Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ssenkaayi[edit]

Simon Ssenkaayi (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)

Unambiguously promotional and does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. Ploni (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very much an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am not convinced he is sufficiently notable. Even if he were, I think the article would need significantly trimming anyway to remove the fluff like "Ssenkaayi is a dynamic personality and highly-sought-after resource in both corporate and non-corporate initiatives". This is essentially an advert and not appropriate for an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 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. Consensus is clear. But @TeriEmbrey: if you want this in draft, just let me know. Star Mississippi 03:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it to draft. Most authors don't publish more than a few books. Ruggero has had published a lot of titles. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Ruggero[edit]

Ed Ruggero (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 significant coverage or reviews as per WP:AUTHOR. Appears not to meet WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 23:51, 22 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! 23:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Miranda[edit]

Bella Miranda (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)

Promotional, and appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A coach to famous people eh? wow, that's vanity spam right there. non-notable. Created by a red-linked user, surprised it's been around since 2016. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An overly promotional article. Not everyone who has a job, even one working for "famous people" is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 23 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! 23:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Mills[edit]

Alden Mills (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 in-depth coverage; appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 23:39, 22 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 14:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storehouse (charity)[edit]

Storehouse (charity) (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 sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]) whose topic is on the charity, but they're not significant enough imo to indicate notability. SWinxy (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 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! 06:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis and Charlie[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are a few Google hits, but no significant coverage. Even the two sources are not in-depth about them. I tried the book notability angle and couldn't find anything. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:05, 24 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 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings.. No prejudice against re-expanding to an article if additional sources can be found. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August Höglund[edit]

August Höglund (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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources have yielded virtually nothing except for one name check in a directory listing. The two primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability, and I am unable to access the almanac listing in the article. Even if the almanac listing provides significant coverage, it is still only one source, and nothing else appears to exist. North America1000 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Sweden and Utah. North America1000 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a Master's thesis here[10] that mentions him briefly, but which also refers us to a number of other sources regarding the early history of the LDS Church in Russia: "See Kahlile B. Mehr, “Johan and Alma Lindolf: Early Saints in Russia,” Ensign (July 1981): 23-24; Kahlile B. Mehr, “The 1903 Dedication of Russia for Missionary Work,” Journal of Mormon History 13 (1986-87): 110-123; Kahlile B. Mehr, Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002); Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1997), and E. A. Eliason and Gary Browning, “Crypto-Mormons or Pseudo-Mormons? Latter-day Saints and Russia’s Indigenous New Religious Movements,” Western Folklore 61, no. 2 (2002): 173-207." There's also a Desert News article from 1991 here[11]. Also here in a book from Brigham Young University Press[12].Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Journal of Mormon History article is here[13].Jahaza (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a partial source review. If possible, Jahaza, could you provide links for the unlinked sources above? North America1000 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The thesis contains one very short footnote sentence about the subject, stating, "August J. Hoglund to Anthon H. Lund, 18 June 1895, Millennial Star 57 (27 June 1895): 414.". This is not significant coverage, and theses and dissertations are questionable as being usable on Wikipedia to qualify notability.
That is incorrect. Page 49 of the thesis discusses August Hoglund and states that the topic of Hoglund's trip to St. Petersburg has been covered elsewhere and provides the footnote I reproduced above. The thesis was later published as an article in The Journal of Mormon History[14]Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deseret News article contains two short sentences about he subject, stating, "In 1895, Elder August Joel Hoglund, a native of Sweden, was sent to St. Petersburg, Russia, where he arrived June 9. He met with the Johan M. Lindelof family and baptized Johan and his wife, Alma, on June 11 in the river Neva." This is not significant coverage, and is essentially routine reporting.
This isn't routine reporting per WP:ROUTINE, which is things like announcements, weddings, community meetings, store openings, etc. it's the opposite actually, it's an article written in 1991 about about a historical event that shows interest in the topic persisting long after its occurrence.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe only provides snippet views, but it doesn't seem that there is significant coverage there. Snippet views will often highlight several name mentions when they are present, but there are only two there.
  • Ensign (LDS magazine) is a primary source that is not usable to establish notability. It was an an official periodical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • I cannot access the Journal of Mormon History article. Does this contain significant coverage, or is this also only a passing mention?
Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel is available here[15] with a page on Hoglund's trip to Russia and his observations there.
To be frank, this is time-wasting quibbling. There's verifiable history here and really no debate about that. Your original deletion argument rested largely on the fact that you couldn't access the source cited in the article and so it could be discounted, not a good argument and on the fact that you couldn't find any other sources beyond one name check in a directory, but it was very easy to turn up articles, papers, and books discussing the man. If you don't think he's notable enough, just redirect it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia, where he's already mentioned. There's really no reason to not make it a redirect as he's consistently mentioned in LDS materials and materials about the LDS Church in Russia (see, e.g. this Vice interview[16]), making his name a plausible redirect to the article where he's mentioned.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out if you google "2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac" the Internet Archive scan is high up in the results, with one sentence on Hoglund.[17]. Obviously that's not enough to make an article out of, but I think it's signifigant for his notability that he shows up in a source like that in the compressed history of the LDS Church in that country, like an early missionary or proto-martyr from the Catholic Church would.--Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Coverage of the subject that is viewable is very scant; there is no significant coverage at all among viewable sources. I also seriously doubt that Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe contains more than just a couple of sentences or so. Just because a subject is verifiable does not mean that they are automatically notable per Wikipedia's standards. However, I am fine with a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia. North America1000 18:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete as has been discussed. I took a look at the Journal of Mormon History reference, and similar to the other sources this individual doesn't get more than a one or two sentence mention. Could definitely be used in the main Russia article, but not notable enough for its own. Rollidan (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main focus of the article is that he was the first person to convert a Russian resident, but his trip took a mere 10 days. Nothing else is said about his work in Sweden. Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I approached this with every intention to dispute suggestions for deletion since AH was "the first" in something but after I went through the sources proffered above by Jahaza I saw they're mostly about, as Jahaza put it, "the early history of the LDS Church in Russia" and not about our subject. There is no defensible independent notability. Let's Redirect this to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia and Merge there any text that can be saved. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. Important person as the first to bring the Mormon faith to Russia. 2600:100C:B225:154F:B91F:FF21:8F3F:FBF4 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a merger tag down here at the bottom of the AFD but I don't see a wellspring of support for merging this article. But I'll give it another week to consider this option, knowing that this AFD can be closed earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The merger tag there is a record of the fact that there has been a suggestion of merging it, and therefore, as per WP:MERGE, it is proper that the putative target be notified, which has happened. If merger is not the likely outcome of the AfD discussion, that need not delay closure. But maybe when it is closed, the closer would remover the notification from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard LeBlanc (director)[edit]

Richard LeBlanc (director) (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)

Totally non-notable legend in his own lunchtime. Emeraude (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He's a flight attendant and was scheduled to be on Strombo in 2008, with no further details. I think he owes us lunch for letting him lag around on wiki for so long. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Brunswick. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. Please do not mock BLP subjects in deletion discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some sources to evaluate include [18], [19] and [20] (I don't know what kind of source academia.edu is), [21]. I have not analyzed these thoroughly yet. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this should be considered along with the also-unreferenced article Cubers. Merging them, redirecting one to the other and adding sources might be the best option. Jacona (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm inclined to agree that this fails both WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:NACTOR, in spite of the minor media attention his film Cubers received when first released. –Ploni (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more feedback regarding the merger/redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better would be to delete Cubers as well. Emeraude (talk) 07:32, 23 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 Antonija Šola. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anđele[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. It should be redirected to Antonija Šola. MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaloto Feao[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Being Tonga national team's top scorer ever and the second most capped Tonga player is a pretty significant achievement. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:53, 23 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. Lots of discussion here about possible article mergers but it was in the realm of hypothetical so any suggestions about the specifics of merging pages should go to another discussion forum to resolve. I don't think an additional relist would influence this outcome as the consensus is, while these articles need work, they should be kept. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Pakistani television[edit]

List of years in Pakistani television (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)
2005 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While verifiable, I'm not sure if they meet WP:SALAT. Most of these "lists" have only one or two entries. I don't think there's enough verifiable content here for a list even if they were combined into, say, 2010s in Pakistani television. Furthermore, most of the sources are either WP:PRIMARY, 404, unreliable (TV.com), etc. And while not itself a reason to delete, maintenance is horribly deferred on these -- the 2013 list was vandalized in 2020 and no one caught it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of them have enough entries to have a list article such as 2014 in Pakistani television. You can merge short articles together. If they have blue links then verification of what year they were created in can be found in their own articles, no need to have it in a list like this. Also please stop nominating list of this nature. We shouldn't have to keep having the same arguments every time for the same exact sort of thing. Dream Focus 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I even pointed out why I opposed a merge: even merged, there's too little verifiable content. The sourcing just isn't there. Further, "lists of this nature" -- you mean like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1928 in American television, which closed as "delete" for literally the same reasons that I brought to this AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes they are saved, sometimes they are destroyed. Its all determined by whatever random people show up to argue. Dream Focus 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly how AFD is supposed to work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- these topics are themselves notable, even if the articles themselves are incomplete (as Wikipedia always is). Information on these are typically verifiable by taking the sources from the relevant pages that are linked to (or could be linked to), and the information in the articles, where present, goes beyond the relevant categories by providing specific dates, etc. These aren't the same thing as the late 1920s American TV articles -- Pakistani TV is very well established in the 2000s, as opposed to it being a fairly new and speculative medium in the US at the time of that set of articles. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all They are not even empty and have listed notable items. They can be kept. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So a "list" can have only one item on it now? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, merge others. 2005 to 2013 should NOT (!!!) have been spun out and need to be merged back into the parent. The WP:SALAT failure claim is unjustified. Elsewhere, TV program lists should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR, however, that does not apply here as some context is provided. No objection to decade articles. This is actually a good idea! gidonb (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proposal as to where they should be merged to, or by what criteria some are merged and some kept? Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, merge/redirect to list of years in Pakistani television and a minimum of 10 shows for SPINOFF. Thanks for asking! gidonb (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this one more week to enable those who want to merge articles to state a) which articles they are talking about and b) where these articles would be merged to. Without specifics, this is an editing task that lies outside of an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep For now. Proposal by Gidonb can be discussed outside here. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:24, 27 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Springs, Steuben County, Indiana[edit]

Cold Springs, Steuben County, Indiana (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 place doesn't "feature" the resort; it is the resort. There are some cabins which technically are not part of the resort proper, but according to this page from the resort website, they are leased from the resort because the latter completely surrounds them. The resort itself is not famous, so this needs to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Albeit a source we can't rely on for meeting WP:GNG, the local lake association website does describe it as a community separate from the resort.[22] ("This next 1 ½ mile of shoreline is the area known as Cold Springs, named for the natural springs found on the grounds.") Certainly there's great overlap in local usage, however.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neighborhood lacks substantive independent coverage. Reywas92Talk 01:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything helpful. Fails GNG, not a recognized populated place for GEOLAND. Jacona (talk) 20:41, 29 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 Human–computer interaction. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human–computer interaction (security)[edit]

Human–computer interaction (security) (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)

Unsourced. Further reading is a thesis and random articles. Presumably a subfield of human-computer interaction and could just be a small section in that article. ZimZalaBim talk 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect The current article on human-computer interaction doesn't have anything about security, and it should! This material isn't great, but it'd suffice as a start for a new section in that article. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Human–computer interaction, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above. SWinxy (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge w/o redirect; I agree that this is too short to be its own article (though I definitely think it could be one someday with a lot of work). However, this title is not suitable for a redirect, since it makes it seem that "security" is disambiguating the phrase "Human–computer interaction", which is wrong. (I'd support redirects from stuff like Human–computer interaction security or Security of human–computer interaction, though.) Also, quick FYI for the nominator: if an article has a list of references/further reading/external links but is otherwise unsourced/under-sourced, then the right tag to apply is not {{unreferenced}}, but rather {{no footnotes}}. Duckmather (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point that it's an awkward article name. The talk page suggests that usable security would be a better approach to naming an article on this topic, and I agree — "usable security" is the term of art, and it'd be a great article topic if somebody wanted to work on it. But still, reviewing the list at WP:R#KEEP, I believe a redirect would still be helpful to prevent link rot for external sites linking to the article, and because it'd preserve the non-trivial edit history. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:06, 26 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 Draftify. for incubation and potential improvement. Recommend going through AfC to avoid G4 issues if returned to mainspace. Star Mississippi 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carlston Academy[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. The best source is Refinery29: secondary, independent, in-depth, but only arguably reliable (see the RSP entry). Breaking Code Silence on which much of the content is based, is not reliable. Much of its content is quoted from user-generated content sites, like Reddit. The Legal Newsline piece is only tangentially about the facility, and the rest of the sources are non-independent. I did not find any better sources using Google News, Newspapers.com, or The Wikipedia Library. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being worked on so let's move it to the draft page. There are more sources to incldue. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this school, there is independent coverage on the school that is notable. There is the Refinery article and additional ones.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/06/10401693/troubled-teens-programs-industry-problem
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wilderness-therapy-camps-paris-hilton-b1984632.html Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent source came up in my search. The whole relevant content in it is just "She spent the better part of the next two years at Eva Carlston Academy, which is viewed as another cog in the TTI machine." That's not significant enough a mention to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple articles about it being a notable TTI program and featured in articles seems to be notable. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as per WP:ATD. There is one reference that meets NCORP criteria for notability as it stands, the article in refinery29.com. The rest are either PRIMARY sources or mentions-in-passing. Searching for sources has not uncovered anything significant for me. Farr4h2004, the original author, has requested the article is draftified and this appears sensible. I note one editor says it reads like an attack page and I agree that the article should have better balance - something else that can be worked on in Drafts. HighKing++ 20:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the "attack page"-iness can be addressed in draftspace, but I don't think this article has enough potential notability for draftification to be the right move here. I'd gladly endorse your position if one more NCORP-compliant source appears during this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, if another NCORP-qualifying source appears, this topic just about NCORP meets notability and I'd !vote to Keep. Which is why I think Draftify is a better option right now - for that reason and the re-balancing. HighKing++ 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The school is receiving notability in the news https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/21/utah-man-flips-off-his. This article is solely about the school. So there are several article about it now. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to vote Keep 1keyhole (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now a Keep on this, as a second NCORP-compliant source has been published and mentioned above by Farr. I'd withdraw and speedy close as the nominator, but can't do so since there has been another delete !voter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the second source is NCORP-compliant but it's marginal. And as noted above there are serious enough issues that I'd prefer to see improvement happen outside of mainspace. I'm changing my !vote to Draftify. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. Not in good shape at this moment. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The SLT article appears to satisfied some here that it meet NCORP. The article is about a neighbourhood protesting the school's proximity. My issue with this article is that to establish notability, it must contain in-depth information about the organization from an unaffiliated source (as per WP:SIRS). There really isn't anything in this article that meets the CORPDEPTH criteria. Firefangledfeathers, Farr4h2004 is there a particular part of that article you think meets the criteria? Happy to [[WP:|HEY]] if I'm missing something here. HighKing++ 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi HighKing. I'm thinking the first few paragraphs of the section "Eva Carlston Academy moves in" are significant enough coverage. Do you disagree? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Firefangledfeathers, what kills that for me is the "according to its website" at the end of the first para... HighKing++ 10:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I think there's enough other stuff there, even without the line that is attributed to their site. We can glean:
    • When ECA got its license
    • Where the first facility was
    • Expansion to three facilities in the first few years
    • Year of purchase of Olympus Cove facility
    • Protest from Olympus Cove residents
    • Staff responses to the protests
    • Entire history of the court case over the stalking allegation
    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and require the article to be approved through an WP:AFC review per High King. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is strong enough to pass WP:NCORP, but time in development could reach that point eventually as more sources emerge.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sourcing is poor, and has serious WP:NPOV issues. The entire program structure section is sourced with a primary source and a link from a non-profit that tries to prevent abuse in treatment centers. I'm not even sure there's enough here to consider adding some general info to Residential treatment center#Controversy. I Googled the school and don't see any reliable media coverage beyond the piece posted above that discusses the protest held by the neighbor. There are a lot of protests for lots of similar businesses, as well as sober living homes, but that doesn't make the business notable. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Reluctantly. I'm not certain this is notable as I can only find the one source that would go to WP:ORGCRIT, the refinery29 article. It has passing mention elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do to have an article on each institution of this type, though certainly the category of institution is notable. FalconK (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahe Malafu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:34, 22 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. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Zamboanga City[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Media in Zamboanga City (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:NOTLIST Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Content in this article consists almost exclusively of links to various related Wikipedia pages. As such, the article serves as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The few entries that are not linked can be removed, or WP:REDLINKS can be added if the topics are notable, which encourages article creation. North America1000 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational list, more useful than a category since it contains more information for people to sort through easier. Dream Focus 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best this can be merged to the main article of the place. GenuineArt (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not the most helpful of nominations, but this is indeed what this all boils down to. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northamerica1000 and Dream Focus, already emphasized as a valid navigation list. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Zamboanga City, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Zamboanga City has 108k+ bytes, merging this to its "Media" section will only make it longer. I suppose the reason why this article exists is that it was WP:SPLIT from that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 28 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. A Merger discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 03:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idol: The Musical[edit]

Idol: The Musical (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)

Played off-Broadway for a month and flopped. No notable sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable fact of the existence of the show ought to be on the main article anyway, so I have just put it there. I haven't linked it, because if this is deleted that will result in a red link inviting re-creation, but if this survives the AfD, perhaps someone will throw square brackets around it. If not, there really doesn't seem to be anything else worth merging. Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And was promptly deleted from that article without even the decency of an explanatory edit note, which I have raised at talk there. But that does raise the anomolous situation whereby a decision to merge cab be made at AfD with no reference to the target of the merger, which would not be possible under a normal merger process. Kevin McE (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if even the fans don't care enough about it, I would say that counts against notability. That said, I would support KevinMcE's suggestion to merge to the main American Idol article as I think this show is mainly notable as part of the larger American Idol phenomenon rather than as its own thing. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to wait until AfD is over to propose a merger: merger rather than deletion is a valid AfD ourcome, effectively proposed by both Coolabahapple and yourself before I got here. And I wouldn't take one editor's actions as representative of 'the fans'. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge to American Idol article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to American Idol#Cultural impact. This will require discussion w/ the fanboys over there, as the first attempt was immediately reverted. However, as I stated above, the subject of this article is only notable in the context of the larger cultural phenomenon that is American Idol. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this solution. If it is properly referenced with a review and a ref that confirms the dates, it can be merged into the cultural impact section at American Idol and should survive there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest thing to do would be to port over the introduction. It gives a good overview and it's properly sourced. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, we now have Template: Merge from AfD to invite them to discuss it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that template is now in place there. Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't port over so much. Just the following: "A 2007 musical, based on the show, called Idol: The Musical, played off-Broadway.[footnotes] The musical closed on its official opening night.[footnote]" -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more than a single line would be excessive. I wouldn't call it a merge. Hzh (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to American Idol, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 23. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion on whether to keep or not, but oppose merging. The musical merits a single line mention in the American Idol article irrespective of what happens to this article, but merging some or all of the content (such as the suggested porting over of its introduction) is not acceptable, it would distort its significance to the TV show. Hzh (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a line and a half? And we also need to define a "line." After all, a line next to an infobox or a photo is shorter than a full, unobstructed line. Are we counting cites? What if the cites cause a word or two to go over onto a second line? I'm starting to feel like John Adams in the musical 1776. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:10, 24 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. It doesn't appear to be a strong consensus, but no one is actually arguing to delete. With no input on the relist, I don't think another will change the consensus. Star Mississippi 03:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Salt Lake County Council election[edit]

2004 Salt Lake County Council election (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)

Municipal election, routine event with routine local coverage. WP is not Ballotpedia and is not a database of all elections. MB 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure how to apply WP:EVENTCRIT here; it's not lasting per se, but it's one of two instances in which Democrats have gained seats in the last two decades on this body, and I wouldn't really categorize elections of the governing body of the largest county in a state as routine, given that examples in the guidelines include press conferences and sports matches. There're also all the other elections pages for county and municipal boundaries on here. At the very least, I don't think a delete is clear; maybe merge at the very least. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into what article? Kevin McE (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Eventually this should not be a stand alone article, but all the council elections should be covered succinctly somewhere. Deletion is not the way to get there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If you think these are a violation of what Wikipedia is not, perhaps we need a discussion or RFC regarding all the articles in all the subcategories of Category:Local elections in the United States by state or territory, Category:English local elections by year, and any other similar categories applicable to other countries.. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure while I'm really not a fan of stats only articles or articles about routine events, I wonder about systemic bias about levels of government here. This council covers about twice the population of Montenegro, yet I can't imagine anyone arguing that Montenegrin national elections are routine events. (In the US at least) local governments have considerable powers and are actually competitive, whereas rigged elections in countries such as Azerbaijan or Rwanda could be argued to be more routine since the victor is determined ahead of time, yet we still have articles on these elections. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anaseini Maucuna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:57, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koleta Likuculacula[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:56, 22 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! 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukaba Ligavola[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lewamanu Moce[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 22 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! 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival[edit]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival (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. This is a whole stats-only article about 1 sport at 1 year at one festival. No sources that discuss the topic. the only sources is a canoe assoc. website that discusses 1 race. Tagged for this since July 2021 with no change. I would have merged but there nothing to merge. One sentence that says that the overall festival was held and that's it except for tables which included about 80 100%-red-linked participants. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Olympics. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is youth sports. There is questionable coverage of the Festival. Five years after, it is a sea of red links with names of the kiddos that competed. For many of them, it may just be WP:TOOSOON, but most likely none of them will ever be WP:N, at least not for canoeing. Wikipedia is not a place for parents to put up brag sites about their kids competitions. We could have millions of articles, and it still wouldn't be enough. Jacona (talk) 10:53, 23 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! 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Simonelli[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NWRITER. – Ploni (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notable works. Only one independent EL from a reliable source, and it is not about the subject, but only a review of one of his plays. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of self-published works does not make a person notable. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:02, 29 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! 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party (United States) federal candidates in 2010[edit]

Constitution Party (United States) federal candidates in 2010 (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:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:10YT. A list of candidates of a minor party, the overwhelming vast majority of whom fail WP:NPOL, whose bids for office were all unsuccessful. This is a one-off list (no such corresponding lists exist for subsequent election years) that seems to hold very little, if any, historical value or usefulness to Wikipedia. Sal2100 (talk) 21:42, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stas Zhitsky[edit]

Stas Zhitsky (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. Following deletion discussion on Russian Wikipedia. – Ploni (talk) 21:03, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Rizk Abdu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. Likely conflict of interest issues as well. – Ploni (talk) 21:00, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matauddin Peerzada[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, Gujarat, and India. Ploni (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone finds RIS in Gujurati. I don’t find any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see what makes him notable. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most references are in Gujarati, the personality may not be notable enough. I couldn't find significant coverage in more reliable newspapers. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Possible self-promotion. Most of the article is sourced from the subject's personal website. NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:57, 29 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Chan[edit]

Kelvin Chan (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:NBUSINESSPERSON. Likely autobiographical (User:Mandykc). – Ploni (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Hong Kong. Ploni (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete refbombed but I don’t see any in depth coverage in RIS. If material is found in Chinese I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Kelvin Chan (traditional Chinese: 陳德安; simplified Chinese: 陈德安) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The best source I found was this article, which discusses his company Korean Corner but contains little biographical coverage of him:

    "港商代理韓紙品家具 打入日本市場" [Hong Kong businessman acts as an agent for Korean paper furniture to enter the Japanese market]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2017-08-14. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

    Cunard (talk) 07:45, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Bernal[edit]

Chrissy Bernal (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 general notability guidelines. – Ploni (talk) 20:42, 22 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! 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Obokese Ampah[edit]

Nana Obokese Ampah (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 enough to warrant an article. – Ploni (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage that I can find. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 22 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 BoJack Horseman (season 1). I know tempers can run high in deletion discussions, especially when editors find themselves frequently on opposite sides of article discussions but let's stop with the recycled accusations. If you believe there is serious misconduct occurring, and not just different understandings of content guidelines, please take the discussion to a noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live Fast, Diane Nguyen[edit]

Live Fast, Diane Nguyen (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'm unable to find any significant coverage of this episode other than the single AV Club review already cited in the article. Restoring the redirect to BoJack Horseman (season 1) seems appropriate signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and California. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. No sourcing exists at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's quite true, the source I mentioned in the nomination [26] IMO is an example of significant coverage...but we need additional examples to justify keeping the article. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you insist on making up stuff. There is sourcing in the article, the nominator mentioned it in their rationale, yet you insist on saying "no sourcing exists". DonaldD23 talk to me 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you insist on wikistalking me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that anyone monitoring any delsorts or similar pages has had you thrust into their faces multiple times per day since you started your current spree? Artw (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I have been monitoring PROD and AfD pages for several years now. With the amount of articles you have nominated and deleted we are bound to comment on the same ones frequently. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenpoundhammer - the sources could be impeached, but anybody can see there are sources that existed at the moment you posted this. Why would you state there was no sourcing, when there is? I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you aren't capable of reading the article and discerning what superscripts and "References" mean. Jacona (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the implication of "no sources beyond the very meager ones already in the article, which do not constitute sigcov on their own" was obvious, but apparently not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered just not exaggerating/lying all the time? This pattern of behavior from you is incredibly annoying, makes discussion pages look a mess with all the explanation/excuses/counter accusations from you, and wastes a bunch of users time. It is ENTIRELY avoidable if you restrict yourself to truthful statements. Artw (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And where in this discussion did you say any of that? Another untruth. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "No sourcing exists at the moment" had the implied "...beyond the very minimal sourcing already in the article, which I do not feel is sufficient." You want me to spell everything out every time? And maybe lay off the personal attacks? And maybe not twist my words and claim that I'm lying? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "No sourcing exists at the moment" is completely unambiguous, and is completely false, no twisting of words is required to determine that. Your signature states "What did I screw up now?", which invites other editors to tell you, which has been done. As for WP:NPA, your wikistalking accusation above would also qualify. How about you leave all this kerfuffle off this AfD, which deserves a hearing and take it to either WP:ARBCOM,or WP:ANI where you are so well-known? Jacona (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't imply...spell it out every time. This way there is no confusion. And Just pointing out "what you screwed up now". DonaldD23 talk to me 01:06, 27 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! 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.M.G. Kibria[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources based on the citations in the article, and I was unable to locate additional sources in my own search. Extent of publications does not appear to be enough for WP:NACADEMIC. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Bangladesh, and England. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For transparency, noting that I have removed a large block of text copied verbatim from [27], but I have not removed any of the original citations. DanCherek (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited sources are: non-independent capsule bios on the websites of his employers, a passing mention in a press release, brief mention in a tabloid-style medical story, and various papers he has written or citations of those papers. The citation counts are unremarkable for the field of medicine, with his most highly cited paper cited just 30 times. Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG, and no evidence that he meets any criteria of WP:PROF. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DanCherek,
Professor Dr SMG Kibria is very well none surgeon in Bangladesh. I have included all trusted news where SMG Kibria was covered. Yes, May be I don't know the perfect way on Wikipedia and I am really sorry for that. Experienced person like you can please help the solution or the best way so that this page can be published globally with all the trusted source. WP-KIBRIA (talk) 13:58, 24 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Manning (museum educator)[edit]

Anne Manning (museum educator) (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 enough significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 18:52, 22 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. While the flaws with the nom with respect to English-language sourcing have been addressed, no sourcing has been identified that meets GNG in Russian either. Star Mississippi 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave...[edit]

Don't Leave... (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)

Meager sourcing, no sources in English. All plot. Seems like a minor effort. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Me and user Newyorkbrad are both against deletion of this article. This demand that a Wikipedia article must have English language sources is completely ridiculous — Wikipedia must have international editors and articles of interest to the whole world, and not just for American audiences. Just Another Cringy Username has a history of needlessly tagging decent articles for deletion. This user has been a Wikipedia editor for only 4 months and has an obsession with deleting articles rather than creating or improving them - he/she is possibly a vandal. Me and Newyorkbrad on the other hand have had our accounts for many years. Just Another Cringy Username should be investigated. Er nesto (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's more the fact that the sources are slim at best, English or not. Leaning delete on this one unless someone can find better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Leonid Nechayev? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no requirement that all sources must be in English. I'm surprised to see this mentioned as a deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, there are only two cites, neither of them in English. This might be a good subject for Russian WP, but it probably doesn't merit inclusion here. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think that the Russian Wikipedia has such different standards from the English? Once again, there is no requirement here for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the only sources anyone can find are in Russian, it makes me think that the subject is only notable in the Russian-speaking world. Not that hard to fathom. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very hard to fathom that a serious encyclopedia should restrict itself only to topics that are sourced in one language. That whole approach is against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Would you say that the Manx Wikipedia should only have articles that are sourced in Manx? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. However, just because an article is notable enough for Manx WP, does that mean it's automatically notable for every other language? Even if the subject of that article is unknown in that language?
    I never said sources should be limited to one language; I said articles should be limited to the language of their sources. Manx WP need not limit itself to Manx sources, but if only Manx sources can be found, then that topic is probably not appropriate for, say, German WP.
    Here we have an article for which the only sources offered are in Russian. If you can find English sources to supplement the Russian ones, by all means edit them in. Otherwise, I would argue that the lack of RS in English makes this topic more appropriate for Russian WP than for English. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, it doesn't even have an English-language title on IMDB - so I'm not sure anyone will ever search for "Don't Leave..." on en-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ru-wiki does have very different standards for sources than en-wiki, at least in practice (their notability guidelines appear to be a translation of ours). Those two sources on the Russian article are both to youtube. Neither would be admissible for notability criteria here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent sources in Russian either. ru-wiki even has this sentence: "И юбилейный для фильма год, и смерть Красавина остались практически незамеченными в средствах массовой информации." ("Both the anniversary of the film and Krasavin's death went virtually unnoticed in the media.") -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and asilvering. That excerpt from ru-wiki seems to support absence of notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My thanks to those editors who checked out the Russian article and sources. It's times like these that I regret that in my schooling I've studied 5 languages for about 2-3 years each rather than 1 language for 5+ years so I'd be some help with the necessary translation work around here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 29 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Peck[edit]

David Peck (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)
Mosquitoes Suck Tour (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 business consultant and a separate article about his speaking tour, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. The referencing in the BLP is entirely to the self-published websites of organizations directly associated with the claims being made, which are not support for notability, and the tour is almost entirely the same except for a couple of stray hits in suburban community hyperlocals not representing enough coverage to get it or him over WP:GNG -- and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google properly, all I found was the exact same hyperlocals or accidental text matches for different David Pecks, with absolutely no strong coverage to repair this with. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Peck or the tour from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see a number of individuals with the same name, but nothing to suggest this one is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 22 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! 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Fehér[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:NACADEMIC (see [28]). Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. – Ploni (talk) 17:54, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Nand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:44, 22 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 Cook Islands national football team#Coaches. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Napa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Oti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frederick Rest[edit]

Paul Frederick Rest (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)

Likely fails WP:NBIO, and wholly promotional. – Ploni (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Martial arts, United States of America, and Ohio. Ploni (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proof of notability in the article and the search links don't show anything much. The author has not been seen since 2016 and the subsequent edits have just been cleanup. It's not totally spammy but I agree that it seems at least somewhat promotional. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence of significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. There's also no indication he's a notable martial artist or author. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Zhumagulov[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. (I welcome somebody with knowledge of Kazakh to double-check, though.) Basically a résumé. – Ploni (talk) 17:11, 22 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! 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Basson[edit]

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

Mostly promotional and autobiographical, and appears to fail WP:GNG. Ploni (talk) 17:01, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Russell[edit]

Amanda Russell (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. Likely undisclosed paid content. – Ploni (talk) 16:59, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Ramsden[edit]

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

Non-notable and almost certainly autobiographical. – Ploni (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Australia. Ploni (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable psychologist. Note the lists of books on the page is misleading-- it's not lists of "influential books" by the subject, but rather lists of books that (are claimed to have) influenced Ramsden--the claim of which is all unsourced. Page reads like LinkedIn/CV, which Wikipedia is not. I couldn't find any RSs in database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (wider and deeper than Google. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF. Cabrils (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are not indepth about the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, and is more like WP:RESUME. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undoubtedly UPE spam from a sock farm. Create a user and talk page. Leave it for a bit then develop spam in the sandbox. Hijack an existing redirect to try fool new page patrollers. Move to actual place then retarget the resulting redirect back to the original target. This is not accidental behaviour from a well meaning new editor. It is gaming the system from an experienced shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:20, 24 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! 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Pilgrim (1864)[edit]

USS Pilgrim (1864) (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)

While I would say that the vast vast majority of ACW naval ships have accrued enough coverage to be notable, I don't think this one has or ever will. The DANFS entry is incredibly short, Gaines' Encylopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks provides a very small amount of information specifically about this ship in a short section lumping 12 different vessels together, the USS Pilgrim in Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies is really USS Pilgrim (tugboat), etc. The best coverage I can find is this from the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, but as the ORN is essentially just a reprinted collection of primary source naval records, I don't think we can hang an article solely on that. It should be noted that the subject of our Stone Fleet article is a specific attempt unrelated to this vessel, and that this one is just a knock-off. Hog Farm Talk 16:30, 22 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 and salt. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halasinahalli Temple[edit]

Halasinahalli Temple (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)

Disputed PROD with no reasons. Identical version already exists as a draft, but author keeps re-creating this page rather than work on the draft and submit for review. Would need a significant re-write to be a Wikipedia article. Unable to confirm the information I can make out on this page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Hinduism. Singularity42 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will need significant rewrite if notable. Salt the title to avoid tiresome recreations. Jay (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and I can't find any links to the temple. Assuming it's in a foreign language. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt Halasinahalli appears to be a modern village, apparently largely Catholic but with a small temple nearby. The latter is not the one described, and the link describes yet another temple. The whole thing comes off as some sort of Hindutva fantasy, to be frank. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 22 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! 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ting[edit]

Raymond Ting (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 individual. – Ploni (talk) 16:14, 22 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 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VIDA (online retailer)[edit]

VIDA (online retailer) (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)

Business fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG; an apparel startup with no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks. No notability presented. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. User:Horse Eye's Back cites the same business journal article twice, some profiles, and WP:TECHCRUNCH as reasons to speedy keep. I would not do that. I didn't turn up much, and what I see is dependent sources or otherwise not the significant independent reliable third-party coverage we'd like to see to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. This is also highly promotional. FalconK (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do appear to have fat fingered the same source in there twice... But remember we only need 3 quality sources for WP:GNG. If GNG is met (it is) then WP:ORGCRIT is irrelevant. None of the articles I highlighted are dependent and neither is the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a somewhat unconventional interpretation of the application of NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Tillinghast[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE. Insufficiently sourced, plus WP:COI issues. Ploni (talk) 16:13, 22 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. Speedy deleted by Paulmcdonald: CSD G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason A. Fox[edit]

Jason A. Fox (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)

Unambiguously promotional and fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 16:07, 22 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! 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Carpet[edit]

Rubber Carpet (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 film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. The only notability claim being made here is that it "received acclaim from audiences at film festivals", except that's not backed up with any sourcing, or any evidence of winning any audience-voted awards at any film festivals, so that isn't a notability freebie in and of itself. The only source here, further, is its IMDb entry, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source -- and while it is listed in Gerald Pratley's A Century of Canadian Cinema, that's a book in which each film only has a very short blurb, so it isn't enough all by itself, and the only other source I can find anywhere at all is this (you need to scroll down about halfway, because it isn't the first topic on the page), which still doesn't really add up to enough. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to have more than just two fairly short blurbs worth of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found, lots for rubber carpet underlays. IMDb only has the film's website, which is on compuserve... Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not finding anything. Artw (talk) 16:34, 22 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. Appears to be consensus that subject fails WP:GNG. No sources appear to have been provided which properly rebut that consensus, despite significant discussion. TigerShark (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sopnendu Mohanty[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, and routine run-of-the-mill coverage of IT professional. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How a person who serves as advisor on fintech related issues for the National University of Singapore, International Monetary Fund, Mojaloop Foundation and the Indian State Government of Odisha can be considered with a routine (run-of-the-mill coverage of) IT professional?Eesan1969 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 when many of the sources in the article are tangential to him as a person; lacking in depth coverage of him; are press releases; or unreliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky, a few might be press releases but many are reputed international media.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 but not of in depth coverage of him, not of the organisations or the events. – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969: When I looked at the first block of 8 references there was nothing there, nothing that was signifcant, independent and in-depth. Then I did a WP:BEFORE search on the man. It was a similar kind of stuff. We can go through the references if you want at some point. scope_creepTalk 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But when I search under the following categories, still he looks to me notable.
Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).Eesan1969 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Closing Admin
There are a number of petitions[34], [35] against this subject, that can't influence to judge his notability.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 this would not have been, and should not be a factor anyway in the deletion discussion. – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the AfC acceptance, it is a prediction of whether the article can survive a AfD discussion. It is not a shield from AfD. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this article was accepted on September 4, 2021 only by a neutral editor @Félix An: at AfC.....why in a hurry for deletion?Eesan1969 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to delete the article at its present state. You have one to two weeks to improve the article. As it stands, there are issues, i.e. reference sourcing, which some here feel warrant a deletion. If you can resolve those issues, what we raise here is moot. – robertsky (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't dictate by your own time line of one or two weeks.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks is the general run-time of a discussion on wikipedia, hence two weeks. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide here the source for your statement.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should correct myself, 7 days if a rough consensus has been established within that time. See WP:WHENCLOSE. But I do see discussions stretching to 2 weeks or more as well. – robertsky (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, if this person could have its own Wikipedia article, then so does my IT colleague that I know personally. Most sources in the article are not even focused on the person, lacking significant coverage, but merely a passing mention. 175.116.2.149 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This 'Vote' is the only contribution of this IP Address.Eesan1969 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Above IP Address[36] and the Nominator[37] identify the subject as IT Professional, but he is a Fintech Professional; the lead para of the fintech page will give clear distinction between the two areas. This shows they haven't done enough research but deep stake to delete the page.Eesan1969 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eesan1969 Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry, as evidently noted in the article you have linked. Calling the subject an IT professional is fair. I suggest laying off in casting asperasions of other editors, and assume good faith. It can be construed as making personal attacks on other editors. – robertsky (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a Fintech Professional(not based in Singapore or India or not a nationality of these countries) and given speeches in major cities of Asia. It's incorrect relating merely Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry.
Fintech is the technology and innovation that aims to compete with traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services. Artificial intelligence, Blockchain, Cloud computing, and big Data are regarded as the "ABCD" (four key areas) of FinTech. The Fintech industry is an emerging industry that uses technology to improve activities in finance. The use of smartphones for mobile banking, investing, borrowing services, and cryptocurrency are examples of technologies aiming to make financial services more accessible to the general public......
And Fintech plays an important role when it comes to Singapore, a major financial hub in the world which is currently transforming it towards a fintech hub.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Went through all 23 sources, no significant coverage about Mohanty. Coverage is mainly about MAS, Fintech industry and appointments to various board. While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanothersgwikieditor: Agree with your point, "...While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him." That's why I am not agreeing this AfD.Eesan1969 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. John Yunshire (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A run-of-the-mill IT worker that you could come across thousands of them on LinkedIn is hardly notable. Tjczzo (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Tjczzo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and become active after 9 months after this AfD nomination initiated.Eesan1969 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Subject has received coverage in the Financial Times ,Strait times amongst others and mentioned by the IMF here Scrapes through GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say about Financial Times as I am not subscribed to it. As for the Straits Times article it is him as a spokeperson for MAS. The topic is primarily related to MAS and its stance on cryptocurrency. There is no in depth coverage about him. As for the IMF speech, it is a passing mention that he attended the event. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky: I just checked the Financial Times article, and it's mostly quotes from Mohanty. There are three sentences that are not quotes, and all of them describe what he is saying.
    The only details that the article gives about Mohanty are Sopnendu Mohanty, chief fintech officer at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the country’s central bank, questioned [...] and Mohanty was speaking as South Korean prosecutors narrowed in on Singapore-based Terraform Labs, the company behind the collapsed stablecoin terraUSD and its twin token luna. Not significant coverage. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not the topic of these articles as per WP:SIGCOV. It needs to be independent of the subject, and these counts as press releases. John Yunshire (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Especially at current stage. Current article can be replaced by a Resonator-generator page on via Wikidata additions. In addition, in terms of people at MAS, the current MD has no page. Xenmorpha (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current MD doesn't have a page can't be an excuse for, why this subject can't have a page. I really created a user page for him in 2020, but I couldn't find enough details about him, in fact, I met him in person couple of years back.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with a lot to spare. I recommend editors go through the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, complete a few online searches in news sources, and recognize the volume of coverage of hte individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through BEFORE. plenty of low quality press releases, spokesperson, etc. little to none sigcov. – robertsky (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I currently have no particularly strong feelings either way, but I do not have enough WP:TROUTs to distribute for the current state of this AfD. Throwing aspersions of failure to do BEFORE, rushing off to ANI etc. really doesn't help. The main problem is that this sort of career generates large amounts of low-quality sourcing: deliberate press-releases, mirrors of press-releases, material from organisations who are employing him, and those advertising events at which he speaks, all of which cannot be used to write an article about him. Low quality sources don't mean he's not notable, but it's very hard to sift through this lot and find something where someone writes about him independently, and in depth. For those who would keep, the best strategy would be to point out three really good such sources; nothing more is needed, and the honest deleter will happily change their opinion when faced with good sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald:, @Elemimele:, reference to BEFORE and “...three really good such sources...”;
Sopnendu Mohanty appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt in the The Times of India, the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.
Odisha Govt Appoints Fintech Thought Leader Sopnendu Mohanty As Digital And Financial Technology Advisor in the Kalinga TV, an Odia language 24-hour cable and satellite news channel in Odisha, India.
Reference to WP:BEFORE B. Carry out these checks 7. (...search for native-language sources if the subject...), the above news item might have well covered in the Odia language news papers, but couldn’t access by Google search.
And all above makes him notable in India especially in Odisha which has a population of nearly 42 million.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as he just ain't passing the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few comments. (a) As an AfC reviewer we rate based on what we think community consensus is but it is not unusual for something that has been accepted to be sent to AfD which is perfectly acceptable and not an argument for the article to be kept. (b) With FinTech just like with crypto there can be a lot of hype which makes reference analysis important. (c) I note that the MAS Wikipedia page and the linked pages do not appear to mention the FITG or this individual which does not help the keep case. (i.e. if the position is important then it should be mentioned) (d) Perhaps a merge to one of those pages could be an alternative (e) I definitely agree about the need for some serious trouting. (f) Unless you are working off something in WP:BIO or one of the subject related guides then saying/agreeing there is no significant coverage appears to be incompatible with a vote of keep and may indicate that an article is WP:TOOSOON. Gusfriend (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend: I think you have missed some details;
MAS page mention the FITG here and this individual here(under 'Markets & Development' --> 'Fintech & Innovation').
And MAS has created in August 2021 Elevandi to advance FinTech in the digital economy and engage with global FinTech community.... he is the Chairman of Elevandi.
And he is the Co-Chair of Steering Committee at the 'Asian Institute of Digital Finance' which is jointly created by MAS, National University of Singapore(NUS) and National Research Foundation attached to the Prime Minister's Office, Singapore.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was talking about the Wikipedia pages not their web sites. I have adjusted my comment to clarify. Gusfriend (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with major reservations: Mohanty apparently conceptualised and organised the Singapore FinTech Festival - the world's largest FinTech festival and a global platform for the FinTech community[38]. That is a big deal, worth recognising. My major reservations are that of the 23 sources (mostly media releases of uncertain reliability), just two have anything interesting to say about him. User:Eesan1969, you refer to sources in books and scholar but cite none of these. There is an interview with the subject here, yet this is not cited. Sandbh (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary and don't prove notability and organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal. That is crux of it, there is no real secondary sourcing on this article. scope_creepTalk 08:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks for advise citing the books. Regarding Singapore FinTech Festival, I have mentioned at ANI.Eesan1969 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Specific examples of in-depth coverage of the actual person in independent (i.e. not interviews) reliable sources have not been provided by editors here, and I cannot find them either. Vague waves at GNG, pointing at interviews (e.g. the PGurus article), and pointing at articles that do not discuss the person substantially (e.g. the Straits Times article and (borderline) the Financial Times article) are insufficient. This does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor any of the specialized guidelines. — MarkH21talk 05:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The only sources we have that address the subject "directly and in detail" are all interviews. As such, they lack independence. The non-interview coverage we have is all passing mentions and not in-depth. As such, we have zero evidence of coverage which is both independent and in-depth as required by our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - sources 2, 5 and 19 appear to be the same content written by the same two authors and syndicated. #19 doesn't include the authors' names, but does mention Bloomberg as the source. So that reduces the coverage somewhat. I looked at the other sources, but as pointed out above, they are mostly about MAS activity that Mohanty is involved in. There's little biographical info otherwise that would suggest a keep. It's weak delete and not full delete because his position as Chief Fintech officer appears to be significant, as evidenced by his being an in-demand speaker at events, but without more than canned bio notes and info about MAS, but it's not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. No reason some of his significant accomplishments/info couldn't be added to Singapore FinTech Festival or to Monetary Authority of Singapore, as part of those organizations' histories. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the previous delete voters about reliable coverage being limited to quotes and lacking depth. I'm unable to see why organizing a fintech festival - which appears to have been part of his job - makes one notable. Hemantha (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Merge with Singapore FinTech Festival which he apparently organized and for which he's discussed. No case for separate notability. Star Mississippi 23:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have tried but all I find is the below
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/mas-appoints-ex-citi-banker-to-head-new-fintech-innovation-group-from-aug Yes Just passing mention only Yes Just passing mention only No Passing mention only ✘ No
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/12/business/singapore-fintech-hub/ Yes Interview Yes Interview No Interview ✘ No
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/bill-gates-among-star-speakers-at-singapores-biggest-fintech-festival ? Iinterview/PR ~ Iinterview/PR No Iinterview/PR ✘ No
https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/08/31/finance/227354/mas-cfo-guest-speaker-asia-fintech-night ? Invalid/fake ref? ? Invalid/Fale ref? No ✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-04/singapore-s-fintech-honcho-has-vision-of-asian-silicon-valley#xj4y7vzkg ~ Interview ~ Interview No Interview only ✘ No
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond ? Single word mention ? Single word mention Yes Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond ? Single word mention ? Single word mention ? Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/ant-unveils-singapore-digital-bank-in-overseas-expansion-push?srnd=economics-vp ~ Single word mention ~ Single word mention ~ Single word mention ~ Partial
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond ? Single word mention ? Single word mention ? Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ywang/2022/06/06/billionaire-jack-mas-ant-group-launches-digital-bank-in-singapore/?sh=43fa427e2f8d Yes Single word mention Yes Single word mention No Single word mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no energy to evaluate all 25 "just passing mention" sources. :( - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland Movie[edit]

Motherland Movie (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 film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFO. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists; we require some indication of significance, such as notable film awards and/or the reception of analytical reviews by professional film critics in media. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that it was "the second film in the history of Punjabi cinema to be made on such a lavish scale and with renowned Sync Sound technicians", which is both unverified and in no sense whatsoever a significant notability claim, and the only "source" is a deadlinked copy of the film's trailer on YouTube. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any actual coverage in real media, and the article has been tagged for referencing problems since 2015 without ever having any proper sources added since. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince (2022 Tamil film)[edit]

Prince (2022 Tamil film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

currently fails WP:NFILM with no meaningful coverage and several months til release. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nominator, too soon for an article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It seems like a waste to delete a start article for a movie that will open in 4 months. Any way we could draftify the article and do a move protect? Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:ATD-I until it's shown to meet NFILM requirements. May be move protected as Liz pointed out. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since a draft already exists. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The draft that used to be at Draft: Prince (2022 Tamil film) had citations added with tons of references ranging from project launch to the final stages of filming right before the other user moved the previous version of the page to this current article. What my thought is that we recover the older version which had all of these and then replace this article with those contents after the AfD. I would like user Ab207 to comment on this approach. SP013 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SP013: I think you are referring to this version of the draft. Seems that it's more developed than this page, so I restored the draft before it was redirected to this page.
    My understanding is that Berntarnelol has created this duplicate page without any sources to circumvent draftification (done first by DaxServer, later by Praxidicae). To fix this issue, GeoffreyT2000 has redirected the original draft to this page, even though that was more developed.
    So I think keeping original draft and deleting this duplicate page would be a better option. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the issue, which is that it has been repeatedly created in mainspace and there is no evidence that it currently meets WP:NFILM. So if that changes, then we can discuss but in the mean time, I think the AFD should continue on the basis that we can't predict the future and outside of "x is filming" and "x is in the film" there is no meaningful coverage of the film itself and there isn't guaranteed to be any. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my comment is well within the purview of this AfD to decide the fate of this page. The original draft which was being developed by SP013 was boldly redirected this page, putting it at the risk of deletion. Unlike the article, the draft didn't have to meet any NFILM requirements. If anyone is of the opinion that even the draft shouldn't exist, it can be nominated to WP:MfD. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about deleting the draft, so I'm really not sure what your point is. No one is requiring the current draft to be deleted as a result of this AFD. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what Ab207 is trying to say is that after this duplicate page is deleted the draft that was in place should be moved to Prince (2022 film) since it has enough content to meet the WP:NFILM requirements. SP013 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While the draft is better, I don't think it meets WP:NFF yet, needs a lot more work before coming to mainspace. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "That doesn't change the issue, which is that it has been repeatedly created in mainspace": This prompted me give a further explanation as I wasn't trying to change the issue. My apologies if there's any misunderstanding but I have seen the all the redirected drafts being deleted as a result of AfD, so I felt the need to clarify that. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't have a notable production [yet], thus failing WP:NFF; which is why I draftified the original version in one of the variants. Either way, the draft Draft:Prince (2022 Tamil film) (ignoring the dab) is almost identical to this article. It could be improved upon, better sourced and then could be moved to mainspace when it attains notability. Draftifying this while we already have another version is just redundant — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NFF and DaxServer. A draft for this upcoming film already exists. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON - SUN EYE 1 18:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NFF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:09, 26 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 23:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Chinga[edit]

Grace Chinga (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 musician, fail of WP:GNG/WP:NMUSICIAN nearlyevil665 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 22 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 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batya Ungar-Sargon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. Journalism career unremarkable, writing for a number of titles doesn't make you notable. Book 'Bad News' has a limited number reviews by book review websites but no major media. Sourcing problematic (The Daily Beast is a contribution from her etc etc) - including her dissertation, for some reason. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are a lot of articles by her; however, significantly fewer about her. She does not pass WP:NJOURNALIST and while there might be a path forward for her notability on WP:GNG, I was not able to find one. TartarTorte 19:10, 22 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 13:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Sagar[edit]

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

No indication of notability under the criteria of WP:GNG. No significant roles or awards for WP:NACTOR. Zehnasheen (talk) 13:28, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pawthereum[edit]

Pawthereum (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)

more non-notable crypto nonsense sourced to mill funding and press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing thoroughly atrocious, notability highly dubious. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The foundation is covered in reliable non-crypto news outlets. Examples are the News-Times, NBC Boston, Edinburgh Evening News, Edinburgh Live, Newtown Bee, and Khmer Times. These are all in-depth coverage by third-party sources. So, the claim the subject is not notable is simply not true. Angiewalter37 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Angiewalter37. Based on Wikipedia's standards, this page more than meets the requirements and, in my opinion, I have not seen a reasonable, logical, policy-based argument put forth that is to the contrary. There are more than enough independent and reliable sources, in my opinion, many of which are mentioned above. As for notability, beyond the aforementioned independent and reliable sources (which I think clearly qualify the article based on Wikipedia's standards), I think endorsement from a figure such as Kevin O'Leary only further strengthens the notability argument. I respectfully disagree with the above users who are calling for this article to be deleted. CatDadoftheYear (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BEing endorsed by someone isn't useful to establish notability. Good for their funding, maybe, but it doesn't equate to significant or in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly strengthens a notability argument in the general sense of the word, do you not agree? As far as Wikipedia's standards, the article qualifies separately from that, which is exactly what I said and was the intent of my comment, which I think is clear. I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of funding. CatDadoftheYear (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

My fear here is that the votes for deletion are largely being fueled by Pawthereum’s low market cap instead of its overarching contributions and burgeoning user growth despite a sustained bear market, which is rare for a small cryptocurrency and a testament to the unwavering commitment of the development team. Pawthereum has received a lot of legitimate (organic) press from sites such as Coin Telegraph, Nasdaq, and a bevy of traditional news outlets. Besides raising half a million dollars for animal welfare (and counting), I have not seen a charity coin as robust and forward-thinking as Pawthereum. I think the argument for deletion is somewhat petty (no pun intended). Electricmaster (talk) 08:39, 29 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 12:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tully (1974 film)[edit]

Tully (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD'd with rationale: Insufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:NFILM. No significant contemporary reviews or retrospective critical coverage located on a search. Book source cited is on IA here, and the listing is a bare-bones database-like cast list with a single-sentence synopsis.

De-PROD'd with edit summary: deprod; needs to go to AfD

But of course no reason is given as to why it "needs" to go to AfD, and of course no sourcing is added. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Australia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As usual, my objection is to overuse of prodding. WP:PROD lays out what prodding is for very clearly: Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It is certainly not intended to circumvent AfD. Please only prod articles that no editor with any knowledge of procedure would consider to be notable. Anything else should go to AfD for full discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume that any editor with any knowledge of policy would consider a film with zero reviews to be non-notable and therefore that the deletion would be uncontroversial. If you have an opposition to proposed deletion, I suggest you go to WT:PROD and seek consensus to either deprecate the process or enshrine your skewed interpretation into policy. De-PRODing because you oppose the process in general is wasting other editors' time to make a point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not object in any way to prodding. I object to its misuse. And I was not making a WP:POINT; I deprodded an article that I believed needed to be taken to AfD. Most prodded articles are correctly prodded. But prodding is for completely non-notable topics. A prod can also be removed by any editor for any reason or none, as you should know. Anyone who gets arsey if a prod is removed or objects to taking an article to AfD is going against the spirit of Wikipedia and the letter of WP:PROD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Perfectly reasonable PROD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not finding anything useful on search. Perfectly reasonable Prod AND perfectly reasonable contest of prod if you ask me. Artw (talk) 21:32, 22 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 12:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clubscene[edit]

Clubscene (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 film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; we require external validation and analysis of their significance to support an article -- but the only notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival whose awards aren't notable enough to carry the notability of their winners, referenced only to that film festival's own self-published website about itself. But when it comes to "notable because awards", we're looking for major internationally prominent film festivals like Cannes, Berlin, Toronto or Sundance whose awards can be sourced to media coverage to establish that the award is a notable one, not just any small fry award at just any small fry film festival that exists. And the rest of the article is still referenced entirely to primary sources rather than media coverage, so there's no evidence that it would pass the "notable because media coverage" criterion either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can make out, this is an undergraduate film project - and did not see wide distribution, make a cultural impact (as reflected by independent, in-depth coverage) or indeed win a major award. All of this, plus the lack of sources, fails WP:GNG and also WP:NFO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero hits on the film, you get a scattered mention of the "Club scene" in a particular city. Non-notable student film. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:NF, the sources are missing to pass it. It is also not able to pass WP:GNG.Jimandjam (talk) 11:20, 24 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 13:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gibson (footballer)[edit]

Simon Gibson (footballer) (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)

Deprodded, so here we are. WP:GNG fail - and WP:NSPORTS2022 guides us that significant coverage, not appearances, is the benchmark for whether a footballer is notable. As per that, Gibson is not. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As usual, my objection is to overuse of prodding. WP:PROD lays out what prodding is for very clearly: Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It is certainly not for articles that until recently would have been considered to be notable. That is obviously not uncontroversial. It is also certainly not intended to circumvent AfD. Please only prod articles that no editor with any knowledge of procedure would consider to be notable. Anything else should go to AfD for full discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE As original creator of the article, I oppose its proposed deletion. He played 78 games in the Football League. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles on far less notable players. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heshs Umpire: As a content creator myself, I know that the deletion process can be frustrating. However, the fact that there are hundreds and possibly even thousands of articles "on far less notable players" is not a reason to keep. See WP:OSE. For this to be kept, we need to see examples of WP:SIGCOV discussing Gibson in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the sourcing to show a pass of GNG. That there are thousands of other articles that need to be deleted is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - given the level he played at, I am confident there will be offline sources out there. The page should be draftified so it can be improved. GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have cleaned up and expanded the article, have left some ref idea links on the talk page. There are quite a few sources out there. He also seems to have played youth football for Scotland according to the link I left on the talk page. JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project. @GiantSnowman: I don't know if you want to review the bit of work I done, if you're interested in changing your vote at all. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    good work on this, but unfortunately I don't think it's enough to show GNG is met. GiantSnowman 06:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Of the sources in the article, one is a blog and thus not reliable, while the rest are passing mentions, with the longest being For the record, North End’s last game on grass was a 2-2 draw against Exeter with Simon Gibson being the last PNE player to score on grass at Deepdale. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where's the GNG coverage? Or even just the required piece of SIGCOV to meet SPORTCRIT? Or even independent coverage outside of stats? And Govvy's !vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as it doesn't address the critical lack of GNG sourcing...:rolls eyes:. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if actual WP:SIGCOV is brought forward from reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 27 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. North America1000 10:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Khanna[edit]

Subhash Khanna (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)

Hugely problematic article - created by editor blocked for UPE, consists of sweeping assertions not backed by citations - for instance, the article cited to explain his presidency of the Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endosurgeons is actually titled "This Nagaland village council has decided to not pay 'taxes' till underground groups unite" - that presidency is confirmed in another source - cited to source his BC Roy Award, but which does not even mention that award. WP:GNG is failed by the other passing mentions, incidental coverage and excessive irrelevance in this article. He's a surgeon, he's not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 22 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 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of waterfalls in Iran[edit]

List of waterfalls in Iran (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)

Vastly unsourced list with a handful of bluelinks but no sourcing for the many, many waterfalls claimed as 'the most important'. There's simply no way of knowing how important or even IF they truly, well, are... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ten blue links, so a valid list. Dream Focus 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid directory for the entries that have articles, complementing Category:Waterfalls of Iran, provided that all the non-notable entries are removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a good list. Obviously the article needs to have much less editorializing, including removing whatever waterfalls are "most important". As to whether I can find RS... I'm afraid I can't read Farsi. A couple of Google hits to questionable sources like [40] [41]. [42] is an actual news website listing it (friend says it's titled "6 waterfalls and pictures" and looks reasonably reliable). [43] is a book titled "The book of Iranian waterfalls". Easy GNG pass. Ovinus (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • 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. Djflem (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, the article provides a nice introduction and guide to the topic. I rather believe the editors/authors are correct in which are tge more important ones but sure, tag with call for sourcing. Having 10 blue links is fine, but none at all are required. The more important items without articles currently should be redlinks, with footnotes to sources, indicating where articles ate needed....--Doncram (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but non-notable waterfalls can be removed from the list. desmay (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article presents a fair content of waterfalls in Iran.--Navid100P (talk) 07:15, 25 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. North America1000 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane University in popular culture[edit]

Tulane University in popular culture (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 same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia - list of works that mention Tulane University. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Reyk YO! 22:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after checking what TV tropes is. This is WP:OR without enough reliable independent sources to write an article. Jontesta (talk) 01:37, 28 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. North America1000 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Cates Sullivan[edit]

Ayn Cates Sullivan (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:N. Has won many awards, none of them notable. Has written many books, none of them notable. Looking for sources gives me in GNews one press release, and one lengthy interview with "Total Prestige Magazine"[44], which is a shady publication which seems to have a habit of giving excessively praiseful attention to otherwise completely unknown people. E.g. the cover of the issue before the Sullivan issue was for "Trevor Perkin", CEO of "HDM Coatings". Complete lack of all notability or "prestige"[45], not the kind of CEO any actual, real luxury magazine would put on their cover or give a lengthy interview. This has all the hallmarks of a paid for publication to give people exposure and fake notability, not a genuine reliable source giving voluntary attention to a notable person.

The 79 Google hits for Ayn Cates Sullivan[46] are extremely low for a supposedly bestselling American fiction author with many books and awards. Looking for her original name doesn't help[47]. She is a self-published author who has won some very minor awards (niche awards from organisations which give out many dozens of similar awards), which have not gotten any attention in the press. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Woeful author self promotion at its worst. Sourcing is awful - Kirkus Reviews, for instance, sells reviews - and I suspect many of these marginal 'awards' would be obtained on a similar basis. Agree with nom about search - and lack of independent reviews, coverage and comment on this self-published author (not in itself a bad thing, just for WP notability purpopses!) all point to an exceptional lack of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smacks of self-promotion. Agree that most awards are non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is irremediably non-neutral. This does not mean that the subject is or is not notable, but this article is a distraction from any effort to see whether she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Her books have been reviewed by Kirkus and Publishers Weekly. Kirkus does allow paid reviews, but they're not always positive and I don't know how to tell if hers was paid or organic. It's a weak pass of WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kirkus has two types of reviews with the paid type having the word "Indie" in them, and this is that type. So she only has two book reviews (I searched extensively) and one of them is paid, so she fails WP:AUTHOR. CT55555 (talk) 03:19, 23 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Air Flight 203[edit]

Red Air Flight 203 (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:NOTNEWS. Runway excursions, landing gear collapses are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Florida. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a common runway overran as the landing gear and nose collapse caused an engine to explode and a large fire which consumed most of the right wing and writing off the airframe. The incident also just recently occurred so it’s too soon to determine the causes and it’s aftermath. ThePoi (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accident, nothing too notable. No external coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:AIRCRASH. Passenger plane incidents that result in the entire loss of the plane are much rarer than runway excursions and landing gear collapses.--66.76.243.26 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major accident that took place that resulted in the plane catching on fire and it’s belly resting on the ground. Just because no one died, does not mean it’s does not meet the criteria for notability, there is several articles about plane crashes on Wikipedia with zero causalities reported. BigRed606 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not only are major aircraft hull losses at major international airports remarkably rare as mentioned above, this incident has been covered extensively by multiple reputable aviation sources and major U.S. news networks. Additional sources reflecting this coverage have been added to the main article. This incident shut down a runway at a major U.S. airport that is not only incredibly busy but also a hub for American Airlines, among the biggest if not the biggest airline in the world. This is quite a unique and notable incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this nomination may have been a litle premature. It does now seem to be getting picked up by multiple reliable sources and more details of the circumstances of the accident are emerging. Passes WP:GNG now. Buttons0603 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a breaking news event of an accident that may be one of the more prominent American aviation accidents of the last few years. I believe nominating it for deletion is uncalled for, especially as the information is still coming in. - Navarre0107 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Don't rush to delete articles. HouseBlastertalk 22:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This incident is similar to Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 which also made a runway excursion and caught on fire. If Red Air Flight 203 is being considered to be deleted, why hasn't Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 had a deletion consideration too? GDFilbert (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pass GNG. And also suggest change title to RED Air. Air Astana 1388 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 66.76.243.26. Death tolls aren't a measurement of notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The aircraft involved was an MD-80 variant, which is rarely commercial airlines fly it now a days. Could possibly be the last MD-80 accident with a commercial airline. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - JulTrio (talk) 00:32, 28 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatwas[edit]

List of fatwas (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)

Even for a list, this particular page is vague, arbitrary and synth-like. While propositioned as a dynamic list of 'fatwas', this is essentially (as noted on talk) just an entirely headline-hitting news-driven collection of such items that have stirred controversy. A page title of "List of the most salacious and controversial fatwas" might be more true to form. Fatwas are just legal opinions. Half of these 'notable fatwas' barely have a handful of news references, let alone their own page - this is notable? These legal opinions are from all and sundry. The lack of talk page discussion is testament to how little thought has been put into whether these are notable scholars from notable institutions, as opposed to ones that just got in the news. In law, the notability of legal opinions is derived from their impact on the body of law, which I suspect is established for few if any entries on this list. This page is not, in any way, a serious attempt to comprehensively catalogues legal opinions. There is not a single cited academic work devoted to cataloguing or even explaining the complexity of attempting to catalogue fatwas as a genre. Instead it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of content flying in the face of WP:NOTNEWS I have seen. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without going into a lengthy and detailed reply I don’t see this page as being as problematic as the nominator feels it is. It doesn’t need to be comprehensive and may well benefit from trimming. It’s not an exact equivalent but we also have List of papal bulls which includes a similar mix of content. Mccapra (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go a little further than 'not an exact equivalent'. A papal bull is a significant landmark ruling by the head of a religious denomination: many of them launched wars or yielded other significant historical impacts. In this article, on the contrary, many of the fatwas listed are from extremely average Joe sheikhs of little standing or relevance. A list of historic fatwas from Islamic figures of high religious authority, limited perhaps to the likes of grand muftis and ayatollahs might somewhat approach a list of papal bulls in similarity, but that is not, on the whole, what this article is. Despite claiming to be about 'notable historical and contemporary fatwas', apart from two from the 1500s, the rest of the list is news-driven drivel from the late-20th century onwards. It is basically just another one-from-among-many lists of Islam-related controversies, in this particular case with 'fatwa' as the organizing theme. It began with the Salman Rushdie fatwa (actually notable) and proceeded from there, gaining fatwa-related controversies but precious little insight or nuance. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The prospect of making this article better is also fairly unrealistic. I'm sure there are tomes of fatwas written in Arabic in Al-Azhar University, much as there are great tomes of Western legal opinions and precedents. Over 1,400 years of Islamic legal history, the actual number of fatwas presumably lists in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions, and a history of truly notable fatwas would begin with the 7th century based on scholarly works on the subject in English (if extant). As it stands, the sad collection of fatwas listed here, and strung together with news references could readily be folded back into the main article on fatwa, which is not even that long, and already discusses many of the entries here, such as the Salman Rushdie case. In fact, it is already better in terms of covering examples with real world significance, such as the 1891 tobacco protest fatwa. Though I don't see others, such as the Oran fatwa, so perhaps a judicious merge may ultimately be a better option. I would not mind alternatively resolving it that way. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. This is a handy tool to demonstrate the backwardness of Islam by neatly cherry-picking the most fatuous fatwas you can find - but there are many, many thousands of fatwas issued in history by any number of 'authorities' who could - or, indeed could not, represent majority or authoritative views of Islamic jurisprudence. To nod to the arguments made above by Iskandar323, you might as well list laws made in Europe and focus on the EU bendy bananas stuff - and expecting consensus or editors to arrive and make this skewed list better or more balanced is simply expecting too much. It's this kind of thing that keeps Muslim editors away, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting a notable, referenced list because it because it is a potentially controversial or sensitive topic or might discourage a particular editor is not appropriate. I could certainly see improving or editing the article or pruning it to put it into context as appropriate, if references are found to back it up, but it is a referenced list with interesting and valuable data that ought to be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not argue to delete it because it is "potentially controversial or sensitive" or that it might discourage an editor - to reinforce my main point, a list of fatwas would be like a list of changes to the laws of European countries prior to and post the EU. It's a huge, unmanageable, insane list and sourcing it properly almost impossible in enwiki. Stick to Fatwa and highlight some notable fatwas, by all means. But undertaking anything like a useful list of them is just nuts - and begging to be misused/skewed as I said. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what we have here is already the result of leaving the possibility of such a list to the imagination of the community, and in place of an encyclopedic entry, we have a sad collection of fatwa-related news headlines from the past two decades. But realistically, given the unlimited scope of the task, and the limited energies of editors, this was perhaps the only possible outcome of the exercise. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced article, reliable sources do give significant coverage to these things. Dream Focus 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiability is the most basic criteria for inclusion, in principle, but that is it - this does not speak to the any of the bigger questions of due weight, notability or WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are fatwas notable enough to have whole Wikipedia articles, there no reason not to have a list of them all. Maybe cut down the text so that this list article is more list like, but other than that there's no cause for deletion. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are but handful of fatwas with their own articles, such that all of them could very readily be covered on the main fatwa article, which is not even that long at present. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge Some of these topics are touched on in Fatwa already, and I think discussion there of the relevance of these is more appropriate than just a listing of what some random imams have proclaimed, often to mockery or disregard. Reywas92Talk 20:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the trim, but there are 48 entries in Category:Fatwas, it would be crowded to keep them all in Fatwa if you include a short description of them. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite, the entries subject to short-lived 'mockery and disregard' in the news cycle (WP:SUSTAINED), in particular, might otherwise be termed the antithesis of 'notable'. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Total violation of WP:SYNTH. Think of the very rough Western equivalent: List of decisions by major national and international courts or—more accurately—List of controversial decisions by major national and international courts, and including decisions from the 1600s to boot. It's not like a list of decisions by the ICJ where there's a clear criterion for inclusion, and where the consequences of each decision are well-defined. Your average Muslim in the United States will not follow a fatwa from Indonesia that the MMR vaccine is haram. Ovinus (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, certainly in the 21st century, the influence of many sheikhs is limited to their country, so many of these are, in effect, highly localised legal opinions with little influence beyond that, so we have random local proclamations of little regard in Afghanistan vying with local proclamations in Indonesia. As such, the proper way of categorizing 21st-century fatwas, which are limited to a country, would be to produce lists or categories by country. For example, for English law you have List of early landmark court cases. Or, if you look in the wider category of Case law lists by court, everything is listed by country and court, e.g.: List of High Court of Australia cases. So, what ties all fatwas together? Just being fatwas? Think how stupid List of legal opinions would be. Where to even begin? The answer is definitely not 'pick up a newspaper'. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page has many sources about important historic information. This is a notable article if there ever was one. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this article by its very nature cherrypicks controversial fatwas—whichever ones get traction in English-language sources—and that presents a huge neutrality and synthesis issue. There need to be keep arguments which rebut this argument that several editors are making, including the nom, who based on their user page seems to have more familiarity with Islamic law and its modern consequences than do the rest of us. In particular, what characteristics differentiate this article topic from something like List of legal opinions? Ovinus (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as noted above, verifiability alone does not guarantee notability or prevent synth, least of all in a list. The question is does anything establish this particular selection as credible, except for the news cycle - the news cycle itself not being a reliable source. Again, we don't have any source (currently provided) cataloguing 'notable fatwa', and the list preface lays out no relevant criteria. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 24 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 Cumberland University#Athletics. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame (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)

Internal hall of fame of university, does not pass WP:GNG; don't even know where you go with WP:NSCHOOL when looking at a University's 'Hall of Fame'. It's basically wayyyy too much detail and not itself inherently notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to merge with Cumberland University. General Bradley (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Cumberland University, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 14:58, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs I Need[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Drugs I Need (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)

Fake advertisement does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and fails the WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS due to it only being mentioned in passing in one news article with no sustained coverage. Jontesta (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources, examples as follows:

  1. Barrett, A. (2005). Drug companies face the music. Student BMJ, 13 doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/sbmj.0509350a
  2. Julie, M. A. (2005, Mar 23). Satirical relief. The Journal News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/satirical-relief/docview/442714754/se-2?accountid=196403
  3. Ives, N. (2005, Mar 13). Catching the OnlineCartoon virus. New York Times Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/catching-onlinecartoon-virus/docview/433019654/se-2?accountid=196403 CT55555 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one written by "Allison Barrett, second year medical student". Even ignoring that, these articles are mainly about JibJab media, and we don't create separate articles for every video mentioned, as per WP:NOTNEWS. (Though maybe there is a redirect target here.) Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is published in The BMJ, which I would consider an excellent quality source. So the credentials of who wrote it seem far less important than it being published in an independent reliable source, which is the normal standard for establishing notability.
    The second source include the phrase "drugs I need" seven times and the phrase "Jib Jab" twice, so I don't agree with your analysis.
    The third one could be argued to cover the company or the video or both. But the key thing here is if it covers the subject of the article. I think it does.
    So I have considered your reply, but am not convinced by it, I remain keep. CT55555 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the sources provided CT5555. Further, it's the primary subject of the NYT article which doesn't even mention JibJab media, so the source analysis by Jontesta is false. Likewise, the other sources address the topic "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I mainly agree, but the third one does indeed talk about Jib Jab (just without a space). So I thinks it's fair to say it covered both the company and the video, but still covers the video enough to justify me using it as a source. CT55555 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am sold on the sources - the main kicker here is the coverage in the New York Times. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Do note that I've filled in the references to be more accessible. I feel this does not meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the NYT articles mentions it in 8 of the 16 paragraphs (with the article mainly about viral marketing, not on Drugs I Need); the other one does address the topic directly, but not in an in-depth manner. The BMJ piece is even more surface-level: a regurgitation of the video. And for the award, only one paragraph mentions it. Out of the four sources, they don't amount to much. SWinxy (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. Artw (talk) 01:53, 28 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. There is no one arguing that the material should be deleted, but neither is there a clear cut preference for keep or merge. This has run for nearly 3 weeks and I don't see an additional week here coming to a conclusion on any of the identified possible merger targets, and suggest this continuing at the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daenerys (given name)[edit]

Daenerys (given name) (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)

Page has been merged to Game of Thrones#Cultural influence, but redirect to their is objected against. I believe it makes more sense to discuss these names which are always discussed in the context of "they're popular because of GoT" either at the general Games of Thrones article, or at a (as yet not existant) spin-off article for the cultural influence of Games of Thrones (comparable to e.g. Cultural influence of Star Trek). The same applies to the nearly identical Khaleesi (given name). Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Merge to a related target, either at the main article about the fiction, or about the character herself at Daenerys Targaryen. This substantially retreads the same material and we don't need a WP:CONTENTFORK to discuss the name separately from the character. They are one topic. Jontesta (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still prefer to keep both articles as they are but an article called Given names inspired by Game of Thrones would be better if it is redirected. If you take a look at the references cited, multiple names from the series were noted as rising in use. Redirecting it to an article on the character doesn’t mention those other names. There’s also been news coverage of late of people with these names, including a missing child/possible murder victim named Khaleesi [1] and a child model[2], just by doing a cursory Google search. Inevitably, some of these name bearers will be notable enough for their own articles and the name articles will qualify as lists/disqmbiguation pages as well as WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2022/05/24/khaleesi-two-suspects-charged-murder-staunton-girls-disappearance-pressumed-dead-augusta-county/9904766002/
  2. ^ https://www.wicz.com/story/45860450/khaleesi-martinez-this-child-model-has-taken-the-internet-by-storm
  • Keep and oppose redirect/merge per Jclemens. Any discussion of a merge or redirect should happen outside of the AFD process through the normal editorial process.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per WP:CONRED, AfD is an acceptable place to discuss contested redirects as well, no need to have that discussion elsewhere. Fram (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, I am not seeing anything in that policy link that discusses merges or redirects. Did you mean to link something else?4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see C4 now which is above where CONRED appears on my screen. I would point out that the policy says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own" as a proviso. This topic is important enough to merit an article on its own as sources pass WP:SIGCOV per JClemens cogent argument. Therefore a merge/redirect discussion for purely editorial reasons (because SIGCOV is met) shouldn't happen at this venue per CONRED. It's not AFDs role to have merge or redirect discussions outside of an WP:ATD situation.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree that a discussion about a redirect would have been far better at the talk pages of one or both of these articles instead of at AfD. I would likely start the article Given names inspired by Game of Thrones myself and ask for help in merging these articles to it as soon as this discussion is closed. The topic is broad enough to encompass over a dozen other names, all of which increased in use after the show. It should not be lumped in with other articles since the topic is distinct. I’m also not sure what good relisting it for a second week is likely to do. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the reference at the Khaleesi article that is used to justify the existence of the article beyond WP:ONEEVENT, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/popularity_increase.html, and it doesn't show the absolute numbers, only relative ones, so it's hard to judge. The nearby entries in the same list are Adley which is a standalone article (a stub), Journey (given name) which is a standalone article (slightly larger stub), Elianna which is a redirect to a cognate and it's only mentioned in a list once, Ruth (given name) a standalone article for a comparably much older name, Shay which is a section in the disambiguation page list, and Ellis (given name) which actually says it's a masculine given name. So I don't think there's any particular reason not to proceed with the merge and redirect this there. If there's actual WP:POTENTIAL, it can easily be split back out later, when relevant encyclopedic information comes up. I'd say a single notable bearer would be a nice threshold (cf. WP:NNAME). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Again, I think an article or list or whatever on Given names inspired by Game of Thrones would make more sense than merging it to the article on the character or the show. This is the reference with an explicit breakdown of the Game of Thrones names and numbers: [1] Arya and Khaleesi are the most used but some of the others that were noted were Lyanna, Daenerys, Yara, Tyrion, Brienne, Jory, Sansa, Nymeria, Theon, etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source doesn't necessarily attest to long-term significance of the concept as it appears to have been written at the height of the show's popularity in 2019. Did this trend have longevity? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name Khaleesi is said to have risen in use last year by the Social Security Administration, which was remarked upon by media sources. According to the U.S. statistics, which give numbers for each name used more than five times, most of these names are all still in use but some declined after the show ended. The books are still widely read and the series has yet to be completed, so who knows? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:22, 23 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 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyavazhi and Hinduism[edit]

Ayyavazhi and Hinduism (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)

Complete WP:OR. The article has no reliable sources to this day. While I can see some sources outside Wikipedia that had discussed this subject, they seem to be either copying this source or they have focused so less that it can be covered on the main Ayyavazhi article. >>> Extorc.talk 07:28, 22 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. North America1000 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Ferris[edit]

Evie Ferris (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; independent, significant coverage entirely lacking either for her role as a ballerina or as a "supporting Wiggle". Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think this page should be deleted. We just need to obtain more information about her from reliable sources to make this page better. It'll be a team effort and will be worth the wait once the work is all done. Dipper Dalmatian 08:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added coverage of her career which dates back to stories in 2007. While the older coverage is local (The Cairns Post), as her career has progressed she is on Australian broadcast news, National Indigenous Times, and The Catholic Leader. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She appears notable. References added have improved the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 23 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Nicaragua[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of Nicaragua (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 same issues as most of these lists, many of them already deleted. Incomplete, largely abandoned since 2007, not of interest to readers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nicaragua. Fram (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria we have for lists. A list like this belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per rationale applying to other lists of this nature. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think we should conclude that this subject is not notable just because some other similar topics were found not notable. Let's judge each topic on it's individual merits please. A minority of similar lists were also kept because sources supported their notability. I think it is a notable topic, as per the independent, coverage as follows:
  1. Discussion about individuals on Nicaraguan postage stamps here: Child, Jack. “The Politics and Semiotics of the Smallest Icons of Popular Culture: Latin American Postage Stamps.” Latin American Research Review, vol. 40, no. 1, 2005, pp. 108–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555367. Accessed 22 Jun. 2022.
  2. Brief mention of three Nicaraguan stamp collectors appearing on stamps here: GRIFFENHAGEN, G. Stamp Collectors on Stamps: Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 198, n. 26, p. 16–17, 2006. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=21597548&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 22 jun. 2022.
  3. Talks about Karl Marx, George Washington and Pope John Paul II on Nicaraguan postage stamps: Altman, Page Dennis. "Looking at Stamps." Border/Lines 13 (1988) (available in full via Google Scholar) CT55555 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the topic of people on postage stamps receives some coverage just means that a general discussion of it can be found in Postage stamps and postal history of Nicaragua (which is at present a shockinly insufficinet article, and really needs additions and expansion). To justify this article we would in my view need to have at least one if not multiple reliable sources that feel a need to include the whole of this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NLIST appears to be at odds with your view: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability CT55555 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but the "general topic" needs to be documented, not some minor subset like stamp collectors. Fram (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I consider that the "general topic" is people on Nicaraguan stamps. I've provided sources about royalty and their family, about Marx, G Washington and a pope and about people who collect stamps. They are people, they are on Nicaraguan postage stamps. I think that is exactly what the subject is.
          I think it's normal for subjects to be covered in part by multiple sources. The article on Spain is probably based on various books, some about history, some about culture, some about food, there might not be one book that covers everything about Spain. A list about big tornadoes in Mexico would be made from sources that cover different tornadoes, maybe a book about 1990s tornadoes, a news report about a recent one, there won't be one all encompassing source. I think I'm in normal territory for lists notability here. CT55555 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the first 2 at the moment, but the third has all of 2 sentences about people on stamps, in a longer paragraph about Nicaraguan politics and stamps (e.g. stamps showing an incorrect borderline, and a stamp showing a volcano). An interesting addition to an article about the postal history of Nicaragua, but hardly convincing to keep this list. Fram (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one has the most content. The second one is a passing mention. The third one is a sentence or so. Please judge notability base on the sum of all sources. CT55555 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if we can source that these people existed on stamps, there are no sources explaining why cataloging this is noteworthy. Same as all the others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "All the others"? While most similar AfDs resulted in delete, some were kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Romania
    Please assess each article based on its individual merits. CT55555 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the implication of "all the others that were closed as delete" is obvious enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:52, 24 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! 06:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boloni[edit]

Boloni (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:DICDEF very much applies here - apart from which, this article may well be complete baloney - sources presented refer to a ritual of a similar name performed as part of Nowruz, but a) that's not the definition here b) DICDEF anyway. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 22 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! 06:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abracadabra! (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Only one source, an ostensibly self-published blog, discusses it in depth; the other two are an ad made by the game's publisher, which is also self-published and only briefly mentions the game, and its entry in a database for Atari games that merely lists stats about the game. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being an old game, it's entirely possible we are missing old print sources. However, we can't assume they exist. Mobygames (itself unreliable, but a good source for finding reviews that may be reliable) has zero reviews listed, where many old games have several print magazines generally listed. There's unsurprisingly no hits in WP:VG/S's search engine. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to, presumably, Tutankham#Legacy, where it is mentioned. While I don't see enough coverage for an article in what is present now (I did not search myself for more), I think the commentary we have should be WP:PRESERVEd in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: The comparisons of Abracadabra! to Tutankham seem to be original research. There are no sources for it on either page, and I can't seem to find any sources that compare the two either. I would be hesitant to merge based on that. benǝʇᴉɯ 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my !vote, as below now two reviews have been found, fullfilling the minimum requirement of WP:GNG, which are supplemented by other sources. Also voids the problem of where to merge. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon doing some further research, I found a couple old print mentions of the game, although both of them are passing. An article in Creative Computing merely says that it's a "two-player maze game", and an article in Analog Computing mentions that it's one of four arcade/action games released by TG Software. If there was an article on TG Software, we could merge it into that, but information on the company also seems to be scarce. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding [48], the Polish website, it's seem decent - as in, they do discuss their review process, they do interviews, they have a video YT channel. At the same time, they are not a traditional magazine, and are "new media". I'd classify them as fanzine, but shrug, potato, potato. Considering WP:VGRS, I think they are not worse from many other sources out there. All that said, WP:GNG requires two sources, so we are one short... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's a second source: [49], but it is also in Polish. Griggorio2 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it scrapes by GNG due to the Komputer review Griggorio2 linked, as well as a review in Zong, as seen here. Waxworker (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's a good one, thank you. I will include it in the Reception section. Griggorio2 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? - seeing as I'm the author of the article, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to vote, or if it's even a good practice - if not - please disregard my vote. We managed to find two contemporary sources - this game was really popular in my country back in the day, so I'm frankly somewhat surprised we couldn't find more. Griggorio2 (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Griggorio2: Your argument-based opinion/!vote is very welcome. The fact that you are the author does not hinder that in any way. Rather, an author might have valuable input as they know how they went about the creation, how extensive their search for sources was in the first place, etc. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am satisfied with the sources found, sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments would be helpful in establishing consensus on whether sources discussed are sufficient to satisfy notability requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with three independent reviews seems to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This search really results in a haystack! Kudos to those above who have managed to find the needles! The sources that have been found here are sufficient SP:SIGCOV. The topic passes WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 10:37, 23 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, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhmatilla Akhmadjonov[edit]

Rakhmatilla Akhmadjonov (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)

Rakhmatilla Akhmadjonov

Non-notable blogger. A biography of a living person should speak for itself and explain why the subject is biographically notable, which this article does not do, probably because the subject is a run-of-the-mill student and blogger. This article was already moved to draft space once and back to article space, so not moving to draft space again (except by consensus). This article says nothing about significant coverage by reliable sources. It reads like a social media profile, but Wikipedia is not a social medium. This article was written to praise its subject, but Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Uzbekistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this promotional profile of a non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at speed. "He is one of the most educated, mature and young specialists in Uzbekistan." Lovely. Fails WP:GNG in spades. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a crosswiki spam (just deleted it from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Source section is a hoax (Dom-2, followers, Fort Boyard). All sources are fake.—Iluvatar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 27 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 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Ritter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only sources are sports DB's, and we don't even know the first name. Fails every notability guideline. That's just not enough to go on, and unacceptable for redirect. Jacona (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be renamed to P. Ritter (gymnast) then P. Ritter can be redirected to the surname. Then the article can be redirected to the US 1904 Olympics page, and the AFD is unnecessary and can be deleted. Is there a reason this has not been done already, other than the opportunity to improve some participants' AFD stats? 82.132.185.171 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent proposition! Jacona (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no value in retaining such an obscure redirect and there is no content or article history worth preserving since all we have just a mirror of the database it was copied from (so fails WP:NOT). wjematherplease leave a message... 14:34, 27 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! 06:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. Gauthier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The first ref might be reliable but is definitely not significant coverage, the second is both unreliable and insignificant. I could see another profile in the Olympics website about him, but this is not notable nor is it sufficient coverage, and I could not find any evidence of him winning any significant medals to justify the Sports criteria. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; oppose redirect. Fails GNG, and the 3 people listed at Gauthier#People with the surname (and others, e.g. we have articles for an E. Gaultier, 2 people named Gautier, etc.) are more likely search targets; redirecting to a sports event would most likely cause readers great surprise. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, also concerns above about how many E. Gauthiers there are in the world. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no coverage outside sports databases, and without even a first name, it's useless to continue, useless for redirect. Jacona (talk) 16:15, 22 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! 06:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Defert[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tennis at the 1896 Summer Olympics – Men's singles. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the ITF has a profile page for him here, which interestingly notes his nationality as Belgian. I have no Dutch or German knowledge so maybe there are sources there and not just in French, or if anybody can access Belgian newspapers, maybe something can be found there. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet inclusion criteria. No reason to supposed someone looking for this initial plus last name combination would even be looking for information on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning D There are maybe 800 people with this surname worldwide, making it far more useful than many of the other "initialed" athletes currently being nominated. Still, identifying who J. Defert is problematic. Interested in followup mentioned by Adamtt9. Jacona (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, even if he did look Defert in the eye. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought I had already voted delete, but realized I had not. We really don't have enough to go on without a first name. Jacona (talk) 16:08, 22 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 Ghost Ship (2002 film). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ship: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack[edit]

Ghost Ship: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (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)

Tagged for notability concerns for over two years. Doesn't satisfy and doesn't seem likely to ever satisfy WP:NALBUM. DonIago (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Ghost Ship (2002 film), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 15:12, 25 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. No penalty for creating a redirect from this page to another article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Beckitt[edit]

Freddie Beckitt (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)

One-story low-profile individual. – Ploni (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As this article relates to unique opportunity an individual has created being unemployed I feel this as a good motivation to the general public. He is the only case of person earning by standing in queue for someone. The article meets notability criteria for individuals. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: provides absolutely nothing of substance to the encyclopedia, and the premise of a feel-good "rags to riches" fantasy isn't justification to keep a glorified LinkedIn profile around. Doesn't even mention the single event they are supposedly famous for. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, very brief article here regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG - a brief quirky item for the end of a bad news day, perhaps, but not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means we do not cover news events as such, and only things that have long term impact. It also means that we do not have to have an article on every person featured in a filler feel good story meant to fill out a slow news day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ploni,DeVos Max,Oaktree b,Alexandermcnabb,John Pack Lambert and Lakun.patra. Thanks for sharing your inputs. However want to share that 1. It meets Wikipedia notability policy and 2.will be helpful to wider public 3.Given an opportunity can expand too when needed 4.No need to cover as newspaper but can highlight the efforts which can be possible by everyone. It really will help to motivate the unemployed. Kindly consider your opinion. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% certain in my original conclusion. Absolutely does not meet criteria for notability, as he is famous for a single thing (violating WP:BLP1E), plus, I don't want to put too fine a point on this, the article is completely valueless. There's just not enough information on this random dude to justify making a page.
Also, please don't try to imply that this tabloid-style article is somehow "inspiring for the unemployed", it's insulting to those suffering through economic hardship, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the cycle of poverty.
DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 05:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a feel good exercise; either notable or not. No biographical info and basically a bullet point article. I'd support a redirect to Queue area. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also, I highly doubt that this article does anything to actually help the unemployed, especially given that this is an article that averages below 1 pageview per day. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Leaving aside the fact that this does not read like an encyclopaedic article, there is no sign that this individual comes close to meeting notability thresholds as others have noted. Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 28 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! 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodelle Duverseau[edit]

Jodelle Duverseau (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:NBIO. Blatantly promotional. – Ploni (talk) 05:13, 22 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! 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Novick[edit]

Jeff Novick (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)

Likely fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Health and fitness, and Medicine. Ploni (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bloated LinkedIn style profile packed with trivia and no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is pretty much textbook WP:NOTCV. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One advantage of this CV-like style, where all achievements no matter how minor are laid out in clear bulleted lists, is that it's easier to go through and make sure there's nothing significant that we're missing. In this case, I see nothing that could pass WP:PROF or any other notability criterion.
  • Keep but improve and wikify. The discussion focuses not on notability, but on how the article has been written. The point we need for discussion is the significance of the popularizing of plant-based diets by Jeff Novick. Novick was, for a very long time, a popular traveling speaker on the importance of using good judgment in developing one's plant-based (vegan) diet - quick but witty and persuasive arguments; informative and entertaining PowerPoints; lots of practical how-to-do-it books; etc. The article could be tightened up, of course, and that would require some work. It should be included in the WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism. Surely something helpful could be done to make this article viable. MaynardClark (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No amount of improvement can turn an unremarkable dietician into an encyclopedically remarkable character. None of the evidence suggests he would be notable for his work, even if presented in a more adequate manner. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has anyone in this discussion ever MET or heard or seen Jeff Novick present? He was (believed to be) the brains behind the Pritikin Clinic in Florida. MaynardClark (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Unfortunately/fortunately, my opinion on his presentation skills do not matter a whit. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:54, 24 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! 05:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan B. Schwope[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni (talk) 05:05, 22 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! 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Panicker[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. An example of WP:CITEKILL with most of the sources being primary or unreliable. Hitro talk 05:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources are not, well, great. YouTube is used as a source too many times. It is generally not acceptable to use YouTube as a source. The sources that aren't YouTube also are not the best. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (see WP:BATHWATER) but I think deletion will encourage another user to create an article on him and do it even better. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 21:10, 28 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! 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Vlamos[edit]

Panayiotis Vlamos (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 issues aside, does not appear to meet any of the criteria for notability. – Ploni (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Greece. Ploni (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF#C1, with only one publication having three-digit citation counts in a high-citation discipline [50]; pure mathematics is low-citation, but his publications appear to be on social networks, bioinformatics, and machine learning, all of which are high-citation. The long list of awards is remarkable only for the lack of significance of any of them. He appears to have published a lot, but that is not a notability criterion (nor should it be). Maybe something else will turn up to pass a different notability criterion, but I am not hopeful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Edit conflict) Citations look short of WP:NPROF even considered in the low citation field of Mathematics (and the subject here borders on some slightly higher citation fields). No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 22 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! 05:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahammad Turkman[edit]

Mahammad Turkman (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; Azerbaijani journalist, no notability. Sourcing is horrible (his 'awards' are him teaching a photography course). Page draftified, banged back into mainspace with no improvement. UPE an additional concern. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Turkmenistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete massively refbombed but essentially a ROTM journalist of no particular distinction. The sources don’t look reliable and independent to me and some at least seem to be regurgitating the subject’s own PR. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s unclear what elevates him above the many other journalists in the profession. Of the sources, 1) quoted; 2) name drop; 3) name drop, 4) interview: 5) his Fotoqraflar website; 6) quoted; 7) interview: 8) launch of a news portal; 9) speaking about the launch of a news portal; 10) speaking about the launch of a news portal; 11) name drop; 12) a report that journalists (inc. him) were attacked; 13) ditto; and so it goes on. None of this is in-depth, independent, reliable coverage of the man so to meet WP:BASIC and I find none. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 29 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 South Western Districts representative cricketers. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Barnard[edit]

Gideon Barnard (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 single appearance in a professional game is no longer considered sufficient for inclusion. I did not locate any significant coverage of Barnard, and there is no player list for his team to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there is now a list, I am happy for this to close as redirect instead of delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that something can be found about chaps like this with enough access. That makes deletion inappropriate as we lose the page history, attribution etc... But it'll take a while for someone to create the list if you want a complete list. If you don't mind an incomplete one in the short term then that's easy to sort out.
On the subject of WP:NSPORTS2022, the RfC which led to that specifically included the requirement to grandfather articles. This has been ignored, but the most relevant proposal which passed specifically included that and it was never removed from the proposal. If you want to delete the article based only on WP:NSPORTS2022 then that grandfathering needs to be respected. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of AfDs of sportspeople since that RfC with consensus to delete. I have never heard anyone at any of those discussions bring up a supposed grandfather clause that states that older articles cannot be deleted for failing to have sourcing. I just re-read Wugapodes' close and I don't see a requirement for grandfathering or even a reference to deletion processes. Could you quote the passage where they found consensus for that, please? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Proposal 3, which was the one that deals with single appearance criteria, has as its final line "There should also be some type of grandfathering so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD.". That received very little discussion and was never removed from the proposal. It's been ignored by everyone who's attempted to enforce the RfC. I suspect because it was never properly discussed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the actual discussion (under Sdkb's comment that starts "Object to grandfathering"), Masem clarified that he intended any such grandfathering to be temporary to prevent a mass rush to AfD older articles, not to prevent their deletion under the new sourcing requirements for all time: I meant by grandfathering in that existing articles would be subject to this but after some sunsetting period to give editors fair time to try to improve. Not that old articles would be protected.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with what Masem intended and how the community has been handling the deletion of sportspeople articles since the end of this RfC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is. But that doesn't change what was actually passed at the RfC - and the sunsetting period has been ignored by anyone who has implemented it. What sort of sunsetting period would you suggest? Because there's an argument that runs that Masem's intentions have also been ignored by the community when it implemented the RfC close.
You'll note that I have not suggested we keep the article. Although the chances are that with access to the right media sources we might be able to scrape something together on Barnard, the chances are that we'd be scraping a little too much. My objection is with using the new version of NSPORTS as a direct deletion rationale. If this article had come to AfD before that RfC I'd have suggested redirection then as well for the same reasons - check my AfD record if you've not convinced - but it concerns me that the rationale will end up being used for hundreds of articles where there are suitable sources that can be found. It can take days to pull them together appropriately and take hours of work - see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hollings. We can handle one or two of those at once. Not hundreds. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is sufficient mention of opposition to a grandfathering clause in the comments to indicate that there was no consensus for one. Perhaps it was negligent of Wugs not to discount it explicitly in their close, but the time to raise that was six months ago when the RfC closed, not now at an individual AfD. In any case, even if there had been consensus for an undefined grandfathering period, six months is surely sufficient that it has now run out, so the argument about it is pointless either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth pointing out that there's clearly coverage of SWD matches in Afrikaans media - this article for example, although it doesn't mention Barnard at all. Worth looking out for in other cases. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers I'm not finding enough sourcing for a GNG pass, despite his appearance for the team, however there's a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. It would be one thing if those talking about a sunset clause felt that, given time, they could find sources. It would also be another thing if we were seeing repeated mass AfDs. In the event that Blue Square Thing's concerns about mass AfDs comes to pass, we can deal with it then and hopefully put a stop to it. But for now, I'm not seeing a convincing argument to keep. The fact that someone might abuse the new guideline at some unspecified point in the future and this might lead to articles being deleted that should be kept, is irrelevant to the present time. If Blue Square Thing feels that people are creating inappropriate mass AfDs now, that would be a different story and I'd reconsider my !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 18:00, 29 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) 04:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiscrowd[edit]

Ethiscrowd (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 WP:CORP notability; sources appear to be nothing but press releases. Borderline G11. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:17, 22 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 deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efkonindia[edit]

Efkonindia (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 independent coverage, as per WP:ORGCRIT. – Ploni (talk) 04:16, 22 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 23:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Tornyi[edit]

Prosper Tornyi (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)

Bio of a social entrepreneur lacking in depth coverage in RIS. Source 1 is a promotional profile, 2 is a passing mention, 3 is a passing mention in a list of 100 people, 4 is a non independent profile and 5 is a piece by him not about him. Nothing else found. Mccapra (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Found generally retreads/forks of source 1 online. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing non-existent, fails WP:GNG. Search reveals very thin notability gruel and active self promotion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 22 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 Danbury. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it so that it's mentioned, solving to Mangoe's concern. Star Mississippi 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Vista[edit]

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

This is a "private residential community" or subdivision/neighborhood. Although the name is recorded in GNIS, that was apparently taken from a book of Connecticut place names; it has no legal recognition as a community. This could possibly be merged into either Candlewood Lake or Danbury, but I really didn't see a good fit in either of those. MB 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Connecticut. MB 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fairfield County, Connecticut per nom. Ideally the list of unincorporated communities there would be expanded into a tabular list that would accommodate the encyclopedic information currently in this article, but that isn't an AFD matter. -- Visviva (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Danbury per nom. Redirecting to counties doesn't make sense because the division is too large, relatively speaking (nearly one million residents); also, counties in Connecticut and New England in general hold practically no relevant political power of responsibilities. All of that is delegated to the town level; Danbury is such a town. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's no point in the redirect since the Danbury article doesn't talk about all these non-notable neighborhoods. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 28 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 23:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Returns[edit]

Flying Returns (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 reason for this to be separate from main Air India article. See WP:PRODUCT. "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom's sound reasoning here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:00, 22 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 07:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumana Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sumana Secondary 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 The Banner talk 23:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:NSCHOOL, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing or inclusion on lists) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability and secondary schools no longer assumed notable unless demonstrated to be so. Bungle (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 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. This probably qualifies for speedy deletion under several criteria, but A11 (made up by the creator of the article) is the most obvious. JBW (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of O Walzer Fuer Die Luftwaffe Characters[edit]

List of O Walzer Fuer Die Luftwaffe Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of O Walzer Fuer Die Luftwaffe Characters

This list has neither any references nor any blue links and so is completely unverifiable. There is no evidence of general notability or list notability. The originator has also created a draft that is the same as this article. Because there also is a draft, the article cannot be moved into draft space. So this article should go into a bit bucket while the draft is improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and Germany. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A3, no content except for a restatement of the topic and empty sections. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No main article for this, nor can I find evidence that it actually exist. Dream Focus 03:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete clearly Wp:A1, WP:A3, WP:A11, WP:N. Appears to just be spam for a teenager’s pet project— the only thing searching the author’s name gets is a very badly written TVtropes page, and the creator of both this page and the TVT one has “nowak” in their name just like the author. Dronebogus (talk) 04:57, 22 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! 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Kasparek[edit]

Kenn Kasparek (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 Joeykai (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NBASEBALL does not appear to be met. A majority of the sources given as references are simply related to transactions; of the rest, those that meet WP:RS are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 19:02, 22 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! 03:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emiel Burrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 22 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! 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thane Beal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 22 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! 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Scarborough shooting[edit]

2022 Scarborough shooting (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. Short term news story (wp:notnews). All coverage is short term within 2 days of the even, nothing since. North8000 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shootings happen all the time here in Toronto, this one isn't particularly notable, almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looked like this might have had some traction when it was reported as a mosque shooting, but it happened blocks away from the strip-mall mosque where the victims had attended prayers and was most likely a case of mistaken identity (drug dealers mistaking the victims for rival drug dealers rolling onto their turf) than some kind of hate crime. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable enough event to merit an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, it should be moved to a more descriptive title. In trying to find information about this shooting, I largely came across information about an unrelated shooting in Scarborough in June.[2] TartarTorte 19:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't indiscriminately keep an article about every single shooting that happens in the world; we need to see long-term significance that would pass the ten year test, not just "this is a thing that happened", before a permanent Wikipedia article about it would become justified. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/lil-joffrey-game-thrones-baby-names-n1004541
  2. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/8932717/scarborough-shooting-2/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Augusty Bartillard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:51, 22 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. North America1000 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Baringer-Tahiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 22 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! 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Cardas[edit]

George Cardas (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 Wikipedia:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. No significant independent coverage besides a passing mention in a local news article. – Ploni (talk) 00:14, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Cooper[edit]

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

Does not appear to have made a scholarly impact substantial enough to warrant an article. The article is also mostly written by the subject herself (User:Dr.spring). – Ploni (talk) 00:06, 22 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_22&oldid=1095757456"