can be saved. Dream Focus 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met, category serves the navigational purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What I said there applies here as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of reliable third-party sources, and otherwise totally WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cosmic entity (DC Comics) was deleted at its AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the related AFD from LaundryPizza03. Lacks sources to meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Dronebogus and LaundryPizza03; this is just fan/list cruft and doesn't really contribute anything of note that isn't already covered adequately elsewhere. I'm on board with this potentially going to Rescue, but especially given the other AFD that LaundryPizza linked above, I'm skeptical that it would do much good. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 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 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Chavez[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable. Lacks coverage. Refs are PR, clickbait and interviews. On the music side, no social media, no streaming info scope_creepTalk 23:26, 2 June 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 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Weint Sein Gold & Jewelry[edit]

Eternal Weint Sein Gold & Jewelry (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 notability— the only reference provided is a link to the company Facebook page. A search for possible sources turned up nil except for their advertisements, which we cannot use. Helen(💬📖) 23:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the only CCS the article makes ("invented very first Golden Handbag and Golden Scarf for Lady") is obviously a hoax. This is probably the only thing preventing speedy deletion. Aaron Liu (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 08:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article previously rejected at AfC, after which only the formatting was improved and the article was moved into mainspace by the WP:COI article creator. Searches find routine listings ([2]) but not the evidence of notability required here. AllyD (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if it's not a hoax, it's surely spam and a run of the mill jewelry store, one of tens of thousands. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - total garbage, promo, possible hoax. Jacona (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible COI, I admit that the Weint Sein is the country's one of the largest gold market and company. However unfortunately I found nothing coverage about the gold company. Taung Tan (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:22, 9 June 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Country of Austin[edit]

Country of Austin (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 micronation. I cannot find any evidence that it exists, other than its own website. No claim of significance. No coverage in independent, reliable sources. (edited to add: I also tried searching on the founder's name since "Austin" is so common; found nothing.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the original proposal. Absolutely unnecessary, unsourced article. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, too, went hunting for references. "Country of Austin" only turned up travel ads for Austin, Texas. :/ Helen(💬📖) 23:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too did a brief search and found nothing to establish notability. If they had taken any serious steps to establish a country within Missouri, I'd have expected to see at least some local news coverage.PopePompus (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is borderline WP:A11/WP:G3 (as a hoax)-worthy. Anyone can create two websites on free website builders, "claim" any amount of territory, and have a few friends play along. There's nothing at all to suggest that this has any significance. eviolite (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but I was wary of that "borderline" potential and figured an AfD would be more lasting (and allow for future G4s, if necessary). Schazjmd (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the article as I live nearby the micronation. It really is a pretty big deal around here. If everyone wants the article gone I guess there isn’t much I can do. But I don’t see what harm this does by being up as there are genuinely hundreds of people that hold citizenship and the topic in my eyes meets the definition of notable. SoccerTrackFarm3264 (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:MADEUP Reywas92Talk 01:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably speedy, like most micronations, it's complete bullshit. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:MADEUP. Completely unverified content. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete could be a hoax or made up. No info can be found. Samanthany (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable place, without any coverage. It mostly looks like a fiction story. NMasiha (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether it is or not, it looks like a joke, and not one that's received widespread significant coverage. Jacona (talk) 15:42, 6 June 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 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2022 (Christina Aguilera)[edit]

Summer 2022 (Christina Aguilera) (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 the tickets for the UK shows here, this is billed as her "UK Tour" - that's it. There's no specific name for it. The appearances at festivals around the US, Europe and UK do not and have not been promoted alongside the mini UK headline tour. There's no marketing or cohesion that shows this is a single body of events. Its also fair too early - no information beyond dates has been provided. WP:NTOUR applies, as does WP:GNG, a lack of WP:SIGCOV beyond some dates. No reference to any jaunt being called "Summer 2022". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:57, 2 June 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 23:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Lavergne[edit]

Michel Lavergne (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:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that he's won beatboxing championships and that his career is "outlined" in a "compilation" -- but the reference for the first claim is an unreliable fansite and the reference for the second claim is a "Page Not Found" on Amazon, neither of which are valid support for notability. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any proper coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Pack Lambert, Could you clarify that? I don't know what "sports of music endevors" means. Jacona (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to say or. He is not notable for what he has done in sports nor for what he has done in music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Upon looking for sourcing I'm inclined to think there's not really much in the way of beatboxing sources we'd consider reliable for notability purposes, and in any case either in sport or music I can't find much on Lavergne that would imply notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 9 June 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 23:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lane[edit]

Yuri Lane (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 a musician, not making any properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are bit parts in movies (none of whose articles mention him at all) and a Subway commercial, none of which is "inherently" notable in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it, but there are absolutely no reliable sources cited here at all, and the article's been flagged for citation problems since 2009 without ever being improved. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He actually has a useful feature article here: [3], but that's all I can find from independent media and I don't think it's enough for "significant" coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise he has many promotional sites and online press releases that may help him get gigs, but they're not enough for a Wikipedia article. Beatboxing through a harmonica is cool though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG as there is not enough news coverage. Samanthany (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I enjoyed the piece on him but unfortunately I agree that there is not enough to jusitfy an article. IrishOsita (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is without references and does not pass notability or WP:NMUSIC. NMasiha (talk) 20:08, 5 June 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 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KYLU-LP[edit]

KYLU-LP (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 much known about this defunct station; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:11, 2 June 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 23:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Oppong[edit]

Frank Oppong (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)

Propose deletion per WP:GNG. The article has had no references or sources aside from a single external link to a boxing record database, and therefore no verifiable claim to notability, since its creation twelve years ago. It also appears to have been created by the article's subject (the username matches and only edited for a month after article creation on pages directly related to the article's subject). I could not find any verifiable, independent or reliable sources proving the subjects notability. This includes the claim made that the article's subject won gold at the 1994 African Games held in South Africa (which were in fact held in 1995 in Zimbabwe). SamWilson989 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 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 23:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi Series Collection[edit]

Sci-Fi Series Collection (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)

Sources are YouTube and a dubious looking directory site. Nothing better found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 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 programs broadcast by VH1. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Albums[edit]

Ultimate Albums (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 sourcing found beyond a 404 link to TV.com. Just a random one-shot countdown show that got no attention. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by VH1 where it is already listed. The only reference included in the article is not a valid source. Doing searches turns up a few brief mentions of the show here and there, but no actual coverage that would pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:41, 2 June 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 Harris Faulkner. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Faulkner Focus[edit]

The Faulkner Focus (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)

Barely any sourcing found. Has been a stub since forever. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Harris Faulkner. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coverage consists of passing mentions that basically tell Faulkner is the host of The Faulkner Focus, or cable ratings. There are few instances where a singular show was a topic in a singular reliable source like this, but they tell more about opinions of the people involved than the platform they appeared. This Adweek piece is behind a paywall and I was unable to review it. Politrukki (talk) 15:16, 5 June 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 Shalmali Kholgade#Discography as an WP:ATD. Anyone is free to merge anything important to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade[edit]

List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade (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)

like the dozens of other articles with similar title, this isn't a necessary standalone list and is basically just an itunes directory. Anything relevant can be included in the main article about Shalmali Kholgade (as in anything that can be sourced outside of places to buy it.) Abbasulu (talk) 20:20, 2 June 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! 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gürkan Keçici[edit]

Gürkan Keçici (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 some quite reliable sources in the article, however all of them quote the subject of the article. "Gürkan Keçici is a lifestyle coach. He says that you should do bla bla bla." No significant coverage, fails GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 20:33, 2 June 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! 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhat Domurcuk[edit]

Ferhat Domurcuk (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)

Actor without any lead roles. This source from Hürriyet seems ok, but it's only 3 sentences long and doesn't come close to being significant coverage. This from Demirören News Agency would also be good, but almost all of it is just quoting the subject himself. The rest are either "Kimdir?" sources which aren't reliable in the slightest. Fails NACTOR and GNG. This was deleted on trwiki with a deletion discussion. Important thing to note is that now globally locked UPE Seyit12 (also locally blocked here) !voted keep in the discussion saying that he revised the article, so this article might also be an UPE creation. ~StyyxTalk? 20:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Turkey. ~StyyxTalk? 20:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: No evidence of notability. Mr. Seyit Cullum's PR activities... Kadı Message 20:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lostinniagarafalls, Do you have a connection with Seyit12? (Ping to: @Jack Frost) Kadı Message 20:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not turkish and I have no connection with anyone in Turkey. And for a week this is third time you are blaming me for taking money. Thank you. I am not going to contribute to Wikipedia with living people articles. I am so disappointed as you blamed me for money I havent ever taken. I do history articles so you will be far from blaming me taking money from dead people. Thank you Lostinniagarafalls (talk) 20:48, 3 June 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! 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack O'Loughlin (hurler)[edit]

Jack O'Loughlin (hurler) (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 notability. First article just a listing, second is not found, searched paper web site and Donegal Sport Hub, sounds like an interview anyway (primary source, not valid for notability), third just has his name listed. Search finds no significant secondary independent indepth articles about him. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure he's not as notable as the other O'Loughlin (John, who retired this week) but "article makes no support for inclusion" is wrong - it says he won a Nicky Rackard Cup and so he qualified for the Christy Ring Cup - so that is the highest level he could play at - so what more could he do?
So WP:NGAELIC's third part is effective here - he plays in the National League.
And this proves that. And it's about O'Loughlin too and has a big photo of him. And is on the website of a company that owns "over 20" newspapers. I know next to nothing about the hurling up there in Donegal - but then I found that straight away?
So obviously the nominator didn't make a proper search. What newspaper site is he searching anyway? The article used for O'Loughlin, the hurler, isn't even published on a website - so how could a search of some website prove it "fails notability"? "Second is not found" - so it has to be found now to not fail notability? Where is the rule saying it has to be on a website? WP:GNG says - Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.
WP:N says - Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion,
editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:A06:EC58:258F:6289:590C:4636 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So changing NSPORTS didn't change anything to people treating it as an "insta-notability pass"? Besides the sources in the article, which don't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG; this is an interview with O'Loughlin, which is obviously not "independent" of him. In fact, even in the interview, none of the coverage is about O'Loughlin (it rather is about the then upcoming game with another team); so this fails SIGCOV both due to not actually being about O'Loughlin; due to being routine sports coverage; and finally due to not being independent from him... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the absence of WP:SIGCOV about this person. NGAELIC only indicates a subject is likely to have received significant coverage, like other criteria on NSPORTS; it "does not mean that an article must be kept."; and NGAELIC still needs to be upgraded in light of the recent changes to NSPORTS (in fact, it still has the deprecated participation-based criteria; which ought to be fixed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 3 June 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! 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Storm[edit]

Can Storm (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 actor has 0 lead roles; so insignificant that the article of the projects he has appeared in don't even mention him. Regarding the sources, all come from pretty shit websites that no one has ever heard of. "Kimdir?" sources aren't reliable in the slightest, and the rest are simply quoting the subject. tr:Can Storm has been deleted 4 times already and is currently salted. Person fails NACTOR and GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 20:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that he's not even listed in the articles of the films he appears in is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia.IrishOsita (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: Not notable. Kadı Message 20:14, 3 June 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 23:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brushed metal (interface)[edit]

Brushed metal (interface) (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)

Contested prod (I'd forgotten I'd previously prodded this more than a decade ago, to boot.) There's just no evidence this is notable; even among the Macintosh press it was a minor point of contention and style that's been irrelevant for longer than a decade at this point. A relevant line can be placed in Aqua (user interface) (which already seems to adequately cover it) but I see no notability independent of the OS; there was some blogger complaints years ago that didn't amount to anything enduring, or enough to actually write an article about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 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 23:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APN Live[edit]

AfDs for this article:
APN Live (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 website doesn't have any significant set of references that can make it pass WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Nanpofira (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt - no evidence of passing WP:GNG (nor WP:NWEB, nor WP:NCORP). Same as the 2017 AFD. It should be salted to prevent recreation without notability being established. Levivich 20:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's been around for 8 years, but there's no media coverage of it that I can find. The web site is not particularly impressive. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:05, 6 June 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! 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Con Amor y Sentimiento[edit]

Con Amor y Sentimiento (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:NALBUM in both source list and in google search (no secondary sources). Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether there are relevant charts; what matters is that there are independent reliable secondary sources focusing on the subject in whole or in part, and there doesn't seem to be any. Track listings or database entries per the guideline don't apply. Iseult Δx parlez moi 08:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which charts are you planning to add, anyway? As far as I can tell, this didn't chart on any Billboard chart, including the specialist Latin ones, and didn't chart anywhere in Europe. Unless it charted in his home country of Mexico, it probably didn't chart anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charts take time and add nobility I get ticked off when another user knows what the problem is and instead of lending a hand they nominate for deletion. Los Mismos Para Toda La Vida had nobility due to being on Primer Impacto and Sabado Gigante. 47.205.241.49 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find corroborated sources re television appearances then for the album name, and can't now, even with specific keywords/the name given doesn't appear to be in the tracklist. Can you give links? Iseult Δx parlez moi 03:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQOV2Ub9kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfyAQxBBRB0&t=24s
I thought about bringing the article back but chose not to. 47.205.241.49 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine regarding Los Mismos on those shows, though we'll have to do something about sourcing if we get there. My main question though is still what specific connection Los Mismos has to this album, as it doesn't seem to be a song in the tracklist given in the article as it stands. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I brought back Los Mismos and it was reverted. I havent found the charts for this album yet. I posted allmusic source 47.205.241.49 (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. Citing Amazon and YouTube directly both fall under a perennial source category that generally consider them unreliable, as per previous discussions. If you want to discuss about a separate article, then you need to start a separate discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of going through your contributions to find out just what Los Mismos is; it appears that it genuinely has absolutely nothing to do with Con Amor. This is a deletion discussion for Con Amor, not a place to drag other discussions into. And even then, I did not say that Los Mismos/Sabado gigante et al. could be added, only that it seemed fine (promising, okay), providing that better sourcing was found, with the understanding that this all had to do with Con Amor. Why exactly are you voting keep? Iseult Δx parlez moi 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A quick search has confirmed not enough reliable sources can be found to demonstrate this album's independent notability. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:08, 3 June 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. ✗plicit 23:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Jin-yong[edit]

Seo Jin-yong (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 under New Page Patrol No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. The only sourse is stats-only in a database. Tagged since April 26 with no further development North8000 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Prior to March 2022, the KBO League was part of WP:NBASEBALL such that appearing in even one game created a presumption of notability. However, that participation criteria was eliminated. That said, Seo Jin-yong has had an eight-year career as a pitcher in the KBO from 2015 to the present, appearing in 353 games and facing 1,557 batters with a 3.97 ERA. A google search turns up quite a bit -- see here. The Korean Wikipedia page can be found here. I don't have the language skills to analyze the sources and can only hope that we have someone who can analyze the coverage to help assess whether there's SIGCOV sufficient for a GNG pass.
  • Keep. 357 games in a top-level league like the KBO League cannot be ignored just because the sources aren't in English. Jacona (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Upadhyay[edit]

Ashwini Upadhyay (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:NPOL. Rest everything WP:MILL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. It is not necessary to meet both WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. North America1000 02:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in that article to indicate that this person had a real impact on anything covered in there. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doczilla: Your personal opinions about whether or not the subject has made significant impacts is not a guideline-based rationale for deletion. For example, if this type of subjective proclamation were to become policy, we could then delete thousands of various articles about flowers, because flowers often don't make significant impacts that humans notice. North America1000 15:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he were run-of-the-mill, as the nomination asserts, why are there all these articles like these [4],[5] about how unusual it is that he's filed so many PILs? The only language I speak that is commonly spoken in India, out of roughly 1000, is English. I see lots of news articles that discuss him. Who knows how much stuff is available if I spoke some other languages such as Hindi, Urdu, etc. This is in-depth stuff that meets WP:SIGCOV. These are independent, secondary, reliable sources. Beccaynr posted a bunch of them above. He meets WP:BASIC, he meets the general notability guideline. Keep Jacona (talk) 19:10, 11 June 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Park Min-ho[edit]

Park Min-ho (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 under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Tagged since April 26th with no further developments North8000 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Prior to March 2022, the KBO League was part of WP:NBASEBALL such that appearing in even one game created a presumption of notability. However, that participation criteria was eliminated. That said, Park Min-ho has had an eight-year career as a pitcher in the KBO from 2014 to the present, appearing in 229 games and facing 1,098 batters with a 3.88 ERA. A google search turns up quite a bit -- see here. The Korean Wikipedia page can be found here. I don't have the language skills to analyze the sources and can only hope that we have someone who can analyze the coverage to help assess whether there's SIGCOV sufficient for a GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seeing the db entry for 229 games in a top-level league, along with lots of sources in Korean is sufficient evidence of WP:GNG for me. Jacona (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey[edit]

Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey (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)

List of non-notable mayors of a relatively small town. Sourced to a collection of obituaries from local newspapers. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid AfD argument. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the municipality should have mayors is not relevant to this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
    • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
    • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
    • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
    • Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
    • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded for a merge, but would overwhelm that article.Djflem (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:CSC states: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. ... (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.). Don't think CSC can be used to support keeping this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not otherwise notable" notable is subjective. Useful for people researching nation, state and town history as well as new references. "poorly sourced" History books and news articles reflect the basic facts of the start of end dates of their terms as well as names.

jjrj24 (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable. Yes, it's a small town - so what? As long as valid sources exist, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers.Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem (talk) 05:01, 5 June 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! 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubychem[edit]

Rubychem (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 significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McLeod-Skinner[edit]

Jamie McLeod-Skinner (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:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. This has existed since 2018 as a redirect to our article about a prior election she ran in but did not win, and was then repointed (appropriately) to our article about the current election a few weeks ago, until being spun off into a full article a couple of days ago when she won the primary -- but as always, the actual notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and unelected candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they can show either (a) preexisting notability in another field that would already have gotten them an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a reason why their candidacy should be seen as markedly more special than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test.)
But this shows neither of those things, and is referenced to the merely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which is not enough to make her candidacy more special than all the other candidates who didn't get articles just for being candidates per se.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough to earn her a standalone biographical article five months in advance of election day. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not confident where to stand on this one. I'd say on one end that there is more than run-of-the-mil coverage, and her campaign stands out as she took down a high-profile incumbent in the primary. Don't mistake the following as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm just gonna use a couple of other examples from the last election cycle. Marie Newman's article (which was originally successfully AfD'd) was recreated the day she beat Lipinski ([6]); similarly, Lauren Boebert's article was created the day after she beat Tipton ([7]), so it seems there is some working consensus that defeating an incumbent in a primary election generally is a conference of notability. So I'd lean keep for now, and we could re-visit it in the future. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the points Curbon7 made regarding other candidates who defeated incumbents in the primaries.--Woko Sapien (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Curbon7 makes good points, and I'll add a little. The first source is a LGBTQ paper in the Bay Area, well outside the state of Oregon; for queer candidate to have strong showings in multiple successive election cycles, while running in a very rural and "red" region, is unusual, and it has been covered outside the state. The primary win this year is viewed as an upset, as reflected by coverage (not yet in this bio) in national publications like CNN and the Washington Post. I won't say it was an upset at the level of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- clearly it is not at that level. But, it would be well to remember that at that time, the controversy was not about whether AOC was notable after winning the primary; she clearly was. The discussion at that time focused more on whether she should have had a bio prior to the primary. In McCleod-Skinner's case, the fact that her primary victory has earned national media coverage (see here for more) should be more than sufficient to establish notability. It would be best to weave a bit more of it into the Wikipedia bio, but the coverage exists. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has sources that make support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aside from the standard media coverage. IrishOsita (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So I did a bit more homework on this. McLeod-Skinner served 4-year multiple terms on the Santa Clara, CA, City Council. It is a majority-minority town that had over 100,000 population at the time, less than 1% gay population. She pointedly refused PAC $ and was outspent 10-1 or so this year. Schrader was endorsed by both Biden and Pelosi. She shouldn't get an article, say as if she, say, won a race for the (fictional) East Bumford, western Nebraska mayor's position, in a population 32 town where her predecessor only took office because all his relatives voted for him, but because she can apparently walk on political water. Activist (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think that a candidate is notable when the candidate defeated an incumbent in a party primary for a national office and received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected.--Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NPOL, we don't typically keep articles on candidates until they win a general election. If she wins the November election, she'll be notable then. Marquardtika (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If this article stays, what happens if she loses the general election? Then, her notability will be based on having lost three state/federal elections. In the meantime, should Wikipedia approve an article on her opponent, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who has been mayor of a medium size city and won a primary the same as McLeod-Skinner? Currently, LR-D's Wiki-connection is via a Redirect to the 2022 House election article; the same way McLeod-Skinner was connected before this personal article was uploaded. I think we should follow the rules; otherwise, we’re on a slippery slope that could look like endorsing one candidate over another.--Orygun (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is always based on the subject receiving significant coverage from independent sources. I suggest that defeating an incumbent in a primary election for a national office is not routine, and the coverage of McLeod-Skinner following the primary win is not routine either. Multiple articles described this race in the lens of centrist versus progressive Democrat (like this article in The Nation). It is this national framing, coupled with the defeat of an incumbent, that differentiates the subject from other candidates (that is the campaign coverage is a) nationalized and b) not routine). To the other comments, I would suggest a) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and b) Wikipedia is not static. - Enos733 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Orygun You make a compelling point, but I disagree with your conclusion. The situation you describe, where Wikipedia has an article about one candidate but not another, is something that happens all the time. In nearly every case where a challenger is taking on an incumbent for a significant office, we will have a bio of the incumbent, but not for the challenger. From an electoral politics point of view, I tend to agree with you, this isn't ideal, and potentially contributes to bias toward the incumbent. We also have many candidates from third parties, in many races, who never get Wikipedia bios, which potentially contributes to bias toward "big party" candidates. As you suggest, none of this is ideal. But if Wikipedia is going to base its rules on notability, rather than some constructed notion of "fairness," this is how it will often be, and it therefore shouldn't be used as a reason to keep or delete any specific article. Should Chavez-DeRemer have a Wikipedia bio? I'm not sure, I haven't delved into her background. But if/when we do, we should assess that decision by the same process as we apply to McCleod-Skinner: we should assess her coverage based on WP:GNG. If she has sufficient coverage over a sustained period of time, perhaps we will have a bio of her prior to the election. But we shouldn't base that decision (or this one) on a constructed notion of fairness. That kind of fairness is beyond what Wikipedia is equipped to impose. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NPOL as a "Major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage..." from several local and national outlets, the page should be kept for now and should be presumed to meet the notability requirements. Oregonian123 (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean redirect to 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Oregon#District_5. Still not an elected political figure. If this were in draftspace, I would say that we should hold off on this until November. Candidates who want free advertising can go to Ballotpedia. Bkissin (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I don't see enough beyond routine election coverage to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable [8] Andrevan@ 01:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. NPOL is a distraction, leading editors to believe that the article should be kept or deleted based on whether the article subject meets the notability guidelines for a politician. There has been an extensive amount of media coverage of the subject which alone justifies the existence of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Holding office is sufficient for notability, but not necessary. ITBF (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Santa Clara is a city of over 100,000 people, and I'd say 8 years on the Santa Clara City Council is notable. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 9 June 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! 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Releford[edit]

Kendrick Releford (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)

He doesn't meet any of the standards at WP:NBOX. Coverage appears to be either routine fight reporting or listings in databases and so fails the standards of the GNG. Sandals2 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kar Pape[edit]

Kar Pape (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)

Other than some passing mentions, i don't see any significant coverage from any reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:24, 2 June 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. consensus is sufficient sourcing exists. Check with the Wikipedia Library folks to see about accessing the Melbourne Herald Sun Star Mississippi 03:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Schmidt[edit]

Stan Schmidt (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 martial artist, at least by Wikipedia standards. Fails to meet WP:MANOTE. He lacks the significant independent coverage required by the GNG and there's no evidence of him meeting WP:NACTOR. My search found no evidence of competitive success to show him notable as an athlete or martial artist. Sandals2 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, South Africa, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was a high-profile martial artist and celebrity in South Africa in the 1980s, I remember him from when I was a kid. He was a staple on TV (which was a big deal at the time) and even did ads for things like lawnmowers[9] (YouTube has the Afrikaans version, there was an English version as well) because of his celebrity. I’ll look at the sources in more depth, but would certainly meet WP:GNG via WP:NTEMP (South Africa was isolated because of cultural boycotts in the 80s so people like him got lots of coverage See this (non-karate) book which states "...he was a god...every boy knew who he was.."[1]). The article mentions an in-depth People of the South interview: would be good to find that as People of the South was a high profile show in the 90s, but I think he was interviewed in many other contexts. (I have found a 2016 blog post with an inline link to the interview, but, alas it has been removed from YouTube, nonetheless, it is strong evidence that interview exists)[10]
UPDATE: I found a link to this (2015?) profile (paywalled/dead) from Melbourne’s Herald Sun covering him (he retired to Australia):
https://www.pressreader.com/australia/herald-sun/20150323/281827167256216 “Age Defying Sensei Reigns outside Japan”. The Google extract has the sentence "A MELBOURNE pensioner is one of the world's most decorated karate experts. Stan Schmidt, or Sensei Stan as he is known to the thousands he has .." Teaching thousands, being known in multiple countries, and being subject to independent articles along with being associated with multiple schools (found by Googling) seems to satisfy WP:MANOTE. There also seems to be a coverage in trade magazines, but it's hard to confirm their reliability. Park3r (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in commercials is not enough to show notability. Your quote from the book omits the information that the author was a student of Schmidt's, the part where he says "to me and my friends he was a god" and that Schmidt was "my first father figure". All of that is in a thank you paragraph. After that, he's not mentioned again and this can hardly be considered neutral and independent. The "People of the South" interview is an interview, which means it doesn't qualify as significant independent coverage and the review of that interview is by a student of Schmidt's. I still see nothing that meets the GNG standard.Sandals2 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People of the South had a profile of him, according to the article. If that profile existed, it would have been significant independent coverage, since it was a widely watched TV show with significant reach at the time of its making. Making an editorial decision to cover Schmidt in a full episode would be a strong indicator of notability, for that show, at that time, since it was a widely watched and high profile TV show. As I said, the dead embedded video in the blog was a strong indicator that the episode exists, not that the blog itself qualifies as a WP:RS. Making TV ads may not be a sign of notability in itself, but the fact that his personal endorsement, was significant enough to sell products in South Africa’s at the time highly concentrated media market is another indicator of notability: he wasn’t appearing as an commercial actor, he was appearing as himself. It’s getting more and more difficult to find internet-accessible sources on South African popular culture: I know that some of the sources (the blog post, and potentially the book) I added above do not necessarily qualify as WP:RS, however they are indicator that such sources exist and an effort should be made to seek them out before deleting this article. Park3r (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Rank has never been considered to show WP notability in martial arts biographies. If possible, it would be nice to have evidence of his karate championships (dates and which titles). Teaching lots of students is an indication of success, not WP notability. If he really was the "subject of independent articles" and has "coverage in trade magazines", it should be easy to provide a few examples of coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. FWIW, I think it's likely he's notable, but I'd like to see a stronger case made. To get the ball rolling, I'd include the fact that he was twice featured on the cover, and in articles, of "Shotokan Karate Magazine". Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've got the Melbourne Herald Sun profile article which should get him over GNG, but again, it's a dead link/paywalled.[11] Park3r (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some magazine sources about him and articles he wrote. Note that Shotokan Karate magazine called him "the pioneer of South African shotokan karate-do". I still think the article would benefit from more sources in general publications, but I think a reasonable case has been made for his WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added by Papaursa. Making a magazine cover multiple times is pretty significant. He also made a Shotokan Karate cover one more time and received a tribute article after his death,[2] and very early in the run of the same magazine, he had an article written on him as well.[3] -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2pou (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured so prominently in an issue should be mentioned in the article. I'd still like to see additional coverage from more general publications. Papaursa (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Richardson, K.; Park, T. (2009). Part of the Pride. Pan Macmillan Australia. p. 39. ISBN 978-1-74198-749-2. Retrieved 2022-06-04.
  2. ^ Geyer, K.; Cheetham, J.; Clarke, M. "SENSEI STAN SCHMIDT 8th DAN JKA". Shotokan Karate Magazine. No. 143.
  3. ^ Ablott, Sean (March 2020). "STAN SCHMIDT'S DOJO (SOUTH AFRICA)". Shotokan Karate Magazine. No. 7.
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! 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özlem Sarıkaya Yurt[edit]

Özlem Sarıkaya Yurt (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)

Most of the sources are about her death. Her award is not notable. Unfortunately, her notability can not proven. Kadı Message 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Television, and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a detailed look into this because of the awards and also because she was a familiar face from Turkish TV. The awards don’t seem to have been associated with any significant coverage, her tragic early death made it to news but those articles aren’t actually obituaries, they offer no more than a few sentences on her life. The only other source is some speculation about a possible transfer to CNNTurk which is undue. She seems to have been a generally private individual and there’s no evidence of her passing the GNG. —GGT (talk) 14:35, 7 June 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! 23:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhharrth Sipani[edit]

Sidhharrth Sipani (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)

Bit part actor with no parts. Fail WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 2 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Itier[edit]

Emmanuel Itier (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)

My search didn't find significant coverage in multiple independent sources to show that the GNG is met nor did I find any evidence that he meets notability standards as an actor or director. Sandals2 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandals2 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to enough sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Delete poorly cited and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That said, his resume is fairly impressive, and I've seen less accomplished directors or filmmakers with more information about them on Wikipedia. Maybe one day. Gnomatique (talk) 00:08, 5 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collins-Perley Sports Complex[edit]

Collins-Perley Sports Complex (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 seeing the claim for notability here for this local sports complex. Mentions online are all routine local coverage.

Another option could be redirecting to Bellows Free Academy, St. Albans, whose athletics teams use the complex. As the complex isn't based on the school's campus, I'm unsure if a redirect would be appropriate.

Could also be redirected to Vermont Voltage who played here for a time? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:31, 2 June 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! 23:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V-Man[edit]

V-Man (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 minor superhero, whose comic book series lasted two issues. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Cited sources confirm this is not a hoax but do not contain any analysis or in-depth discussion as required by WP:SIGCOV. A redirected and maybe a tiny merge to Fox_Feature_Syndicate#Fox_characters might be appropriate, but keeping this as a stand-alone entry, simply summarizing the publication history and his (rather short) fictional biography, is rather WP:FANCRUFTy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 2 June 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! 23:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugurdy[edit]

Mugurdy (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)

Too complicated for PROD since there appears to be sourcing, but looking at this one and another it's clear they're all reproductions of the same text, likely issued from the company. I found this but there's no indication that's a reliable source, and can find no evidence this search engine found notability. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:45, 2 June 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 Move and rewrite to William Henry (company). Not much feedback after @Jayron32:'s proposal, but no dissent either and it's a viable AtD. I don't see a 3rd relist being helpful in changing the outcome. Star Mississippi 03:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Conable[edit]

Matt Conable (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)

Topic does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability standards and I did not find any other evidence to support the contrary. Source 1 is a trivial mention about topic's company, William Henry. Does not discuss the topic himself. Source 2 and Source 3 does not exist. Source 4 is a trivial mention about topic's company halfway down the page. Source 5 does not exist. Source 6 does not exist, and was linking from the topic's own website. Source 7 does not exist. Source 8 is just about topic's company, William Henry.  Source 9 is actually a decent source, however, it's from PitchEngine which is $14.95 a month to publish your own stories. Moving on. Source 10 is from the topic's own website. Source 11 is a product award given to the topic's company, not him personally. Source 12, 13 and 14 are awards given to the topic's company. None of the sources are SIGCOV about him, as the main topic. There's a couple mentions of him in some blogs and rag newspapers, but none constitute RS for Wikipedia inclusion. I don't believe this topic is notable enough to establish an entry here. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's fair. The New York Times article you mention is Source 1 in my AFD. It's a trivial mention of the company. The Jacksonville Review isn't notable media. However, the Forbes article counts. So there is at least 1 source. The other source of consideration I found is the Blade Magazine sources. The awards mentioned in Source 12 and 13 just state "Investor/Collector Knife Of The Year®: William Henry Studio ST-4010" for example. The coverage isn't SIGCOV, however there is an article here in Blade Magazine and so that should get the company 2 sources. And the Oregonian article you cited should count as a third. But for the founder himself, I haven't found enough to constitute his own Wikipedia page. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the Forbes one is WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did not see that - Excellent call out Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:01, 2 June 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! 06:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2150 AD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2150 AD (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:NBOOK: no reviews, academic or otherwise. Only 8 google scholar citations at all (here: [12]). A previous AfD in 2008 closed as keep, but it's not 2008 en-wiki anymore. asilvering (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has a paragraph on the book. It is mostly a footnote, but it is (mostly negative) commentary. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: failed to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. Google Scholar brings up 5 sources, one mentioned by Daranios above (footnote with minimal commentary). The search also brings up this but it only gives a trivial mention. This gives a small paragraph outlining the plot, no critical engagement though. This gives two mentions but they are both trivial. I couldn't gain access to Utopian/dystopian literature: A bibliography of literary criticism but I imagine it will also give a brief outline of the plot, similar to the other bibliography source. Overall, fails GNG and NBOOK. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to the above, no reviews listed in Book Review Digest under either Plym or the title. But here's a photo of the authors for good measure. czar 03:53, 7 June 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! 06:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. Saravanakarthikeyan[edit]

C. Saravanakarthikeyan (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)

G11 declined without commentary, PROD declined without improvement. Obvious COI from creator User:Writercsk (subject is "known as CSK" per the article). I wasn't able to locate any significant coverage of him as a subject. The awards appear to be marginal at best - either non-notable awards or, in the case of the Tamil gov't Best Book award, actually awarded to a bunch of people yearly (31 in this case) so don't really confer much notability IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That he tweets is a lovely touch and possibly the most notable thing to be said. Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. No Tamil-language sources forthcoming. czar 03:49, 7 June 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) 2pou (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Briefs[edit]

The Briefs (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)

Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. No citations, tagged since 2018 and promotional in tone. It's incredible this has been around for so long. Deleted, moved to draftspace, returned - it just refuses to die. No significant coverage, no chart placings, just no. Fails WP:GNG; WP:BASIC; WP:BAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 2 June 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 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem In[edit]

Anthem In (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 sources given in this 2011 long-tagged yet unimproved throwback and the band's website domain is for sale. The web yieldeth nothing. Charting at 118 cuts no mustard - fails WP:GNG; WP:BAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:15, 2 June 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 France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing. Consensus to redirect, and of the two proposed targets, this had no arguments against it. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Massonnat[edit]

Charles Massonnat (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 not any sources beyond sports stat tables. He was a non-medalist so there is no justification for this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is, Lambert, per the four links I've posted, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you at least five times to refer to me as Mr. Lambert. Please stop being so rude and inconsderate of others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why, is that your actual real name and not a TV/film character, etc? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Mr. Lambert my real name? Because Wikipedia works best if people use their actual names. If there is somethign more to the question, I am not getting what it is. Are you asking why Mr. Lambert is my real name? To answer that is any way besides just saying it is my name is hard and would take lots of discussing lots of things. I have asked repeqatedly for you to refer to me as Mr. Lambert. I do not think it is an unreasonable request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. "There is no attempt to single out articles created by you for deletion" as you've said many times - maybe you can help yourself here too. Why aren't you sending other articles you prod to AfD? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interpersonal tempest aside, I think @Lugnuts meant Redirect Massonnat... not the editor's name Star Mississippi 20:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed. I've fixed that. And thanks to Jacona for his note about it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The latest JPL copy-and-paste. Isn't that what StickyWicket mentioned at the ANI? If memory serves me correctly over the space of five minutes, I think that's precisely what you said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raúl Antoli. The answer to it is the same. Why didn't you use the word Redirect to commence your reason for XFD? NGS Shakin' All Over 19:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've specified France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing as redirect target above. I agree with BM that it's more appropriate, but happy enough either way as long as it is a redirect. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a likely sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karren Hummer[edit]

Karren Hummer (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 Bushxingu (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a likely sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pik-Shuen Fung[edit]

Pik-Shuen Fung (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:NWRITER Bushxingu (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a likely sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. A merge can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grieves[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF Bushxingu (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bushxingu (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This editor just started editing today, made 10 edits and then started deleting articles. Jacona (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not delete. Merge to Digital twin with redirect if that's all he's notable for. There's additional info in this article that could be in Digital twin.Jahaza (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my area but leaning keep. There are two papers over 1000 citations in Google Scholar[26] (1236,1018), another two highly cited (596,226) and a further three (total of seven) over 100. Not all the highly cited works appear to be about Digital twin. Examining this and the other AfDs brought by the nominator, they don't seem to be in good faith. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swift keep. Grieves's work on digital twins is very well known. The article isn't fantastic, and could do with more references, but Grieves is definitely notable in his own right. I wouldn't even merge it into Digital twin: he is notable for work on product lifecycle management and other stuff, too.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a likely sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakkhi Proman[edit]

Sakkhi Proman (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:NFILM Bushxingu (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The nominator is new to wikipedia. He doesn't have any idea about notability. This article already has 13 references establishing firm notability about this film. Abbasulu (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging some editors with Bengali knowledge - @C1K98V, Atlantic306, and Pinakpani: - so they might be able to uncover possible sources about the film, at least 2 reviews of reception would be needed for an WP:NFO — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer - Two reviews? Many countries are poor or less educated. So, countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan or Nigeria doesn't make movie reviews or have enough information about their timeless hit films. That doesn't mean these films are less important. Abbasulu (talk) 18:03, 3 June 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 13:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar Linens[edit]

Poplar Linens (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 small company which doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Subject is a small (5 to 50 person?) textile company, which is similar to any other equivalent company, and hasn't been the subject of any significant coverage. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise, I have improved, found or added a number of sources to support the text. While these sources support the text, none of them materially support a claim to notability (in each case the sources are the subject's own press releases, website, or news articles which mention the subject but which are substantially about something else). Outside of the refs in the article, various searches in national news sources, for example in the Irish Times or the Irish Examiner, returns barely a handful of results. A majority of which are trivial passing mentions or other ROTM coverage that doesn't contribute to CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Cook Islands[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Cook Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: abandoned and extremely incomplete (in case you wonder: the Cook Islands still produce stamps, and have put many people on their stamps since, er, 1949). A disservice to the few readers of this article. Fram (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Oceania. Fram (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is incomplete. I know of one person who was pictured on a stamp in the 1990s who is not listed here. This list is inadequate and that is a sign of triviality and a lack of reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without me commenting on notability, saying that an article should be deleted on the basis of it needing something added does not seem like a good justification to delete. Improvement should always be prioritised before deletion, when possible. CT55555 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is a collection of trivia. We do not have secondary sources that treat the whole subject as something worthy of a list. However an article existing this long that claims to be complete but is not even close is very much misleading Wikipedia users. It is a net negative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:LISTN. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet again, no one has proven how this could meet WP:SALAT. As it stands, it's an unsourced directory with no indication as to why it's a topic worth cataloging even if the contents therein can be verified. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NLIST. Avilich (talk) 02:50, 8 June 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest hip hop[edit]

Midwest hip hop (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 is no topic here other than a List of rappers from the midwest United States. Certainly there is no established style of midwest hip hop: see the Denver source saying "artists from the Midwest have succeeded each with their own unique style and flavor". Chopper (rap) is from the Midwest, but the Midwest is not all chopper. There is no defining style of Midwest rap music except the geography of origin. I suggest creating a list of hip hop artists from this geography. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the introduction to make it more than just s list of subgenres. There's more sources on it than east coast hip hop and an explanation that there's a bias towards midwest hip hop not being a real genre. Complexity or being nebulous doesn't mean it's not a genre as IDM demonstrates. IDM is a nebulous genre with very minimal defining characteristics that even its creators reject as a label and argue isn't a real genre. Same with progressive music. Just like midwest hip hop. If were deleting midwest hip hop based off citations then we should delete east coast hip hop which has way less citations, progressive music and the IDM pages to by this logic. I even explained the distinct influences and lyricism in general for it. I've added sources explaining why it's a genre in and of itself as well as demonstrating the overlap between subregions sounds. At least a few of them. Synthesis is based on sources and patterns it reveals. This is not original research since the citations justify these conclusions. The entire explanation for why it is in the introduction is not entirely synthesis. Many parts are just stating exactly what those articles say. even then extrapolating based on patterns of data from cited sources is not original research that would violate Wikipedia's synthesis policy. A loosely connected genre is still a genre. I have sources that clearly demonstrate there are connecting characteristics between subregions sounds that make it a genre even if those could be considered subgenres of this genre. Umbrella terms as shown by the other articles I mentioned can be genres if there's a minimal set of characteristics. This page thus should be seen as a page needing improvement and based off this it shouldn't be deleted based of wikipedia's own deletion standard. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is very much an established scene of hip hop that has its own identity. Velociraptor888 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the thing. It has a fractured geographic "scene" identity related to various metropolitan city scenes—there's a Dallas scene, a Chicago scene, etc. There is nothing tying the whole midwest area together and it's not a definable musical genre. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i do explain that it is still a genre. being fractured doesn't mean it's not a genre as my sources demonstrate and genres like idm demonstrate. so why should we delete it? Matsuiny2004 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United States of America. North America1000 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is currently a C-class article. The rater tool suggests it should be at least a B. There's lots of information here, sourced with 105 citations. It seems solid. To say it is, I'd need to spend a lot of time reviewing. Even just he first two citations seems to suggest it's specifically a notable thing. But I don't know the sources well enough to say they are. So it seems this is a clear keep. But for me to !vote as such, I'd want to be more certain. Can the people who know and support keeping this make it easier for me to reach conclusions by sharing the top three best sources, ones that are at the intersection of this exact topic and being reliable sources with significant coverage? For now I'm "leaning keep" but will upgrade or downgrade depending on what people say about my comments here. CT55555 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a list of hip-hop artists from the Midwest, and a description of local music scenes. It is a synthesis of ideas from other article, with nothing to support that "Midwest hip hop" is a unique genre. The only explanation in the article is the unencyclopedic "The Midwest style is also more complex with funkier vibes than what you would hear from the coasts." Funkier vibes? Some of the sources cited which try to explain this genre include:
  • "very real and non-pretentious".
  • "The Midwest in particular is considered to be a melting pot of styles".
  • "A lot of rap enthusiasts have trouble pinpointing exactly what the Midwest sound is like".
  • "The Midwest is the bastard child of the American rap scene at large -- unsung and independent, with a massive chip on its shoulder".
  • "It's just grittier".
  • The Midwest style "truly reflects the times. The artists lived the lives they rap about. The lyrics can be overwhelming, but they are truth. They tell the stories about what they have experienced".
  • "Besides the reality of the rhymes, the accompanying music is also unique. 'The Midwest style is also more complex with funkier vibes than what you would hear from the coasts'".
I looked for additional sources and found Hip Hop in America, A Regional Guide, which offered no definition of Midwest hip hop, explaining that "Midwest hip hop artists don't have a well-trodden musical path to follow" (p. 314). Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 9 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Gaikwad[edit]

Ravi Gaikwad (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)

Sourced with press releases etc. Fails WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He is a notable Indian Civil Servant who holds a Senior Position of the Government and is founder of Road Safety World Series, a billion dollar league like Indian Premier League and English Premier league, which had a viewership of more than 450 million people in its first season, last year. He is a player in the Indian Legends team under the captaincy of Sachin Tendulkar. Passes WP:GNG. CricJan21 (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Discounting the refbombed links about the cricket series, it appears to me that the following are the only ones worth consideration. Hindu article about an impropriety inquiry has nothing usable per WP:BLPCRIME. The Mid-day article is clearly labeled as "Brand Media". The Outlook article is an interview. The Economic Times article carries a disclaimer that it is an opinion piece. Hemantha (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ravi Gaikwad is notable, founder of Road Safety World Series, a cricket series playing for the cause of Road Safety. And he is also playing from the India Legends team, creating a series single handedly on his own is itself notable and an impossible thing.

There are many other articles from reliable resources which passes WP:RS. The Hindu - This article is written by newspaper editor Yukti Joshi and The Hindu is a reliable newspaper check here WP:THEHINDU

Economictimes - Story independently covered by Anand Vasu, one of India's eminent Sports writer and editor. As mentioned it does not carry any disclaimer.

Free Press Journal - An article by Joe Williams and news website by The Indian Express.

Asianetnews - A story covered by Asianet News and meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

Outlook - A reliable newspaper, story written by Soumitra Bose, a famous sports writer and editor in the country. Please note this is not an interview.

Rajbhavan - An article by Government of Maharashtra, Again a reliable resources. Passes GNG.

The news Indian Express - An article covered by The New Indian Express, a website by The Indian Express. Passes GNG.

Times of India - The story covered by The most famous and trusted news website Times of India. passes WP:RS, WP:GNG.

The Hindu - An independent story by The Hindu editor Alok Deshpande. Please check WP:THEHINDU.

DNA India] - An article about Guinness World Records covered by DNA India. A reliable news agency in India.

Times Now - An interview by Times Now with International Olympic player Yohan Blake. An appreciation by Yohan Blake.

Guinness World Records - An achievent link from Guinness World Records. passes WP:RS and WP:GNG.

NDTV - An interview by NDTV's sports editor Vimal Mohan. Reliable resource and meets GNG.

Sportstar - An article by Sportstar magazine by The Hindu. written independent and meets GNG. GuliverJack (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.This person is notable looking at the position he is and held such as Chairman of Handball Federation of India, Chairman of Shant Bharat Surakshit Bharat, President of Uttarakhand Football Federation,founder of the Cricket premier league Road Safety World Series and many more. This can actually establish absolute notability and has pass WP:GNG Again, most of the sources are independent reliable source with a significant coverage. Katobara (talk) 24:33, 06 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This article has been properly sourced and thus passes for WP:GNG. The sources provided are credible under WP:RS and WP:AFSL : The Hindu, Times of India, and other cited sources. More importantly, this deletion may be of result of frustration or competition as the user who nominated the page for deletion was created on the same day and after account creation, he made 11 edits on the first day and 7 of them are for AfD. Check user contribution from here. How crazy it is that a new user who starts their editing directly by deleting the article without prior editing knowledge and understanding? How a user with 0 edits understands what's paid editing or non-notable on Wikipedia? Sound fishy, please check out it too. I want to bring this information to the decision making admin. Also, please reconsider the deletion of other nominated pages by the user Balchandra Upendra. Daringsmith (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable article that meets the WP:GNG criteria.--Tysska (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bergqvist[edit]

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

unable to find any independent, reliable source with a quick wp:before. in fact, half the results are of some other johan bergqvist.

refs consist only of bands's and personal websites, a sv.wiki page (???), and obscure websites. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 2 June 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 13:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CIA in fiction[edit]

CIA in fiction (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 articles as the same problems as the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Force in popular culture Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture and like. Mainly: "mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft." Like them, it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. This just more of the mostly unreferenced trivia ("In Ronin, Robert De Niro portrays a former CIA officer."). The tiny amount of prose content is either irrelevant or likewise, trivial descripions. This type of content is not encyclopedic - it's pure OR that belongs at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/CIA . Note that like often, BEFORE and even the Furter reading section suggests this topic is notable (well, perhaps as CIA in culture>CIA in popular culture, see this discussion,but nothing here is redeemable, so WP:TNT is needed (although the further reading section does provide useful sources, so if anyone feels like rewriting this into even a stub, go for it). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all. This isn't a notable topic because it doesn't include any reliable independent sources about the CIA in fiction, as per WP:GNG and WP:SALAT. There is a consensus about this. (It's possible that new sources could write a new article that meets our policies, but there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from the current article, and it would be a WP:TNT situation.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete I agree with the nominator here, none of the sources seem to be about the topic. Fans of this article can easily make me reverse this decision by simply showing a book, a news article, an academic paper about CIA in fiction and I'll pivot in a second. Until then, I'm not convinced. CT55555 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Largely consists of non-notable pop culture trivia, with no real sources that discuss the actual overall concept of the CIA's portrayals in fiction. There are some legitimate sources discussing some of the specific examples, but cobbling them together without any sources actually discussing the overall topic is WP:SYNTH. For example, there are a couple of legit sources discussing the section on Charlie Wilson's War, but we already have an article on Charlie Wilson's War to include this information, and those sources do not discuss the portrayal of the CIA in fiction beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Anti-Virus[edit]

Gateway Anti-Virus (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 "product" Mooonswimmer 11:49, 2 June 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! 23:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Arabistan[edit]

Emirate of Arabistan (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 suffers from heavy WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:VER and WP:POV issues. Examples can be found in the discussions at [30] [31]. It has already been established that WP:RS heavily contradicts this article and its contents (such as the newly created article Safavid Arabestan). HistoryofIran (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per talk page. Benyamin (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Split per [32] -- Qahramani44 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see any reason why this article should be deleted. There has been a continuous attack on the article's page by those attempting to erase the Arab history of the region in question. It appears that the same 4-5 accounts are constantly on the offensive trying to remove as much information that discusses the Arab identity of this region. From what I understand primary sources can be used on wikipedia, but instead every primary source used on the article was removed as "original research". I do not think that official British documents from the British archives are original research. And even if they are, the page doesn't have any archive material left, so why the WP:OR? Instead of trying to help form a better article, the 4-5 contributors have gone out of their way to remove as much material as possible. It doesn't take much to do some research and see many references to the Emirate of Arabistan both in English and other languages, unlike the newly created page "Safavid Arabestan" with its newly created name that has no historical mention whatsoever. VivereInPace (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't take much research, then why do you keep attempting to add WP:OR sources to the article, as you have just done recently? [33] Unlike this fictional article, Safavid Arabestan is backed by high quality academic sources (I.B.Tauris, Brill, etc) and leading scholars (Rudi Matthee, Willem Floor, etc), and which haven't been mixed together either for that matter (WP:SYNTH). I highly advise you to read the afromentioned rules, as well as WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. Also, all of those 4-5 users are established users, not just some randoms. There's nothing wrong with removing information that violates several guidelines, but there is certainly in adding. I can't help but feel all this looks like tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what WP:OR is? Or do you just like throwing it around every time you see something that you don't like?
The definition of original research in the policy is: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
This definition is clarified in a footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research.[1]
Also, the link that you provided on Edgar O'Ballance doesn't say that he is just a journalist, but that he is a military journalist, researcher, defence commentator and academic lecturer specialising in international relations and defence problems. Seems pretty reliable to me. And I don't see why there is a problem with the source as the history of Arabistan is relevant in the context of the Gulf War.VivereInPace (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there are zero (reliable) sources that support the history of this so called 15-20th-century Emirate of Arabistan which you made through a mix of WP:SYNTH, non-WP:RS, etc ([34]), then yes, I still stand by that you are engaging in WP:OR, amongst other violations of guidelines, such as at least WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:VER. It is not for nothing that huge amounts of information have been removed by veteran editors [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and several discussions have been made against it, including one where you mixed several sources together to push a certain point of view, a section where you failed to answer Pahlevun [43] What relevance does O'Ballance's qualifications have to do with this historical topic? Is it his military journalist background? No? His 'research' (whatever that could be)? No? No His defense commentary? No? His academic lecturing in international and defense problems? No? Then what is it then? Could these qualifications be relevant for modern events? Probably. Since you just read WP:OR, you might want to read WP:SPS next. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not WP:OR. The Emirate of Arabistan has historically existed so you can't say that it is original research when there are sources that say that it did. And there are currently no self published sources on the page so I don't know why you are mentioning WP:SPS. The points that you are making are specific to contributions. If there are still any problems within the page, they should be resolved. That does not mean that an entire article should be deleted. In addition, given that the history of Arabistan has been suppressed it is more difficult to find secondary material, especially in English, hence the use of primary sources and even O'Ballance, who, despite everything you said, is still an academic writing about a historical event. VivereInPace (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained (just like how you haven't explained a lot of things, including Pahlevun's recent concerns in the diff above) how O'Ballance is reliable, when he is not specialized in this field, not even being an actual academic historian. Anyways, we could sit and argue all day. Ultimately the diffs speak for themselves. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I have not managed to convince you that the O'Ballance source is unreliable then you should remove it. Similarly, all the issues that have been identified have been removed. And if there are future issues on the page, you can also remove them. Again, nothing that you are saying warrants a deletion of the page. There is also plenty of work to be done shed light on the history of this region.VivereInPace (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research
  • Delete Per persistent failure of the creator of this page to rebuff the sound concerns raised at the article's talk page, over a very long period of times, all of which are based on numerous core WP policies (WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, etc.). Their persistent attempts at sweeping these justified concerns under the carpet, combined with their only interest being a very small part of Iranian history, I believe they are finding themselves deep within WP:OWN, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:AGENDA and WP:TENDENTIOUS territory, which will probably require ANI at some point (we may have crossed this line a long time ago already). Their attempts at labeling numerous established Wikipedia users as "the same 4-5 accounts" only serves to reinforce this. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a reason to delete the whole page. As per Wikipedia, "It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough." And you are absolutely right in saying that the history of Arabistan is "a very small part of Iranian history", because it is. Arabistan (and by Arabistan I am referring to what is today the south western part of Khuzestan and not the entire province) shares more with the rest of the eastern Arab world than it does with anywhere in Iran. VivereInPace (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the term "Arabistan" applied to southwestern Khuzestan only dates back since the Safavid period, yes? And as I pointed out in the talk page [44], this article hasn't yet decided what exactly it should be. There was no "Emirate of Arabistan", there was an (attested) Emirate of Muhammarah, ruled by the Bani Ka'ab from 18th-early 20th century, and there was a "Province of Arabistan" (since 16th century to 1925). The two are separate concepts since the former sometimes only controlled a sliver of Arabistan and the latter's borders changed wildly over the centuries. This current article seems to have an identity crisis between being "Emirate of Muhammarah", "Safavid/Qajar Arabistan", and "History of Arabs in Khuzestan". All three subjects while related are extremely different in their timeframes and details and splitting this article into those three components makes a lot more sense than arguing over whether the article title is legitimate or not. Lastly, conspiracy theories about "history suppression" and other nonsense is the kind of stuff belonging on forums, not on Wikipedia. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I believe the article must be improved and some sections are poorly written, I oppose to removing most of Wikipedia pages on historical subjects. In particular, this subject seems notable and needs additional review, and probably second opinion of the experts on the Arabic history. I also wonder why no one tried to improve the article as Wikipedia policy clearly requests to first try to improve it. If necessary, I'm ready to do some additional research in the coming weeks and leave the sources (if found) on the Talk page for a new discussion. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the issue. This article is not a historical subject. Qahramani’s comment up above yours perfectly summed it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the results of the key words search:

My point is that there are plenty of sources to be found and improve the page based even on the initial search here. I see no sense in deleting the article only because it is poorly written. We are not talking about company or a person here, - it is a historical region. However, I may agree that "Arabistan" might be more appropriate and I do not mind to change the page's title, and it most certainly has to be improved. --Onetimememorial (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS, those first two links are far from reliable. The two remaining links are just searches for it (no one is disputing the existence of the word 'Arabistan' either). Moreover, it seems that you did not read the diffs above either. If people are going to come with their opinion, experienced or not, could they please do it at least somewhat thoroughly? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm probably not an expert on Arab or Persian history but I still did some research. Now I feel that you are trying to diminish my vote by implying "I'm an expert and you are not". I don't think it is a constructive discussion if someone is condescending in dialogue - what do you think?
  • Second, you simply stated the the two first articles are not reliable. Can you detail why they are not reliable?
  • Third, I just realized that there this topic exists on three more pages - Punjabi, Arabic and Urdu. I also noticed that most of the people here are experts on the history of Iran but my point is that if the page exists in three more languages that means that we need more experts who know those languages. This is why I think it is preliminary to delete and I now change my opinion to speedy keep. --Onetimememorial (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existing in different languages doesnt make this article anymore legitimate. As for your question, kindly click on those links I linked up above, as those will address it. Also, I apologize if you found my tone concending, that was not my intention - I will try to do better in that regard. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine, second article is from Al-Arabiya which is the state media of Saudi Arabia. In the Emirate of Arabistan Google Books link you sent a couple of the (first page) books appear to be questionable (one by David Frum who seems to be a political partisan not a historian, one near the bottom which appears to be written by the Syrian Ba'ath). The second link shows mostly 19th-century (British) primary sources so their use should consider WP:PRIMARY principles. Other than that no issues in my opinion, it's mostly about sorting historians from political partisans. --Qahramani44 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A lot of the arguments for deletion seem to be based on verification issues. While problematic, this is not a reason for deletion. The state of the content has no bearing on notability, and this state existed and is discussed by sources, and, in fact, my Google Scholar search terms up at least four sources not even used here discussing the state's occupation, annexation and general status, dating it from at least 1857 to 1923. If the deletion argument was that the current piece is so bad that it should be removed from mainspace, then I would expect arguments for either draftification or WP:TNT, but there are neither here. And again, there does not appear to be an issue with notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that my suggestion of splitting the article is basically the same as WP:TNT, so "there are neither here" is incorrect. I don't think anyone here is disputing the existence of Arabistan as a historical region, only how the article + its title portrays it. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 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 11:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The University School[edit]

The University School (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 evidence of any notability on Google. Tube·of·Light 10:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Kennedy (designer)[edit]

Janet Kennedy (designer) (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 notable. An obituary in The Guardian doesn't push us past WP:BASIC "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". She worked for a company who made kids' clothes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Fashion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in the journal Textile is substantial and provides sufficient information to sustain a bigraphical article. Vexations (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She doesn't just work for a company that made kids' clothes, she had a durable impact on children's fashion, and South East England arts and crafts. I'm sorry if the first version didn't fully convey this, and will add further secondary sources. e_mln_e (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at very least, merge to Clothkits Clothkits is definitely notable and had a huge impact on British fashion in the 1970s-80s. It sounds like Janet Kennedy and Clothkits were so intermeshed and merged that it may make sense for their articles to be in the same article, unless she also had a significant career outside the company. It wasn't just kid's clothing by the way - loads of adult clothing too, I had a teacher in primary school who ALWAYS wore Clothkits stuff! I do look forward to seeing how the article grows and expands, but I don't think it should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GNG is met by multiple substantial reliable independent sources. The tagline on the Guardian obituary makes the notability clear: "Print designer for Clothkits whose sew-it-yourself patterns defined the look of 1970s childrenswear". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the Guardian and Textile sources. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, an obituary in a major national newspaper has generally been held to equate to noability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K. Sudhakar[edit]

Dr. K. Sudhakar (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)

Repeatedly recreated and draftified with different titles. Perhaps best to finish this once and for all through AfD then. Fails WP:N; no evidence found that this is a notable person, just some passing mentions. Fram (talk) 09:39, 2 June 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! 06:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living Dark[edit]

Living Dark (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 game fails WP:GNG as there's no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the WP:ROUTINE announcements citing press releases and/or the teaser trailer in 2017/early 2018. My searches bring nothing, as it went vaporware since and the developers started focusing on other projects apparently. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. A cursory search of the game reveals a great deal of complaints of it's lack of progress, imminent demise, and lack of information not only from reporting outlets, but from the developers themselves. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG now, and it appears unlikely that this fact will change anytime soon. Gnomatique (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost no sourced coverage comes up besides its first impressions. Even if this game is actually coming out at some point it is WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every hit from WP:VG/S's search is a December 12, 2017, announcement coverage. I do not find any coverage at all since. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable independent sources to verify WP:NOTABILITY. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON where a game was announced, and it wasn't clear whether it was a serious project. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:36, 2 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apopka High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Apopka High School (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. Alumni do not make the school notable. The Banner talk 08:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school is 91 at least 121 years old. It has a current enrollment of over 3000 students. There are 20 references in the article and at least 15 notable alumni at the time of nomination. Jacona (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 15 of the sources are about alumni and not about the school. Most of the given sources are databases or listings. Not independent in-depth sources. The Banner talk 10:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, User:The Banner, the given sources don't really matter to establish notability, it's whether or not the sources exist per the guideline. Do you disagree with the guideline? Is there a different policy or guideline that would show that the article should be deleted? Thanks. Jacona (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the given sources DO matter. Most sources are about the alumni, not about the school. The article need independent in-depth sources that write about the school itself. See also WP:RS. The Banner talk 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school is apparently older than the article indicates, as I found numerous newspaper references as far back as 1906. Jacona (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1906 graduation... [45] Jacona (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to me the very fact that we cannot say A-when the school was founded B-why exactly that article gives a founding date after that graduation. Has the school been in operation continuously? What sources show us this? We do not have adequate sourcing to tell us this, we cannot write an adequate article, there are not reliable sources speaking about the school as a subject in a way we need to write an adequate article, we should not have this article. Some of this attempts to date its founding strikes me as original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article shows 1938, [46] shows a picture from the State of Florida archives showing the original building in 1901, the original building destroyed in 1918. The school has over 3000 students today, there are thousands of sources when you click "find sources", the school is referenced in many, many, other Wikipedia pages (not that wikipedia is a RS, but because if you bother look at these articles, you will see additional sources. Jacona (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a geocities source that I've listed on the article's talk page for discussion. In addition, there are articles on the integration struggles in the 1960's, contributing to GNG notability. I'll be adding those to the article, but I'd appreciate other editors' participation in the talk page discussion. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A secondary school with more than 3,000 students is guaranteed to be notable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Does the number of students lead to independent, in-depth sources? The Banner talk 13:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because common sense....It is not "guaranteed", but it's going to be true. It is also not "guaranteed" that a very old school will be WP:N. But it is incredibly likely, and so our time would better be spent discussing all the tiny private schools that have been around for a few years. Discussing large, very old schools is (IMO), a waste of time. My time would be better spent elsewhere, Scorpions13256's time would be better spent elsewhere...your time is yours, and you've decided this is worthwhile, so here we are. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we need reliable, independent, in-depth sources. Not guesswork. The Banner talk 14:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are dozens of RS in the article. There are hundreds on the internet. This is not guesswork, this is you don't like it. There is a book that goes into great detail about the school. There is evidence of a great many historical offline documents. Even if these sources were not currently in the article, policy clearly states at WP:NEXIST " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." Are you saying your opinion overrides policy? Jacona (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, there are the accusations. Most of the sources are database sources about the alumni, not about the school. Further you have some statistics and a source about the building (again, not the school). Sorry. The Banner talk 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you do a mind trick and imagine that the list of alumni was split off to a separate article. What is left then? The Banner talk 15:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I'll do a proper search later. Normally, I would have come to this discussion armed with sources. However, the size of the school makes me almost 100% certain they exist. Since late 2020, I have only encountered 1 AFD of an American secondary school with more than 400 students where the article was ultimately deleted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since the 2017 RFC, schools have to prove notability. Not that they exist. The Banner talk 11:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Here is one. Here is another. more time just to be safe. I am just scratching the surface. I haven't even looked at the local sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the way, per the numerous reliable sources in the article, and the numerous others available both online and offline. The existence of notable alumni does not diminish the notability of the school, as the nomination seems to suggest. Jacona (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • some sources) Here are some sources about integration at Apopka, around 1969-1970: this one article, two parts [47],[48]. Some more: [49] [50] [51]. Here is another 2 page article [52], [53]. Jacona (talk) 18:46, 11 June 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! 05:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Military of Love (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)

Television series that was announced and then cancelled; the only available information is the original announcement, and as such there will never be in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Previous keep arguments were based on the assumption that would be released, which were incorrect. Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 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! 05:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Keng Hong[edit]

Chun Keng Hong (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:34, 2 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial event[edit]

Celestial event (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 seem to have any real possibility of becoming more than a simple definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Time-domain astronomy is not what comes to mind for the term, not even close. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A generic term that's too vague to even REACH WP:DICDEF. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, this is just a definition of a generic term. Aldebarium (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't even a term that has a simple definition that is not subjective. It is mostly used in the title of a news article to promote an eclipse etc. to the public. There are no authoritative sources that define the specific scope of the term. I couldn't even find a dictionary definition. --mikeu talk 21:04, 4 June 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. BD2412 T 03:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports under construction[edit]

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

See WP:NLIST. For example 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. This is also inherently unmaintainable, as construction status changes across this large list continually. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:08, 2 June 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. Nobody has challenged valereee's improvements, so I take silence as equalling consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Friendly[edit]

Vegan Friendly (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 some reliable sources about a commercial, but no in-depth coverage. It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and only mentioned in passing in the independent references provided on page. Meatsgains(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article got better by improving it Adam080 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should I improve this article to avoid being deleted? Is it that it does not have enough reliable sources? What do you mean there is no in-depth coverage? Adam080 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm improving the article! :) Adam080 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deleting this!!! It is a good article!!!. The organization and its founder Omri Paz have lots and lots of coverage in Hebrew! Their materials and lectures have been viewed millions of times!!! Like look at these sources: [54][55][56]חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But maybe we should try to find articles that the main subject is not vegan friendly, that way it is independant Adam080 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really the same here, Omri Paz is Vega Friendly and Vegan Friendly is Omri Paz. And these sources cover Vegan Friendly activity. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seeing decent covergae, and some already added, not really seeing grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject, as required by WP:NCORP? MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Last chance to reach consensus!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've gone through and heavily edited, and I think this is a notable organization. There's sigcov in multiple RS, including outside of Israel. valereee (talk) 17:19, 4 June 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 move to Draft:Gar Robinson. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Robinson[edit]

Gar Robinson (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 have had a draft on this subject sitting in my sandbox since December and the reason I hadn't added it to mainspace then is the reason why I am nominating this article now; WP:GNG is still not met and the driver's accomplishments don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT. Appears to have been added on the premise of him attempting (and fialing) to qualify for a single 2nd-tier NASCAR race in an attempt to make a database on NASCAR drivers, which Wikipedia is not (hence the use of infobox:NASCAR driver in mainspace as opposed to infobox:racing driver that should be used for a driver who's actually made starts in IMSA and Trans-Am). -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Texas. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think he does meet the new version of WP:NMOTORSPORT, but this could be more a reflection of oversights in that guideline than it is of his notability. Twice winner of the Trans Am TA2 class and winner of the IMSA LMP3 class I think both count towards point 5b in NMOTORSPORT. But I can't find much coverage of him, and it's mostly routine, eg [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Note that some of this was from before he won the LMP3 title. So I'm not sure at the moment, perhaps that part of NMOTORSPORT needs to be rewritten, perhaps he is notable enough. A7V2 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - not enough biographical info to be considered for a mainspace article. As it is right now it looks like just a results list with nothing much else, which can easily be found on driverdb. ~XyNqtc 16:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 June 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. I just can't find any rationale for deletion. Article quality and/or content and ways to improve thereof can be discussed on the talk page or at WT:MATH, in this case there's no need for TNT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of areas of mathematics[edit]

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

A glossary requires that the entries are well defined. This is not the case of subareas of mathematics.

The relationships between areas of mathematics are very complicated (inclusion, common subareas, etc.), and are completely hidden by the glossary structure. This glossary is exactly as meaningless as would be a flat list of Wikipedia categories.

Moreover, most item descriptions are WP:OR or WP:NPOV, when they are not blatantly wrong.

So, I suggest to delete this article D.Lazard (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot that, six months ago, I submitted already ⋅this article for deletion, and the result was keep. However, I do not withdraw this nomination, because Mathematics#Areas of mathematics has been written since the previous discussion, and this section may change the result of the discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The value of a glossary is not given by the relationship between concepts referred to in the glossary, no matter how complicated those relationships are. The alphabetic structure of a glossary is standard for a glossary to avoid conceptual disputes. Glossaries are standard on Wikipedia, and are useful for their linguistic features such as diachronic phenomena, semantics, pragmatics etc. There are definitions of areas of mathematics in existence, and areas of mathematics have been talked about for hundreds if not thousands of years, so conceptually they exist too. If we're able to speak about the glossary contents within corresponding articles, then we're able to speak about them in the glossary too. A lack of interest should not be a reason of deletion. Brad7777 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In contrast to physical books, if there is a term someone don't understand in an article, it should be wikilinked. But I think this list can find mathematical objects X that don't even know their names. That said, if someone accesses an article on the list, it doesn't mean that they can always understand the article they visited, so this list meets WP: technicall. That is, each term in this list should be given a summary. --SilverMatsu (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only "each term in this list should be given a summary", but this summary must not contradict the linked article (presently, there are many such contradictions), and the summary must make explicit the relationship between areas (inclusions and partial inclusions). This latter functionality would better be fulfilled with a Wikipedia category Category:Areas of mathematics. So, I incline to add to my !vote delete the recommendation of creating such a category. D.Lazard (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A category would not encompass many types of relationships between terminology used as areas of mathematics. For example, categories do not include synonyms. Also, about 10 years ago a category for areas of mathematics was found to be problematic by the mathematics community for reasons such as the choice of word "area" over others such as a "branch", "subdivision", as well the inclusivity criteria. The advantage a glossary has, is the opportunity of explanation with inclusion. It should be consistent with the articles too. Brad7777 (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The dispute was about Category: Subdivisions of mathematics, with Category: Fields of mathematics persevering. The dispute consisted of inclusivity criteria; fields of fields were deemed unworthy of inclusion, with indirect links being "decided" as sufficient. Brad7777 (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don’t think just deleting the article is a good way to go. I agree that there is some difficulty writing the article like this because of various ambiguities. The deletion, however, is not an answer. —- Taku (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO we should have some canonical listing of areas of mathematics, so as to help readers navigate the field. Right now, unfortunately, we have several such listings, which are fairly different from each other:
Though I think the first and last should be kept as neat navigational tools, I think we should all merge the other three into Outline of mathematics or some title like that and accept for now that the resulting article will contain some OR. Maybe if someone wants an alphabetized listing we can keep Glossary of areas of mathematics as an article, but its usefulness as a redirect to the canonical list is sketchy.
Duckmather (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree with User:TakuyaMurata: I don't think deletion/redirection would resolve or clarify existing ambiguities as much as allowing it to evolve via more comprehensive (but emminently doable!) organization would. I vote keep. Gnomatique (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 What do you think about moving to the draft space until the article is improved ? I would suggest it, but it is often considered the backdoor way of deleting (AfD). --SilverMatsu (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly its how it is, I rarely ever see content actually improved in draftspace.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unconvincing repetition of a delete rationale previously shown to be weak. No reference was made in the nom to the fairly recent keep consensus of D.Lazard's last AfD; I commented then on the weakness of that nomination, although I did not !vote. If I was to summarise the consensus of that AfD, I would say that participants found that it was not shown that the glossary was useless and several editors thought it was in fact useful, that Wikipedia benefits from a plurality of ways of finding material, and that the claimed arbitrariness of the inclusion criterion was not borne out by the reasonable quality of the glossary. This nom essentially ignores that previous discussion, starting with a sentence that contradicts the consensus of the previous AfD without observing that fact, which is poor practice. Don't renominate an article for deletion unless you are able to make a stronger case and willing to it properly. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the discussion before accusing other editors. The previous afd is mentioned in my comment done immediately after the nomination (9 minutes later). I explained there the reason for not withdrawing the nomination, namely that there is now a better description of the areas of mathematics, at Mathematics#Areas of mathematics. This section has been completely rewritten since the first afd. D.Lazard (talk) 13:51, 8 June 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Ndzana Kana[edit]

Sébastien Ndzana Kana (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:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This footballer is notable for his part in Cotonsport's run to the 2008 CAF Champions League Final (he scored a goal in the semi-final too), and I think there is enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG - in particular at camport.com. Jogurney (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the quality of identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep based on the combination of contributing to a significant team achievement as a player, and continuation as a coach. BD2412 T 03:05, 9 June 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 01:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Eagle (voice actor)[edit]

Eddie Eagle (voice actor) (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 significant coverage. His most important roles are "Narrator" and several "Narrator, DVD Trailer". SL93 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 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 Eidos-Montréal. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Engine[edit]

Dawn Engine (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 game engine. One source is a press relief. Of the remaining sources, one doesn't directly mention the engine at all, and the rest are one sentence name drops. This is a proprietary engine with little coverage, none of it significant and indepth. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources were added after I opened this AFD, but none are an improvement. More primary sources, more single sentence mentions, and another source that makes no direct mention of the engine at all. Almost all coverage is in relation to passing mentions in sources about the two games that used it. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the press release with a third party source. The other primary source is a technical presentation from Game Developers Conference. Merko (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seemingly non-notable, and abandoned game engine. I would have said merge to Glacier (game engine) but that appears non-notable as well. The only SIGCOV noted in the article is this article and various other stuff are merely based on interviews, i.e. primary-sourced. I would definitely ask to see the WP:THREE best sources that prove the article is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm WP:THREE: [1] [2] [3] Merko (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said, the MCV piece reads as a cross between a promotional release and an interview. The OXM source is also an interview. with a generic Staff byline. The third source barely mentions the engine, talking mostly about TressFX with big quote blocks from a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In any event, I'd also be fine with a merge or redirect to Eidos Montreal as stated below. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eidos Montreal. While the coverage is mostly routine in nature, MCVUK provided significant coverage, and the OXM article is an interview that has many crucial information about the development of the engine. I don't think we should outright delete all the information here. OceanHok (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @OceanHok I actually suspect the MCV article may be a press release or interview. I'm slightly concerned that the byline is simply "Staff", and most of it is direct quotes from Eidos Montreal. Coupled with the wording of the very last paragraph is what makes it feel like a promotional piece rather than an independent article. That said, doesn't mean the merge would be inappropriate. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that the sources I provided while creating the article demonstrate significant coverage and prove that this game engine is notable enough to warrant its own article. Merko (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I mentioned it above already. Merko (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I can see the sourcing to write a small blurb at the parent article, but not enough to meet the GNG or warrant a spin-out. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I wouldn't be heartbroken by a merge, either. It's only used in two games (two-and-a-half?), but they were fairly major titles. The article isn't huge, but it looks pretty well-sourced and doesn't appear to have any major issues. I'd be afraid that detail would be lost if it were merged to the Eidos-Montréal (parent company) article, which honestly isn't much larger than this article. Interestingly, I note that Eidos-Montréal doesn't mention or link to this article at all, which should probably be addressed whatever the outcome here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenOfAllTrades The problem isn't detail or content, but the fact that nearly all of the sourcing is primary and interviews. There is no single source that is clearly independent and sigcov, and GNG isn't met as a result. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Eidos Montreal per OceanHok's rationale. In my own search I was not able to find many sources that were not either primary sources or only mentioning the engine in the context of publicizing the games that used it, which leads me to believe that it is only notable in the context of those two games and their creators. The information should be appropriately incorporated into the pages covering those topics (like under the "Development" section of the page for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided for instance, where it is already covered in about as much if not more detail than this page), but the engine is not in and of itself notable, and to most Wikipedia readers will only be of interest in the context of the games developed with it. It is therefore, in my opinion, better off with WP:NOPAGE. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Merging to the company responsible for development would be the outcome most consistent with the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glacier (game engine). — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eidos Montreal per OceanHok. In the absence of substantial use of the engine by other game developers, I don't see much reason for departing from the precedent noted above. My only reservation about the merge is that the game engines documented by these two AfDed articles share a development history, suggesting a case for a common article, but we appear to lack the sources to write this article. I would support creation of an independent article if adequate sourcing were to come to light. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save Virgil[edit]

Save Virgil (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 a notable film. Found no reviews, no in-depth sources, no anything beyond Wikipedia page clones, IMDb, various junk sites, and a single interview with the creator that makes up a small part of an obscure book. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • TBH, I almost gave up partway through because there was just so much junk out there. It makes up 99.9% of the search results. I suppose it having Gary Coleman in it probably piqued my interest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Manaf Mamat[edit]

Abdul Manaf Mamat (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep nine caps for the national team and enough sources around, passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of sources out there, see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 - all from the first page of a Google News search of 'Abdul Manaf Mamat'. Did nominator even comply with BEFORE? GiantSnowman 15:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 are obviously not significant coverage, and neither are 2 and 4 imo: just a couple of sentences devoted to a transfer. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about former star Malaysian footballer (cup winner with several international caps) which appears to satisfy WP:GNG. I've added a couple Malay-language articles from local newspapers Berita Harian and Harian Metro plus a Malay football blogpost which I think are SIGCOV. It would be nice to have access to The New Straits Times archives since Manaf accomplished most of his success from 2007–11, but I think there's enough in the recent stuff that is online. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 3 June 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 Kiribati international footballers. As ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Miriata[edit]

Martin Miriata (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; all sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 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 Kiribati international footballers. As ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaon Miika[edit]

Tiaon Miika (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; all sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 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 Kiribati international footballers. as ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beniamina Kaintikuaba[edit]

Beniamina Kaintikuaba (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; all sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 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_June_2&oldid=1095422387"