Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. TigerShark (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ireti Kingibe[edit]

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

i don't see how she meets WP:NPOL, initially I misread that she was the first lady but it doesn't appear to be the case as she's the sister of the FL. She was also unsuccessful in her campaigns that would have otherwise qualified her for WP:NPOL. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kingibe has run for senatorial seats multiple times, and is a candidate for the 2023 elections. I have added in sources, with the best one for her to meet WP:GNG is this article when she was named chair of the Leadership Newspaper Group.^[1] The latest news article^[2] combines an interview with added statements about her recent work. Finally, I am concerned that the image may not be correctly allowed on Wikipedia, so I hope someone more knowledgeable about image licensing can look at that. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has run - unsuccessfully, being a perennial candidate doesn't make one notable. Her being a chair of LNC also doesn't make her notable.

As far as the licensing, it's already been reported and is ready for deletion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update about the licensing of the image. I did not mean to imply that her position as chair of LNC made her notable, but rather that the news article about her when she reached that position was an indication of WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases don't help subjects meet WP:GNG. which is effectively what this is. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's on me. I did not realize it was a press release. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Ireti Kingibe Named Chairman of Leadership Group". AllAfrica.com; Washington [Washington]. 7 April 2014 – via ProQuest.
^ Moses, Orjime (2022-06-09). "2023: Ireti Kingibe Pledges Better Representation For FCT". Leadership. Retrieved 2022-06-26.

Delete: Running for senatorial seat multiple times without winning does not make a subject meet NPOL. Let's talk about this again when she wins. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NPOL, not seeing any sources that would qualify under any other guideline. Jacona (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Baba Gana Kingibe. Some of the content could reasonably be merged into the article on her husband.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration FM Lagos[edit]

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

I can’t find any reliable independent sources to suggest that this station is notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BCAST and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Okigwe[edit]

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

School in Nigeria that does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, the sources probably would support an article on the broader topic of the Unity schools in Nigeria of which this is one.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 2 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 procedural close. This article was speedy deleted per {{db-g11}} by an admin. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gherghel[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable blogger. One source seems to provide independent coverage, but the others are primary sources (and one fails verification). Article was nominated for WP:BLPPROD but declined with a suggestion to take to AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete paid for vanity spam about a non-notable blogger with no in depth coverage to be found. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per {{db-g11}} as obvious advert/promo. – Athaenara ✉ 15:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Kinney[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; only one arguably significant role in Hannah Montana. Some trivial coverage (for example in The New York Times) but seemingly no significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed delsort with no clear connection. 23:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renan Faccini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. – Ploni (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brazil. Ploni (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 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 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!} 23:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Tarsalainen[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finland, and Russia. Ploni (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for Finnish media coverage, and found one long piece in the magazine Apu [1] but nothing else. While the story is long and detailed, it alone is not sufficient for WP:NBASIC because it fails the multiple element. Ljleppan (talk) 08:14, 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 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!} 23:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Carrillo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest ranking by FightMatrix is 119th in the featherweight division, falling short of the top 10 requirement. Also never appeared inside Sherdog's top 10. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable MMA fighter who lost more fights than he won and clearly fails WP:NMMA. The article consists solely of his fight record and the only sources are links to MMA databases. The lack of significant independent coverage means WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 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!} 05:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Anand (voice actress)[edit]

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

The first two references provided here are passing mentions of the subject, not in-depth discussion of her, and the other two references are 1) to another Wikipedia article, and 2.) to Youtube, neither of which establishes notability. Does not qualify as notable per any subject-specific guideline, has not won any national or international awards for her work. A loose necktie (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 18 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!} 20:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A case of WP:TOOSOON, They are yet to receive any tangible recognition and Lack of WP:SIGCOV, thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:20, 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. If anyone wants to work on merging some of the content to a relevant article, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guineans in Italy[edit]

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

more unsourced cruft from the creator that can be included in the target article, Immigration to Italy PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel any need for you guys to delete this article. There are other articles like this on wikipedia AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles like this on Wikipedia are Nigerian people in Italy, Senegalese people in Italy, etc. That’s what I mean by articles that are like this. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But those articles have problems similar to the problems of this article. None of them have much prose content, and they have very few sources cited. If this article gets deleted, Nigerian people in Italy and Senegalese people in Italy might be brought up for deletion, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I found information from a book saying that the International Organization for Migration recorded 25,000 people from Guinea living in Italy alone in 2016. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is simple WP:OR from a very few sources. There is no encyclopaedic value in articles like this unless reliable and independent sources have discussed a particular diaspora as having significance. Pursuing this line of thinking might result in articles such as Bostonians in Iowa or Alaskans in Texas. Sorry but no. Just no. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only things cited in this article are statistics about the number of Guinean immigrants in particular years and the total number of Guineans in the country, but these statistics are mixed together in the article as though they represented the same thing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not offended by anything, nor do I mean to argue, be rude, or break Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I don’t think it is necessary to delete this. I believe this is essential information. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m sorry, but this article is not worth deleting. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the problems with this article. The infobox claims that the total population of Guineans in Italy in 2017 was 9,604, cited to Mixed Migration. However, that report says that 9,604 Guineans arrived in Italy in 2017 (actually, it has a monthly breakdown which omits December, so 9,604 would be the arrivals from January through November). The same source says on the same page that 12,537 Guineans arrived in Italy in 2016. Hence, 9,604 could not be the total population of Guineans in Italy in 2017 unless all the other Guineans who had arrived in previous years had already left the country. The population/migration figure are mixed together without distinguishing between whether they are measures of total population or migrants in a single year, and those are the only sourced statements in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Metropolitan90 pointed out, the information within the article is self-contradictory, incorrect, and/or not properly sourced. ChristianATurk (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Curbon7. Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. There are many pages exactly like this about different diaspora and expat groups being considered for deletion as well. The general consensus seems to be that like Velella said, "pursuing this line of thinking might result in articles such as Bostonians in Iowa or Alaskans in Texas." ChristianATurk (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Delete - it fails as a standalone but a summary paragraph of the migration to Italy should be merged into Italy#Demographics as there is no mention of any Guinean migration in the subsection Immigration. Atsme 💬 📧 00:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbric[edit]

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

Per reasons at WP:SERIESA. This is the article's second time around; everything that was true in the previous AfD remains true now, but sending here again simply because much time has passed and it's not likely an exact copy for CSD G4. Little to no reliable 3rd party coverage; not notable; promotional. FalconK (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and South Korea. FalconK (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, therefore does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Jacona (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Although this article is better editorially than the previously deleted article, the sources are not an improvement. The most detailed source (from Startup Magazine, weirdly credited to Emma Rosser, but the byline, and author given in previous article, is Jim Glade) is a generic questionaire filled in by some company flunky. There is zero independent analysis or searching journalistic questions in any of that. The rest are press releases and routine announcements. Complete failure of WP:NORG. Note that the parent company, Penta Security has also been previously deleted, so there is no natural merge target. SpinningSpark 16:45, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlão (footballer, born 1992)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor significant coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. I was expecting something given his career in Brazil but could not find anything beyond stats databases. Giant Snowman 08:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Jogurney which demonstrate notability. Giant Snowman 07:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure there are sources for this guy, there seems to be hits for other Carlão's in searches, it's really annoying to actually work out what the good sources are. Really do need to use precise search strings. I did have a good go know, I doubt you done a decent WP:BEFORE, but I can see why you might struggle here. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy:(Please ping me when you reply; cleaning up after socks means that I have a hard time keeping track of all the AfDs.) In my BEFORE, I found that Carlão as a search string was useless, but also that in some apparent press releases, which I don't find to be significant coverage, if they are reliable, he goes by Carlos de Moura. I didn't find much there either. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about footballer who had been a leading goal scorer for his clubs, and won the Paulista A2 title (at São Caetano). There is a lot of online Portuguese-language coverage, some of which reaches the level of SIGCOV (e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5]). I think the article passes WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: in case the above sources are enough to change their vote Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 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 redirect to The Earth Institute#Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Climate Systems Research[edit]

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

No independent sources (cited & couldn't find decent sources online either). Article doesn't read neutrally either, with the motto appearing in the second sentence. Femke (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Femke (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Earth Institute as non-notable, but minus the unreferenced content and motto. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen that the Earth Institute has a separate article. The text there about the Center for Climate Systems Research already seems proportionate, so I slightly prefer a redirect over a merge. (on a side note, not sure The Earth Institute is notable itself, but that's a question for another day). Femke (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to The Earth Institute, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 18:28, 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!} 19:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. In it's current form, this article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT and I didn't find sufficient sources to suggest that it should. So redirect to The Earth Institute#Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR), which can serve as its happy home until such time it gets self-sufficient WP:N. Jacona (talk) 19:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. Williams[edit]

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

Article created by the subject as self-promotion. It's been on my watchlist for years because I prodded it a loooong time ago but the subject removed the tag. Popped up again due to maintenance, so I looked for news or other reliable sources; I found none. He's published three journal articles, but I don't think that satisfies GNG. Katie^talk 19:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Psychology. Katie^talk 19:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search found no mentions of the subject in newspaper reports. Instead, the search turned up inclusions in society pages about the subject's wife attending weddings. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 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. Feel free to make a redirect from this title to a relevant article but the consensus here is to delete this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue ticket[edit]

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

Many things have tickets. Some tickets are blue. That doesn’t make “blue tickets” an encyclopedic topic. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Organizations. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a redirect without mention until I retargeted to blue discharge as a synonym thereof. This means that deletion is off the table. Subsequently I found the other uses. The election entry became a synonym for the 1949 election. These terms have specific meanings that cannot be derived from the dictionary meaning of their constituent terms. Cf. pink slip, red flag, and so on. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think “blue ticket” is anything like our articles on “pink slip” or “Red flag”. It’s more like creating an article on “orange bus” and then listing every random instance of an orange bus in films and tv, or “yellow fish” or something. It’s not a topic. Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please support your claim with evidence. So far, all you've said amounts to WP:BELONG. Paradoctor (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Specifically, please address the reason I stated for excluding deletion from consideration. Paradoctor (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I don’t understand your point about why deletion is “off the table”. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

retargeted to blue discharge as a synonym thereof means that, at the very least, this will be a redirect. Paradoctor (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to blue discharge. This article is meant to be a set index article, but in that sense it consists mostly of a list of trivia. It would make sense as a disambiguation page, except that I suspect it only has one notable thing to disambiguate, and there's no point in having a page to disambiguate one thing.
If the election-related meaning is notable, you could write an article about it, and then I'd be happy for this to be expanded into a full disambiguation page rather than a redirect – but as far as I can tell, we don't currently have a page about the 1949 Hungarian elections to disambiguate. --ais523 22:23, 19 June 2022 (U T C)

Set indices and dab pages overlap, yet are distinct. Neither requires all its entries to be notable. E. g., most songs listed on dab pages are not notable. Cf. Yesterday (song). Paradoctor (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a collection of unrelated instances. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 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!} 19:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, halfway point between a dab and a dicdef and pulling off neither one. No evidence that any of these are called "blue ticket" unquestionably, and is just a muddled mess. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other "delete" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reighann Mascarenhas-Olivero[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where even remotely close to having enough sourcing to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 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 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!} 23:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turki Al-Aliweh[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Arabic searches in Google News and DDG failed to provide any independent, significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midhir Records[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP; cited sources do not meet the requirements of WP:ORGIND as they are run by Midhir Records themselves. I searched in multiple places but found no sources satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News has nothing. Google Books has some directory listings and nothing more. ProQuest also came back with nothing.

Clearly not one of the more important indie labels per WP:NMUSIC either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSIC being the controlling interest here, we can see on Discogs that the label only ever released one full-length album. Even if there were multiple independent sources about this label, I'd still argue it's not worth covering here. Chubbles (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per inability to find sufficient suitable sources to meet GNG, does not meet NMUSIC per Siderone or Chubbles, and no found evidence the label has had significant impact on region or genre of art (COMMONSENSE). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 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 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!} 23:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lepa[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur; a leftover see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PearlsOnly.com for COI issues. WP:NOTCV, fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a profile of a ROTM businessman. Mccapra (talk) 18:59, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo City Tower[edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but one of the ones added doesn't even mention the property. This was a structure that was never built, and it doesn't seem to have garnered any WP:SUSTAINED coverage that I could find in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The saga of Bashar Issa property ventures in Buffalo, including the Buffalo City Tower, spans over a couple of years and has coverage all along the way, so I am not seeing SUSTAINED as an issue, however it's arguable that the the better place for this is the Statler Hotels article. BTW both sources added mention the property ("Issa, also, pledged to build a 40-story office tower on S. Elmwood Avenue. "), please desist from inaccurate and snippy deprod comments. Artw (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't catch that because it didn't refer to the building by name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG with the available sourcing. The first source is a brief mention, the rest is likewise naturally limited since it apparently never left the planning stage. Avilich (talk) 15:20, 2 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!} 23:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malians in Italy[edit]

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

Stub based solely on a statistical entry at [6]. There does not seem to be significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. Immigration to Italy could be a valid redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Africa, and Italy. MarioGom (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete this article at all. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need to pass the general notability guideline to be kept. MarioGom (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 17:11, 30 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!} 23:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanddi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Poland. Ploni (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear notability, plus terrible formatting. Big list of references that don't seem to be connected to the text at all. IF the creator appeals, this could be userspaced, so that they can rewrite it into the readable, well referenced format. PS. No pl wiki article, a red flag, given that a Polish artist would be first noticed by Poles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mereki[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Austria. Ploni (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 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 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!} 23:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Javorkova[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. – Ploni (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Czech Republic. Ploni (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - duplicate of text on https://www.artmajeur.com/en/marie-javorkova/presentation. Unable to tell which came first. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her statement that some of her paintings are in the National Registry of Australian Art and Artists sounded interesting... until I found its website: it's a self-promotion listing. PamD 08:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikidata appears to have three records for her, one of which sources some info to Czech Wikipedia (where there is no sign of her: deleted?); one, with no accent, derived from en.wiki; and another with sourcing from the Czech National Authority Database. Fun. PamD 08:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found her two deletions on cs.wiki. According to Google Translate:

Jun 19, 2015, 8:40 AM Jvs discussion posts deleted by Marie Javorková (expired to prove encyclopedic significance (info, info): dependent or trivial sources) (thank you)

11. 6. 2010, 11:52 Loupeznik discussion posts deleted page Marie Javorková (deadline for verification has expired (info, info):

PamD 08:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. PamD 08:45, 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Ming-Trent[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." No significant coverage presented, BEFORE shows nothing very much out there to add. One award ≠ notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ming-Trent was considered sufficiently well known on Broadway to have merited a cameo in Only Murders in the Building,^[1] and he is a current nominee for the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Play.^[2] In fairness to the editor proposing deletion, this is a thinner stub than I would normally let out of draft space. I decided to get something out sooner rather than later because Ming-Trent is getting a spike in recognition right now and a poorly targeted redirect was already in existence. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Levitt, Hayley (22 October 2021). "How Many More Broadway Faces Did You Spot in Only Murders in the Building?". Playbill. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
^ Russo, Gillian (16 May 2022). "2022 Drama Desk Award nominations announced". New York Theater Guide. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator. There are zero reliable secondary sources cited here. Fails WP:GNG. Rabbiweiner (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 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 no consensus. TigerShark (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire-Louise Leyland[edit]

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

Local councillor in London who led the Conservatives on Camden Council. From WP:Notability (people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'm not convinced that Leyland meets the criteria. (Similar to her fellow Camden Conservative Oliver Cooper, whose article I've also nominated for deletion.) TrottieTrue (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Sunday Times and Evening Standard articles give significant coverage Mujinga (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote this page. On the page which you have linked too it says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I set out to write a page for every leader and opposition leader in Camden but I quickly realised that not all of them have received sufficient press coverage. eg the current opposition leader Tom Simon or Giovanni Spinella who was briefly opposition leader between Leyland and Cooper. However Leyland and especially Cooper have received major media coverage including in the national press that goes far beyond the average leader of the opposition on a council this size (almost 300,000 people). Fosse1884 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I don’t think the GNG are met. Do we want or need articles for every opposition leader on councils with a large population, even in London? If it was a Camden Wikipedia then the articles would be fine.—TrottieTrue (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:TrottieTrue, the deletion nomination already counts as an opinion in favour of deletion. I know that deletion discussions are supposedly not votes, but your following it up with a bolded "delete" could lead to double counting, so I would recommend striking that word at the beginning of that statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought I had to make it clear which option I was “voting” for, so I’ve modified my comment above.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't understand why this article merits two keep entries, when the coverage is tenuous at best. Doesn't meet in WP:NPOL and supposed coverage is missing. I found the Evening Standard which is on the election campaign and fails NPOL. Didn't find the Sunday Times, but is likely to be the same election cycle news and again failing npol. There is no secondary coverage on it, at all, failing WP:SIGCOV. As far as I can see it is a complete sop and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - She seems to picked up above average news coverage for a local party leader and parliamentary candidate, not much more but enough so that's it worth keeping the page on balance.—Sam11333 (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTNEWS. What little coverage we do have is all routine local news coverage. Per precedence at AFD, we need to see a greater diversity of sources to establish notability for a politician at the municipal level beyond local news coverage.4meter4 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mujinga - enough coverage to make SIGCOV. Ingratis (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:33, 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvonis Prentice[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Oceania, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:35, 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Shepherd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only trivial mentions of the subject exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:35, 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 Moved to Draft namespace. TigerShark (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annesta Richards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, Oceania, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I could get behind draftifying this, preferably ASAP, as I don't think the stats presented are accurate, and it would be great if MonFrontieres could start researching for more information. @GiantSnowman: she has some coverage which doesn't count for notability, but one of them is an in-depth op-ed piece authored by Richards herself (in which she states that she played for the SVG National Team in both 2018 and 2019). She is currently a college junior in St. Louis, Missouri, and likely has more coverage to come in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept draftifying. Giant Snowman 17:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - potentially may meet GNG in near future Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Sambiru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found two squad list mentions; one in Oceania Football and another in Fiji Sun. This is way short of GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Solo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found many articles about her 2019 signing with the Monaro Panthers FC in Canberra (now added to the article so everyone doesn't need to keep searching), meaning there were articles in both Solomon Islands and in Australia (also because they had several rounds of trials and had problems in securing her visa). However, they are mostly just passing mentions and there's not too much beyond routine game coverage otherwise. Pinging @GiantSnowman: As an FYI. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Lerwick Town Council election[edit]

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

Spotted in New Page Patrol. This stub about a town council election in 1973 cites only a single database source (a wiki, no less) and pretty clearly fails GNG from my reading. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lerwick has a population of 6,760 today. If you jot your name down and buy a few rounds at the local pubs you'll be elected to the council. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a challenge. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently unnotable. Does not meet WP:GNG. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:57, 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Cup and Europa League winning players[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN as these people have not been discussed in detail as a group or set by any WP:RS. Also see strong consensus for deletion at the very similar list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at recent similar AFD. Giant Snowman 13:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN. No indication that the subject has been discussed in WP:RS, it's just a list made up for WP, which is WP:OR. Jacona (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:LISTN, and all the same reasons as mentioned at the European Cup/Champion's League list AFD. Just because other random long lists exist on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean this one should, per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this original research? It's pretty straight forward as a list. The Champions League one got deleted about what? ListN? When you have sources like [7], [8], [9] and so on. You have the UEFA Cup, Europa League with [10], [11], you have the snippet of Guinness World Record, for JOSÉ ANTONIO REYES who won five medals. The most any player has. You have articles from goal.com like Europa League: Which Nigerian players have won it?, others articles that point to Top 10 players to win most league titles in elite European leagues. To say this fails WP:LISTN is utter rubbish. I do not see a real valid reason for the deletion of this article, the Champions League one is covered even more and that got deleted! Why? It did not fail LISTN. Are you guys going to delete List of UEFA Cup and Europa League winning managers next?? Govvy (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you mention above would be more appropriate for UEFA Cup and Europa League records and statistics. Not one of these sources justify nor do they support the inclusion of an article on an exhaustive list of footballers that have featured in a UEFA Cup/Europa League winning team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per consensus is similar AfD. fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge or keep. Are the rosters of the winning teams covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia? This would seem to be encyclopedic information if split out into individual teams for each winning year. (which would be covered as a group in sources) If we already have the winning team rosters on other pages this seems redundant and should be deleted. If not, perhaps this material should split out into relevant articles. (such as the articles on each team? or maybe the season?) If there isn't a target for these, I think there is a good argument to be made that this is a useful navigation page which would pass WP:LISTN.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Also noting that the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Khan (Indian politician)[edit]

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

Unelected politican not passing WP:GNG. There is not even a single reliable source which talks about the subject. Akevsharma (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw the nomination. I didn't do a WP:BEFORE next time I will make sure of it. Akevsharma (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. Akevsharma (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep elected three times to the LA of Rajastan, so passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per WP:SK3. I have to question if the nominator even read the article or performed a WP:BEFORE check more than just Googling before nominating, as the article explicitly states that he was an MLA in the 3rd sentence, and this information is not hard to verify. While the article certainly needs a great deal of improvement (which I'd be willing to do), deletion is not cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL - 3 times elected speaks for itself Proton Dental (talk) 07:06, 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 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!} 06:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dahlgren[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles, awards or media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone with an acting career is notable. We need truly signifcant roles or awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 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 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!} 23:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan B. Bolch[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sourced to puff pieces, little to no independent coverage. KH-1 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete"- He has almost passed WP:GNG but has not passsed WP:MUSICBIO. Tbengalieditor > Talk 15:44, 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 Speedy Delete. Taking this up to the WP:RFD forum. (non-admin closure) The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Sex Ever[edit]

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

The page was recently deleted through this AfD. The decision stated, in conclusion, the following: "The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is." However, as soon as admin Guerillero enforced the AfD decision and deleted the page, it was recreated immediately by editor Sangdeboeuf, with the edit summary" "redirecting to [another article] per WP:CHEAP & WP:DIFFCAPS – notwithstanding [the AfD outcome]". I propose that the original AfD decision is enforced to the letter and the article deleted entirely. Otherwise, there is no point in AfD discussions nor in following AfD decisions. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging, per WP:AFDHOWTO, Guerillero, TenPoundHammer, Gene93k, Donaldd23, Mrschimpf, Ritchie333, Bookworm857158367, Sangdeboeuf. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: There is no "article", hence the venue for this is WP:RFD, not AfD. In any case the DIFFCAPS issue was not raised at AfD, so is not affected by the outcome of that discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close for wrong venue. This is strictly a WP:RFD issue, whether the redirect should exist. That said, if this goes to RFD, my position is unchanged. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Bernie[edit]

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

Series of Youtube videos doesn't seem to meet WP:NMEDIA- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNews search yielded only one passing mention in Variety and a myriad of false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:32, 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!} 06:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Reichenbach[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets, and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective.

Prod removed by Lugnuts with the edit summary possibly more about him via his army days BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources at a level to suggest that this person was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've been asked to relist this discussion so that's what I am doing. This article has been PROD'd and is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage (just the usual passing mentions, database entries, etc.), and the community has decided that mere participation in an Olympic event isn't adequate to establish notability. I suppose it's possible that there are offline sources that aren't available to us, but I think I've done my due diligence (e.g. by searching this German newspaper archive), and WP:NEXIST is clear that "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". I don't feel strongly on the delete vs. redirect issue, but since there do appear to be other individuals by this name of roughly equal prominence deletion is probably the best option. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TigerShark (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B N S D Shiksha Niketan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was proposed for deletion and then deprodded in August 2014‎.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found quite a bit of material in this school including 1, 2 and 3. Whether this enough to keep the article I’m unsure. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Peterson (executive)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. No significant coverage about sports or business career; only significant source online is the Anthony source in the article, which is not significant coverage (one paragraph about the subject), and, being derived from a donation to the school, is arguably not independent either. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable NCAA division II football player. Even most Division I football players are not notable, in other divisions it is extremely rare to find someone who is notable for that, and this person's business endevors do not amount to notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Cbl62 and Johnpacklambert. Non-notable player, and he may end up as a notable alumni eventually, he's not there yet. C. Bowers (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2022
Delete seems to be a reasonalby common name so basic online searches contain a lot of noise and I therefore have to go with the sources in the article. They seem to all be related to the subject (the college athletic department hall of fame/etc.) or behind a paywall so I cannot evaluate the sources. I'm unable to confirm passing WP:GNG or any other measure. Based on the article as it is written, I'm not seeing any notability measure to effectively apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Unreliable sources. Non notable peraon. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ong (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. This and this was the closest I found to SIGCOV. This article is not independent of the subject, thus does not count towards establishing notability. JTtheOG (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. JTtheOG (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage of him. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlata Gandhi[edit]

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

No claim of notability. She was a local postmaster of a relatively small community for 30 years. Does not meet GNG. MB 05:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. MB 05:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Utterly non-notable, being post master isn't a criteria for notability. WP:GNG thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non-notable Proton Dental (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this discussion, but getting an MBE recognition from the Queen is notable. It also wasn't cited in the press, but she is the first Ugandan-Indian refugee as a result of the expulsion of Asians from Uganda to get such a recognition. But no worries. You allow quite literally the most trivial pages and stubs, but an actual person that has well-documented contributions to the "a relatively small community" of Oxford (which I feel embarrased to read, nevermind the person that typed it), three of you went out of your way to ruin it. Bravo! Dizagaox (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Femi Daramola[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Nigeria. Ploni (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — entity does not meet GNG. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search didn't find anything more than passing mentions, so Daramola doesn't seem to meet the GNG. It's possible that there are offline sources that we're missing (and I'd be glad to change my !vote if any can be identified), but I'm not comfortable !voting keep unless there's concrete evidence that in-depth coverage exists. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MIL-STD-1750A. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RH1750[edit]

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

Consists of one sentence, no sources, doesn't meat GNG. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am taking sides just yet, but many articles have only one sentence and they are not nominated for deletion. As for having only one source, yes, that is not good, but if you look up RH1750 on Google it is very easy to find a source that will go with the corresponding information, thus also possibly meeting the notability guidelines. I say maybe I could do some major renovations to this article or we just let it be. Or maybe it will be deleted because of notability guidelines. I think this needs more investigations before being deleted or being saved. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 03:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect target: MIL-STD-1750A. Pavlor (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirection to MIL-STD-1750A is hardly worthwhile, as the single sentence of information is already in that article. Athel cb (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my earlier comment again I think it makes little sense. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but anyway, Redirect is the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MIL-STD-1750A#Implementations, where it is described. That this is a rad-hardened version of a 1750 design is verifiable.[12][13] This seems like a plausible search search term, so a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One or two line, un-sourced, and too technical. I tried googling to find sources, but you get anything and everything. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of S&P 500 companies by carbon footprint[edit]

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

Delete This is a classic case of WP:SYNTH original research: the author has gone to 438 different company websites to collect each company's information, and collected it here to be published together for the first time. This is not how encyclopedic articles work. And I am sure it is no accident that every reference links to a single organization's website. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If there were other articles listing things about the S&P 500 I could see this being of value. But after looking around I couldn't really find anything that would support that point of view. If someone else can provide other articles that list things about the companies on the S&P 500 then I would say it should stay. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original resarch, just a list of companies linked and arranged by single reports from the same source. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, breaches WP:NOR, possible conflict of interest. Wouldn't oppose a properly created article with the same scope, though. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Bloomberg. Should really be on Wikidata under each individual company. MER-C 11:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR, arbitrary list. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:36, 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.

Justin Torkildsen[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bgsu98 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR… Notable for one role only on The Bold and the Beautiful, and that was it. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ANYBIO criteria 1 with the Emmy Award. matt91486 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that an Emmy Award automatically confers notability that may otherwise be lacking. I will close this. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:41, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Chand Sogani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Essentially a a résumé. – Ploni (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Ploni (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Tjczzo (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There has to be something we're missing. I also conducted a search in multiple languages, which came up pretty bare, save for his 2nd VIAF and his 2nd WorldCat, which is actually pretty filled out. 66 works in 129 publications in 3 languages and 829 library holdings is quite significant, which is why I think we're missing something, especially considering he's been published for 50 years and seems to be a well-respected academic judging off of the positions he's held (i.e. there should at least be some extant record about his academic achievements; citations, h-index, etc). I can't in-good-faith vote to keep yet, but we shouldn't be too hasty to jump to delete yet, either. Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Abdul Quddus[edit]

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

No mentions on the internet of his death, this politician seems too obscure to deserve a Wikipedia article. Maxime12346 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete party official not public officeholder. Mccapra (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also fails GNG, much like his corporation. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched thoroughly and he doesn't appear to have held a position in the legislature or any other position that would confer WP:NPOL. While the circumstances of his death are tragic, he does not appear to be notable. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Ingram[edit]

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

Ingram was a competitor in the Olympics who did not win a medal, as such he does not meet our inclusion criteria. Neither of the two sources here have any text on him, they are just sports tables. I did searches in google, google books and google news archives. I found other Roy Ingrams mentioned, such as one who was a mayor of a small place in Alabama. As such there is no reason to assume people would be looking for this Roy Ingram and not the mayor in Alabama, so this is not a good cnadidate for redirect. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Africa at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Boxing, per WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. There could be sources from Ireland, seeing as he was born there, so I'll ask the Irish WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Welterweight~~ I agree with the idea of redirecting the article, but I think this is a better target. He lost his first fight at the 1920 Olympics. It was in the 1924 Games that he had his best performance--winning two fights to get into the quarterfinals before losing to the eventual gold medalist. Of course, if additional evidence is found that he meets WP:GNG, please let me know. Papaursa (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the efforts of users Park3r and FOARP, I am striking my redirect vote and changing it to keep. There's now enough evidence of notability to, at the very least, give him the "benefit of the doubt" about meeting WP:GNG. I think a variety of sources from the pre-internet age is pretty convincing. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I found this article from Supersport, which is a WP:RS about him [14]. This one also describing a rivalry he had [15]. The fact that articles about him were written in a RS decades after his death is an indicator that we should look more carefully for sources, keeping WP:NTEMP in mind. UPDATE: he was South African middleweight champion in 1926, according to the second Supersport article. UPDATE 2: searching for “Roy Ingram South African boxer” on Google Books gives results indicating he was South African middleweight champion and well known at the time Park3r (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources you give come from the same website, which would mean they count as one source. That is not enough to meet WP:GNG. The books I saw didn't have what I would consider significant and independent coverage of him, but I could have missed something. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding any online-accessible RS from a South Africa is a minor miracle nowadays, finding two separate unpaywalled and non link-rotted online sources is exceedingly unlikely. Which is I needed to do a more than cursory search in Google Books. WP:NSPORTS seems to anticipate that finding sources for athletes in the distant past will be difficult: For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics. Would a national boxing champion have been notable at the time, passing WP:NTEMP? It would seem so, but I’m not an expert on boxing, either now, or in the past.Park3r (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell, being South African boxing champion would not be enough to show WP notability. I do empathize with your trying to find pre-internet sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- based on Park3r's findings. Ingratis (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two sources listed above put this into "benefit of the doubt" territory. This is particularly because the sources include an extensive quote from a book called "The Fighters" by Chris Greyvenstein - a book that exists and does appear to mention Ingram extensively, though the full page cannot be seen. It appears that sources do exist per WP:NEXIST. Additionally he appears to have been the subject of a very short, poorly OCR'ed story in Variety magazine in September 1926 - If a London magazine wrote about his retirement in South Africa due to bad hands my inclination is that there is likely a lot else out there about him. FOARP (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per newly discovered sources. They are enough to satisfy GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:54, 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 no consensus. There are reasonable and rational arguments on both sides and these appear to me to be policy-based. The disagreement is regarding how much weight to give to the various sources and whether they are in-depth enough. This is a matter to be determined by consensus and I have no reason to go past the roughly equal numbers on either side. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cooper (politician)[edit]

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

Local councillor in London who led the Conservatives on Camden Council. From WP:Notability (people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'm not convinced that Cooper meets the criteria. See also Claire-Louise Leyland.

His Wikipedia entry was discussed in a local newspaper, the Camden New Journal, on 17 March 2022, in the Peeps column:

Something Wiki this way comes

NOT every leader of a council opposition is famous enough for an entry for a page on Wikipedia but Oliver Cooper, who heads the seven-strong Tory group in Camden, has been considered eminent enough.

The site, which is open for editing by all, now provides a list of his achievements, including “rebuking Sadiq Khan for misusing crime statistics” and “intervening and stopping Islamaphobic violence on the London Underground”.

There's a PDF of the page here.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - WP Common Outcomes states “Municipal and other local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics” though they can be for other reasons. Cooper does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia with news being related to a small period of time and more about the event. Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst going through the sources it's hard to find sigcov, per WP:BASIC "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Mujinga (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wrote this page. On the page which you have linked too it says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I set out to write a page for every leader and opposition leader in Camden but I quickly realised that not all of them have received sufficient press coverage. eg the current opposition leader Tom Simon or Giovanni Spinella who was briefly opposition leader between Leyland and Cooper. However Leyland and especially Cooper have received major media coverage including in the national press that goes far beyond the average leader of the opposition on a council this size (almost 300,000 people). I do not think it is credible to say that the coverage is about the event in some of the cases eg Cooper intervening in islamophobic attack is not notable for the attack which sadly happens EVERY DAY in this city but notable because of who he is, ie someone notable. Same with the Times articles about his time as Tory Youth chairman which are about him ("Youth leader stood down..." and "How tougher times have bred..." are about him personally). Fosse1884 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the GNG are met. Do we want or need articles for every opposition leader on councils with a large population, even in London? If it was a Camden Wikipedia then the articles would be fine.—TrottieTrue (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said above that I didn't create one for every opposition leader as I had originally envisaged precisely because I realised that most don't meet notability requirements eg Tom Simon, Giovanni Spinella, Anna Stewart. However Cooper and Leyland has got loads and loads of media coverage, including in the national press and they do not have articles just because they were opposition leaders but because they were NOTABLE opposition leaders who clearly meet the requirements based on their media coverage.

Several of the national news articles are primarily about Cooper and were only written because of who he is eg the Times articles re his time as Tory Youth chair, the Metro article re the attack on the Muslim women. However even the others demonstrate notability. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Every national article linked to here is 'more than trivial' except the Guardian article (which I will now remove as on reflection it doesn't say a lot about him and it is an opinion article). In every other one Cooper is either the subject of the article, the source of the article, or a major protagonist in the events that received national coverage. And the sheer extent of Camden's local press's obsession with Cooper has to be seen to be believed as they have written about him every single week for years and years. Based on media coverage Camden has not had as notable an opposition leader in decades and I doubt many councils have so there is no risk that it just ends up as open season for all counsellors.

I will note that there are many others that are not included that mention him in passing. That is not what we're talking about. Fosse1884 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the first 12 references, ref 9 and 10 are non-rs, they are very poor. They are all pre-election stuff and don't manage real secondary coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. The Metro, Express and The Sun are non-RS. Not reliable sources. There is lots of sound-bites but its not-indepth and there lots of non-inherited senior tory folk who are notable, but he insn't. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there has been a bit of canvassing to this AfD. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have not been canvassed) as per Fosse1884 and Mujinga. The sources taken together are adequate to support notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources have Cooper as the primary subject of the article, and given that he fails WP:NPOL, we would need multiple such sources to validate an article. None of the keep voters are even claiming significant coverage with specific evidence, because there isn't any. Fails WP:SIGCOV for lack of sources that address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None? He is the primary subject of several of them. "Youth leader stood down..." is primarily about him in the Times. "Camden Tory leader intervenes..." is primarily about him in the Metro. "How tougher times have bred..." is primarily about him in the Times. "Rainbow Tories..." is a profile of him in the Evening Standard. None of the articles at all are trivial mentions and his notability is clearly not connected to a single event as all of those are in relation to different events and are in different years (2011, 2013, 2015, 2019).

That is also just national coverage. If you look at the pretty incessant coverage of him in the local press it is clear that he is more notable and prominent than any other opposition leader, including Claire-Louise Leyland whose article has rightly been agreed to be kept. See this https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/search/%22Oliver%20Cooper%22

Very few local politicians would be described as 'prominent' in a big-selling book by their political opponents as Cooper was, nor quoted in a GCSE textbook as he was. Fosse1884 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Essentially, there's some info about his being elected council member, but then he ran again and was defeated. Unless we have a rule that being a council member gets you in, it's not enough. There's very little bio info otherwise. No in-depth profiles. There's coverage of events he participated that are passing mentions, but the coverage isn't about him. The entire Belsize Streatery section would be better in the Belsize Park article, if indeed it should be on Wikipedia at all. Can you post links here to the three best profiles of him? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dixon (game designer)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and couldn’t find multiple reliable, independent sources. The games are notable potentially, but couldn’t find any info specifically about this designer. VickKiang (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote in this AfD! VickKiang (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to having enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Premium Outlets[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The source table below quotes the applicable part of the "Examples of trivial coverage" within the WP:CORPDEPTH policy.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"(PRN) Construction Begins on Houston Premium Outlets(R)". Chron.	press release	press release	standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage	✘ No
LongHorn Steakhouse opens new location at Houston Premium Outlets".			standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage	✘ No
"1 shot at Houston Premium Outlets in Cypress"			coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions	✘ No
"Mother accused of using children to steal $1,600 worth of merchandise from Houston Premium Outlets".			coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions	✘ No
"Police looking for suspect accused of taking inappropriate video at Houston Premium Outlets".			coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions	✘ No
"2 men arrested and charged for stealing 6 catalytic converters, saws worth $9K, deputies say".			coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Texas. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ROUTINE have been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls. There is sustained coverage going back to the mall's inception. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Mall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Towne Centre (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammond Square Mall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Outlet Mall to name just a few. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is other coverage such as this article. Additionally, other malls such as Katy Mills and First Colony Mall have very few sources that count toward GNG, like the sources above. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ROUTINE have been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls. OfTheUsername (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are not to apply the CORPDEPTH/ROUTINE standards of review, but we do still require significant coverage of a subject to exist and I am not seeing anything that suggests that, whether in the usual online sources or in newspaper archives. It is technically correct to say that our criteria excluding routine and purely local events wouldn't apply to a place (not being an event) but that doesn't really change that those events are not the type of thing that we typically cover in an encyclopedia, whether the article is about the event itself or a place, object or person associated with it. Local coverage of routine local events are not significant coverage for any useful purpose. I suppose were a place noted to have a statistically unusual frequency of such events occurring, that may establish notability, but in that case there would be a source we could evaluate reporting that about the place, making the event distinction a moot point. As such, I am leaning delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of shopping mall AFDs that agree that the level of coverage seen here is enough for a mall to be notable, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken some more time to review both our notability guidelines today since it seems like those are also in contention and I don't think the relevant SNG is consistent with a standard of SIGCOV that much weaker than GNG. Maybe slightly weaker, but none of the sources has the level of coverage (except maybe the Houston Business Journal article posed by Esw01407 — there seems to be consensus it's reliable too, so I'm happy to accept that as one source) to provide any useful content that would not immediately run afoul of NOT. "Two sentences about the subject" is basically the bare minimum you can water SIGCOV down to for it to still even be a thing. I don't believe the relevant SNG (NBUILD) supports that level of watering down, either.

Further, it is not clear to me that there is broader consensus that the provisions of NCORP are entirely inapplicable to malls. In the one cited AfD where CORPDEPTH is even engaged with (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Towne Centre (2nd nomination)), it appears that the one arguing in favour of a keep (which happens to be you there) didn't challenge its applicability. It is not clear to me what standard of SIGCOV is used in those AfDs and I don't think it is necessary to try and divine it either when we have perfectly usable SNGs and GNG to apply.

On the applicability or ROUTINE, there is the linked ANI thread (from that same AfD) which purports to deem it inapplicable. I'm afraid I don't really see it there either. It is true that the ROUTINE shortcut points towards NEVENTS, which you do correctly point out (in both discussions, in fact). Unfortunately, there are really only three other participants that I can see that really engage with routine-ness of coverage, and although this could be because of my failure to perfectly step into the "neutral, uninvolved closer" role (obviously being involved here) I cannot see a consensus for what level of scrutiny is appropriate re. routine-ness, only that some scrutiny is.

All in all, I do not see anything that convinces me that we should be applying a substantially different standard of SIGCOV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Article clearly needs work, but sourcing is good enough to keep it. There is also coverage at Houston Business Journal. Esw01407 (talk)

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Simon Property Group, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merge, as I feel that would violate WP:UNDUE and there is enough verifiable content about this individual mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't really think a merge is a possible outcome. Either the content of the article as is is WP:NOT (in addition to undue) and the sourcing available isn't able to support improvements to make it not-NOT, or it isn't and the article should simply be kept. I suppose a redirect could be possible, though. Maybe to List of Simon Property Group properties#Texas? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Simon Property Group, 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.

Keep, meets WP:GNG. WP:CORPDEPTH is not the appropriate policy NemesisAT (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 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 no consensus. There is some merit to the argument that Mr. Kamrath passes criterion 3 of WP:NAUTHOR since evidence has been provided that The historicism of Charles Brockden Brown : radical history and the early republic has been the subject of multiple reviews.

I still have reservations, based on the original versions of the article being an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. This is strongly discouraged according to the guideline, but does not mandate automatic deletion either. I am also concerned about the lack of coverage about the author rather than his book.

But my role here is not to inject my opinion but to assess consensus, and if there is merit to the arguments. The argument that the reviews of his book confer notability does have merit, and significant support, so no consensus for deletion can be found here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kamrath[edit]

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

Probable autobiography. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Meets none of the 8 criteria listed there.

"The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
"The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
"The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
"The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
"The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
"The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
"The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Literature, and Florida. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,

Thanks for the quick feedback.

I can understand, according to this criteria, why you would or will delete the article. Fine, no problem.

I would point out though that I have seen other academic profiles that contain less in terms of research publications--and impact.

Few American scholars have been awarded 3 NEH grants.

Cheers Mkamrath (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mkamrath Please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puffery, little to no reliable sources. Almost like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your point about the resume. Maybe look at Christopher Looby, Sharon M. Harris, and Michael Warner entries for comparison? Mark Kamrath (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: arguably meets WP:NPROF #1 as the general editor of an edition (two, actually) of Charles Brockden Brown. I'll try to come back to this later with a firmer !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to clarify, I am the General Editor of 4 published volumes and a volume editor of 2 of those volumes. All volumes were awarded the Modern Language Association Committee on Scholarly Editions (MLA-CSE) Seal, the highest recognition in the field. Mark Kamrath (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low citation record shows that this BLP is WP:Too soon to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, the citation record will appear to be low, especially if measured against citations in the sciences. Mark Kamrath (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are compared against those of other US scholars in the humanities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Such as Edmund Wilson, Barbara Tuchman, George Steiner, Harry Levin. I will leave editors to check the many thousands of citations to their works that these scholars have acquired. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough, no comparison there. I was comparing myself to the other literature professors I mentioned earlier (above). Mark Kamrath (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:TOOSOON unless some significant independant sources (e.g. reviews) are found which discuss his work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, reviews can be found in the MLA International Bibliography, generally, and my field's lead journal, Early American Literature, specifically. See, for example, Bryan Waterman's "Charles Brockden Brown Revised and Expanded" 2005 EAL 40 (1), pp.173-191, and Hilary Emmet's "Brownian Motion: Directions in CBB Scholarship" EAL 2015 50 (1), pp 205-221.

Oxford University Press, arguably the world's leading academic presses for literary scholars, will have the most recent assessment of my work in *The Oxford Handbook of Charles Brockden Brown* (2019). Please see essays by Elizabeth Jane Wall Hinds and Hannah Lauren Murray.

Anyway, if "too soon" according to existing criteria, no problem. I understand.

Thanks for your consideration. Mark Kamrath (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Changing my !vote as is probably a pass of WP:NAUTHOR rather than WP:NPROF. For the benefit of others, links to some of the reviews mentioned: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25057386, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24476619 and https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Charles_Brockden/8iCWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 . I don't have access to read the reviews, but the fact multiple reviews exist convinces me. The article does need work, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are just jointly edited books. There appears to be no original writing here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I have access to the reviews; as you'd expect, the first makes little mention of Mr. Kamrath as one of several editors, while the second and third refer to him extensively. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like multi-authored articles in the sciences. But there are, of course, different levels and kinds of "edited" volumes. The MLA CSE volumes undergo a rigorous evaluation by peers. Please see:

https://www.mla.org/Resources/Guidelines-and-Data/Reports-and-Professional-Guidelines/Publishing-and-Scholarship/Guidelines-for-Editors-of-Scholarly-Editions Mark Kamrath (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a lot of puffery for very little strong evidence of notability as per WP:SCHOLAR. The publication record doesn't even play the same sport as highly notable individuals in the humanities, never mind the ballpark. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please forgive me if it appears that I am making extravagant claims of any kind; I am simply trying, in a respectful manner, to answer your questions since you appear to have backgrounds in the sciences, etc. When we review tenure and promotion files at the university level, professors often defer

to a committee member from the applicant's area, e.g., physics, to help explain the meaning of this or that accomplishment; we don't presume to fully understand or know a field that is different from our own. Is there someone with a Ph.D. in literature on this thread? Also, the metric you are applying here is print "publication record," which is fine. But that metric is changing at universities, and things like "database" creation in the digital humanities are also highly valued. So I ask how many NEH grants have the other notable individuals or authors you are comparing my record against been awarded? If you can look at my research or publication record in that light, it might look stronger. Mark Kamrath (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful in understanding the digital humanities aspect of my researc: https://www.archivejournal.net/essays/the-charles-brockden-brown-electronic-archive-mapping-archival-access-and-metadata/ Mark Kamrath (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable the the subject did not heed the advice on his talk pages about the inadvisability of editors using Wikipedia to promote themselves or their interests under WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I understand this position and the need for this review board to follow established criteria or protocols closely. So that I don't waste any more of your time, we should discontinue the discussion. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is open to being more of a "Who is Who?" reference" on certain fronts, I wonder if self-nomination can be useful in identifying individuals who have or who are making some kind of impact. This is done in other areas of endeavor, e.g., politics. I also ask this question in the context, as I mentioned earlier, of seeing academic profiles on Wikipedia which my peers or I might not necessarily deem the strongest.

Anyway, thank you for your review commentary and allowing me to undergo this process. I respect and accept your decision. Mark Kamrath (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, amen. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Dr. Kamrath has a GS h-index of 6, which is a little lower than the customary cutoff around 10 to 15, but he does appear to be a full professor and his Periodical literature in eighteenth-century America is held by almost 300 libraries (WorldCat). Also comes from a solid department, which incidentally has some promising young female and minority faculty members, who probably should have articles here. Could change my mind, if further support comes to light. 128.252.172.31 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Historicism of Charles Brockden Brown: Radical History and the Early Republic was a solo-author work that appears to have drawn a significant number of scholarly reviews [16][17][18][19][20]. That is usually enough for us to warrant having an article on the book, if not the author. In the humanities, we tend to look for book reviews rather than citations to journal publications as the more meaningful indicator of influence, but we also tend to require multiple reviews of multiple books each, with co-edited volumes counting for significantly less. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh boy do I ever love to see the "but is editing/DH worth as much as authoring/print, when it comes to publications?" debate every digital editor is familiar with play out in an AfD. (This is sarcasm: I do not love this.) Here's my take: we routinely keep articles for authors, including academic authors, whose monographs have received 2+ in-depth reviews, judging their work to have received enough notice to count as "notable" for wikipedia's purposes; to not consider scholarly editing to be roughly on par with authoring in this context is to focus on a narrow, specific guideline (eg, authors are notable if they have multiple notable works) while ignoring the purpose behind that guideline (to give editors a rule of thumb to show what kinds of work is "notable"). Is every twice-reviewed academic book making a significant contribution to a scholarly field? Maybe not. Is a complete collected works? You bet it is. This article doesn't do a good job of expressing that, probably at least partly because of the autobio author's desire to appear neutral. I'll fill the article out a bit to make it look a bit less resume-like, but I would say that we have effectively a WP:NAUTHOR pass here, based on the reviews of the sole-author book and the reviews of the works for which he is a general/volume editor. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could be convinced that producing a definitive edition, complete collected works, etc., would be the sort of achievement we look for, much more so than co-editing an anthology of new papers by multiple authors. There's editing, and then there's editing, one might say. I'll wait for your modifications before I weigh in further. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter He's done both, and my argument is primarily about the former, though I did link some reviews for the essay collections as well. I'd say I've finished making the article look less resume-like, but mostly what I've done is add references and reword things as I moved them around - I haven't yet had a go at more carefully reading through the reviews to write anything actually new. So you may find this helpful or you might not. Time for me to take a break for now, though. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification comment: I want to be clear that my argument about editorial work being notable is that it is a notable thing to be the general editor for a Collected Writings of a major author, not that the subject of the article is notable for having edited multiple collections of scholarly essays (though if someone wants to make that argument, they're welcome to). For those unfamiliar with the primary importance of this kind of work plays in literary studies, here's Hilary Emmett reviewing both Kamrath's The historicism of Charles Brockden Brown and the first volume of the Collected Works (for which he is both a volume editor and the general editor): Thus, while I want to make a strong case for valuing the vast bibliographic labor that went into the production of this volume [ie, vol 1 of the Collected Works] [...] I particularly commend it in terms of the new understandings of early American print and epistolary culture that it will generate. It is out of projects such as this that field-changing scholarship and dynamic pedagogy happen, as evidenced by the intimate connections between Kamrath's work as general editor of the Collected Writings volumes and the critical work that it has enabled. (pp.219-220 of "Brownian Motion"). This is a strong endorsement of the importance of Kamrath and his work from a scholar in his field. -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep; also note sensible redirect target as alternative to deletion. The citations are respectable in a low-citation field, but I think that we still need _something_ for WP:NPROF. Grants do not directly contribute to notability, although they make it more likely that the subject will be notable later. Looking to WP:NAUTHOR, we have one authored volume with several reviews, and two edited volumes with reviews. Another authored volume would definitely make the case clearer, and I think this is verging on WP:TOOSOON. However, in combination with the reasonable citations, I'm brought over to a (very weak) keep. Note that The historicism of Charles Brockden Brown: radical history and the early republic definitely passes WP:NBOOK, so a sensible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a short stub on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep As noted above, the solo-author book definitely counts, and we'd be justified in having an article on it. The question then becomes, do we cover the author as well as the book? The co-edited essay collections wouldn't themselves be enough on top of that to avoid the "only known for one thing" issue that we try to avoid, but having the lead role in producing a definitive work on a historically significant author also counts in favor of wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak delete and weak keep can result in a No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the closer will give attention to the arguments offered as well as to the vote count. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete He hasn't won any major awards and the whole article reads like a CV. Citations shouldn't be a factor if someone is notable, you can get a bunch of citations for something silly and still not be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of somebody getting a bunch (how many?) of citations for something silly? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Dr_vulpes Being like a CV isn't inherently grounds for deletion as WP:DINC. Also citations are most certainly a factor for WP:NPROF C1 for instance. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kj cheetham I absolutely agree that citations are important for establishing notability and my comment on that the article read like a CV was more to address the state of the article. When I take a look at the whole picture of the subject here I'm still not sure that they are notable. For example the subject of this article was only cited 5 times last year, every year since 2017 his citation count has gotten smaller. In the humanities you'll find that most scholars have a smaller citation count then their peers in STEM so when looking to see if the subject is notable we can look at other factors such as books published. The subjects last published book was in 2013, the other entries are book chapters which are normally less impactful. If the subject had a really impactful piece of work at some point, multiple books published in their field, a history of interdisciplinary works, or a long active record of presenting at conferences then I could easily say they were notable. But after evaluating the information available to us and online I can't firmly say the article is notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect this will impact your !vote in any way since you appear to be discounting the collected works entirely, but fyi that his last published book was 2020, not 2013 (vol 4 of the Collected Works). -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Xxanthippe I've included some examples of silly articles getting a lot of citations. Just to be clear I'm not saying that the subject of this article is publishing silly articles or anything like that. When looking at the importance of someone's work I think a more holistic process of the should be taken when evaluating their impact. For example in the humanities citation counts are often lower.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Some publications get lots of citations because they are silly or funny: hence the Ignobel prizes. However, contributors to academic Afds are expected to be able to make the distinction between the silly and the significant. Citations in the humanities can be very high as I have shown above on this page, and if they are low, as in this case, it shows that the work has not had much impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah we're both on the same page about this. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes claimed that citations in the humanities are lower than those in the sciences, but no statistical evidence is produced to support that claim. As I have illustrated above, some humanities scholars have many thousands or even tens of thousands of citations to their work. Another factor is that humanities scholars often publish solely or in small groups whereas science scholars may publish in large groups. These issues have to be factored in. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR with the existence of multiple critical reviews of Kamrath's published works.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR by a country mile. I checked the first two books and they're are multiple reviews. Two minutes work. Strong keep for extra strength. scope_creep^Talk 01:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content of article has no bearing on notability; everyone is free to do cleanup at any time. Extent of reviewed work satisfies WP:NAUTHOR #3. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was merge to The Kelly Clarkson Show. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kellyoke (EP)[edit]

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

Although the Kellyoake segment of The Kelly Clarkson Show has received coverage, this collection does not inherit notability from that. As a standalone collection of work it has not received significant coverage. Although sources have referred to the existence of the EP, this does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. An article does not need to exist for a track list and two charts - that's what discographies are for. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Kelly Clarkson Show. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Kelly Clarkson Show Feels like it would be a natural fit within that article (e.g. a 'volume 2' is likely). Nate • (chatter) 04:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would support this. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That'd do as well. I also thought of that at first. SBKSPP (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to The Kelly Clarkson Show, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. 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: Merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Review at New York Times [21] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single review does not make an article notable per WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:59, 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 merge to Lordi. I think I have assessed this is the correct Merge target. A talk page discussion can occur if there is a difference of opinion here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lordi's Rocktaurant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently translated from fi.wiki without a reasonable check of any of the sources. Appears to be a restaurant owned by a celebrity which closed in five years. Difficult to do a before, but I checked all the sources provided, and I assume the experienced editor who brought this here did their own due diligence and checked Finnish sources for other mentions. valereee (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Earlier AfD from 12 years ago redirected/merged to Lordi. Not sure why this was brought back, the restaurant certainly didn't become more notable after it closed. valereee (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't read the sources, but if it was brought to AfD as above and has since closed, logical to assume it still isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lordi. Google reveals there's (largely overlapping) coverage from pretty much every major media outlet (including YLE) in Finland about the opening. Based on how short and similar most of the stories about the opening are, I'm assuming they are based on some common press release sent to the media at large. That would make them not count for WP:NCORP. At the same time, the Kavela story cited in the article is rather long, and the Hymy piece indicates there's more extensive coverage in offline sources (stating a longer story would be published in a paper version of the magazine). There's probably some argument to be made that this could be a borderline notability pass (if someone dug for the offline references), but at the same time this relatively short-lived restaurant didn't have any real lasting impact and had its fame appears to have been derived pretty much solely from its association with the band. Merging the content to the band article seems like a good way of splitting the difference. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant improvement in thirteen years, the restaurant doesn't exist any more and was not especially notable even when it did. JIP | Talk 21:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Lordi, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. 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: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but probably merge not much more than the fact of its brief existence, into 'Tributes' section. Significance to sustain an article is not proven, existence is verifiable. Kevin McE (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably a better idea to place into the band's "Tributes" section. There isn't enough sources to be an article on its own, so it should work out a little more in that section as it is related to the band Lordi. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Green National Committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Nabewaniec[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. National political party (co-)chairs are not considered inherently notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians/political figures. A WP:BEFORE search done on multiple search engines failed to produce any WP:RS-compliant sourcing that contained significant coverage of the subject. Sal2100 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Sal2100 (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage does not rise to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green National Committee as an alternative to deletion. I agree that he's not presumed notable under WP:NPOL, and my search did not find any in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources: only the occasional passing mention in the press. Without significant coverage, he doesn't meet the GNG. A redirect to the national committee article, where he's mentioned in the list of co-chairs, seems like a reasonable ATD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green National Committee as per ExtraordinaryWrit - ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nominator, I am agreeable to the proposed redirect as an ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 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 redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WZCA[edit]

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

Unsourced article. UPE target. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, FCC-licensed. It no longer repeats WLUZ so the redirect is effectively incorrect. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unsourced . It currently fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nate: According to the village pump-policy, BCASTOUTCOMES actually calls for deletion when there is no significant coverage. The license information is out of date which means its not applicable as source. It currently fails WP:SIGCOV as there is no coverage on the article. scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A redirect is proposed but no propsed target is suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLUZ has more information on these radio station with no information. I asked a question at the village pump-policy. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES was rewritten by outcome at RFC. There must now be evidence of coverage. It now a redirect target. scope_creep^Talk 05:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES per Nate's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES has been redone and updated per a recent RFC. There is currently a discussion at village pump-policy if you need to read about it. scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the RfC closure that led to it correctly, "WP:BCASTOUTCOMES" is a clarification that exactly arguments like "Keep per (insert anything else than WP:GNG here)" are invalid. It thus looks absurd to me when it is cited as an allegedly-valid keep reason against GNG-based arguments. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico — at this article, if any argument is to be per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, it's that. Long story short: no sources, no notability, no article. (Really, this is actually how all of Wikipedia is supposed to work, but for far too long this was one of many policies and guidelines that radio articles tended to be at odds with — but unlike many of the others, sourcing and notability gets you more-or-less into five-pillars territory.) Given the history of IP editing on this article — which is basically the article's entire non-redirect history, actually — any retention of a redirect here should be accompanied by some sort of protection to prevent the return of any of this unsourced article content (which is why I'm calling for a "delete and redirect", to further discourage that); I wouldn't exactly be opposed to outright salting this either. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico. In the absence of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, this appears to fail WP:GNG as a WP:MILL radio station. I agree with scope_creep, ToBeFree, and Wcquidditch above that "per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES" is a rather weak argument against deletion. The actual text of WP:BCASTOUTCOMES states: Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources. We still require real sources to be provided as evidence of notability, and the proponents of keeping the article have not provided any above. I'm not 100% sold on the "delete and redirect"—in my mind, we should only do that if there is something extremely problematic with the article text, e.g. if it has copyright violations or WP:BLP violations. If someone tries to restore the article, we can always revert that by pointing to this AfD, and if it becomes persistent, we can semi-protect the redirect at that point. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. The arguments for keep using BCASTOUTCOMES are no longer valid, as the language of that guide was altered after this 2021 RfC ruling. Clearly the editors citing it above have not read the updated text of that guideline.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico, per above: there is not much content to speak of, and other concerns militate against a standalone article (like the lack of reliable information for writing a full article). jp×g 05:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, although I agree with the nominator in this AfD, I should probably say for the record that the nomination statement says almost nothing and doesn't really advance any argument in favor of deletion. jp×g 05:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The article was already deleted once after the first AfD and the subject still does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In addition, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and this article being used for possible harassment against the subject results in the article not only needing to be gone but also given a heavy dose of WP:SALT. SouthernNights (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Pally[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article is harassment by a stalker and was previously deleted 8 June 2021 Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, seems like this was deleted 12 months ago on the basis of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and recreated a few months later, though I am not seeing anything disparaging in the article which alone would justify deletion. There seems to have been reasonable efforts to develop an article although I don't see anything to suggest the subject has changed their stance on wanting an article about themselves. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's well-covered in media and is an academic. Sources show notability. She was a member in residence and a fellow of notable academic "units?" (unsure what to call them, beyond my field of expertise). The pornography section seems well-balanced and very NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am at a loss to understand the subject’s ad hominem attack and will not comment upon it. The present article is substantially different from the deleted article that the subject felt was inaccurate and disparaging. The article is a neutral, objective description of a notable academic who has been a prominent journalist and public personality for some forty years, and who has published numerous books on a wide variety of subjects. It is entirely based upon reliable third-party sources, the subject’s own publications, public statements, and appearances in the media. It makes no judgments, expresses no opinions, and reveals no sensitive personal information. I do not see how the subject can find the article in any way offensive.AlexaVamos (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — AlexaVamos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No indication that subject requested this deletion specifically, was just the previous one, no way to tell from nomination[22] if subject finds this version offensive. Article does appear neutral and fair to me but definitely can't say entirely based on third-party sources. A lot of the article is WP:PRIMARY sources, so not secondary or done by third parties. User generated source like IMDB has been removed now. Some cleaning up should be done for sure, particularly what seems to be WP:REFBOMBS. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Primefac, how did the subject request deletion last time? Aaabbbyyyzzz, you've said you're a friend of Pally's. Is she again requesting deletion? If so, has she made that request clear in the same way she did last time? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Through WP:VRTS. I would make the not-unreasonable assumption that if she wanted the article deleted six months ago, she still holds that opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac. It was a year ago, not six months, but that's perhaps a reasonable assumption. I'm operating with less info than you, who can see the deleted version, and AlexaVamos, who appears to have some prior knowledge of what it contained. Do you care to comment on AV's point that this new version is "substantially different"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a friend of Prof. Pally and she is adamant that this article be deleted. Contrary to some of the discussion above, the article does not portray her career accurately. It inappropriately amplifies her work in journalism, which was a relatively brief phase of her career, compared to her 30+ years in academia, which constitute her substantive life's work. More notably, it amplifies minor -- even minuscule -- aspects of her work, giving a false impression that she was significantly involved in pornography or that she was an activist of any significance in LGBT or AIDS-related causes. Most of the statements are factually correct, but irrelevant to her life's work and they amount to a skewed portrait of her. The intentional skew toward pornography and sex-oriented subjects is the hallmark of the stalker noted above. (Some statements are not correct, such as her roles in GLAAD, which were discussed at length in my arguments in the last deletion effort, and some are so obscure and insignificant that Prof. Pally herself had forgotten about them, such as the inclusion of her portrait in the Robert Giard book. Such facts are so obscure that only an obsessive stalker would have found them.)

If "AlexaVamos" is not the stalker and is "at a loss to understand the ad-hominem attack", then his/her contribution to the article bears an uncanny resemblance to the stalker's barrage of harassing emails and text messages that have been sent to Prof. Pally and her colleagues for the clear purpose of character assassination. This was all amply documented in the previous deletion effort. Whether or not "AlexaVamos" is the stalker, Wikipedia needs to understand that Professor Pally has been for several years the object of an aggressive harassment campaign, and that this article is either an instrument of that campaign or a bears a striking similarity to it. Wikipedia, with its all-anonymous editing community, can be weaponized in this manner, and Wikipedia should be on guard against such misuse. If there is any doubt as to whether this article represents such harassment, I recommend that the subject of the article should be given the benefit of the doubt, to best ensure that Wikipedia is not weaponized as an instrument of harassment. This is especially so for a non-notable, or marginally notable person. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could she submit a request for deletion via WP:VRTS as she did last time? I would support deletion upon request. I'll look into the inaccuracies or over-weighted details you mention above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I / she will be happy to submit a request for deletion via WP:VRTS. Can you please provide the exact link; clicking on WP:VRTS, it was not clear to me where such a request would be entered. I also request, since this problem has recurred even after deletion, and since it relates significantly to a truly threatening real-life harassment campaign, that the deletion be made permanent and that the creation of new articles about this subject be barred. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaabbbyyyzzz, this isn't something I have experience with. I believe she could email info-en@wikimedia.org, which is handled by the VRTS team. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further response regarding your review (much appreciated) of the over-weighted emphasis on salacious subjects: simply notice how much of the article relates to her brief and long-ago journalistic career, compared to how much relates to her decades-long and ongoing academic career. There is a clear over-emphasis on the journalism (and, within that, an over-emphasis on her role at the pornographic magazine Penthouse, which was a very minor aspect of her journalism). The long list of academic books itself suggests the scope of the academic career and conspicuously indicates the subjects that should be emphasized in an article on Prof. Pally. That said, the remedy sought is deletion, not correction, because the skewed emphasis is clearly an act of harassment and not merely a matter of poor editing. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know much of anything about the subject than what is/was in the article, but I do agree that it was written with some questionable additions. I did a slight bit of clean up last week, and somethings did lean towards trying to point a WP:UNDUE picture. Some examples were listing a select few of her written articles out of many, in what appear to have been done by simply searching for the ones that had the word pornography in it and listing them all whether they were more notable than others or not. The mentioned photograph and the inclusion of the short documentary seemed to be just trying to subtlety link sources that mentioned her personal life from the 70s/80s, while pretending not to infer it in the article. The article has a section on her academic career which is nearly completely source with primary references from her or the institutions, while the journalism section looked to find as many sources as possible to put more information and focus their. If WP:TNT needs to happen again than so be it, and maybe with a little salt added in if a version that is more balance can't be formed. If the article is kept (or deleted and remade again later), there probably should be some consensus on what to include and balance in a new version, I have no clue how old article looked and if this is a significantly better version with some of same issues added back in, or if it is still the same problems rehashed. There were talk page discussions lost in the old deletion too. I don't know if the old deleted talk page discussion could be put into Talk:Marcia Pally/Archive 1, as it might give some more detail on the edit war that occurred back then, or if an admin just wants to summarize what was there and we can see if those issues are present here again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are understanding the issue clearly, WikiVirusC; your close examination of the article and its sources is much appreciated. The writer of the article is indeed using subtle means to present an apparently objective article while emphasizing information and sources that are in fact very obscure in order to skew the article toward a salacious emphasis that is inappropriate, misleading and defamatory. I have many pdfs of the article and discussions relating to the previous article, which I can attempt to upload to the archive you mention, if that will be helpful for the discussion. That said, I think the discussion so far on this page should be sufficient to reach a decision to delete, since it has recognized an intentional skewing of information for the harassment of a non-notable person, repeating the offenses that resulted in the previous deletion decision, all of which is closely related (or, as a practical matter, highly similar) to a real-life harassment campaign that has caused the subject intense distress for years on end. I again underscore the importance of preventing Wikipedia from being weaponized as an instrument of harassment, a principle that should result in strict enforcement, giving the marginally-notable subject the benefit of the doubt. The lack of notability, btw, is underscored by the lack of multiple perspectives in the writing -- it is not crowdsourced, its substance is all the work of "AlexaVamos". The reason that fewer restrictions apply to notable subjects is that they are known by, and their W articles are written by, a larger population, who are collectively more likely than a lone writer to produce an accurate and balanced article. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous versions aren't needed, at least not for me. It was deleted previously already, no need to restore to archives. I just wanted to see the previous discussions that were there. Now able to do so thanks to Primefac. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion as the discussion has been active yesterday and today. Lots of comments about the article and its creation but so far only the nominator is advocating deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:BIODEL states: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is "no clear consensus to keep" may be closed as delete. Just keep in mind it's not an unambiguous requirement to delete on subject's request. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 12:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily because WP:BLPDELETE in the context of:

Bona fide privacy, and professional reputation concerns
Previous AfD concluding in delete
She is not very notable
Appears to be created by a WP:SPA CT55555 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I attempted to edit this article to remove what appear to be misuse of references, e.g. for WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:OR, and some WP:BLP concerns. From my view, this article attempted (and still attempts) to create an WP:UNDUE focus on aspects of Pally's career that does not appear well-supported by the references. Other editors have also attempted to address concerns, including source reliability and a WP:BLP issue. As this article is revised to remove poorly-sourced claims, I think it is more clear that notability supported by secondary sources is borderline at best. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. If it wasn't for that I'd might have !voted the other way as WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with Beccaynr that WP:SALT may be required, given this is the 2nd AFD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree about this too. CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote and suggestion to WP:SALT is influenced by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the previous AfD (where I !voted and mentioned WP:TNT), as well as my review of some of the WP:REFCLUTTER and how sources were used, as compared to the representations made above by the article creator. Pally does not appear to be high-profile or well-known, or a particularly notable or prominent academic, journalist, or public personality.

The article creator was aware of the previous AfD and request by the article subject, but has continued to try to create the article. There is no indication that the article subject has changed their mind, and we should not require them to reaffirm their request to delete, particularly under these circumstances.

Based on this third attempt to create the article, full creation-protection may help, particularly after this article was approved at AfC with 83 references [23]. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 9, where salting is mentioned. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The BLP seems to be being used by an editor as a weapon in a POV war. Citation record is around the borderline so no cause to override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 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 redirect to Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University. TigerShark (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi-ud-Din Institute of Nursing and Allied Sciences[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL. And also sources are primary, that too published by the organization itself. No other source from elsewhere is present. No much can be gathered through a WP:BEFORE search. Institution doesn't look notable. Just to note, this is a creation by an user who is now blocked because of copyvio problems. A CCI case is currently in progress. This article too had copyvio problems. Cleanup was done before AFD. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan which is this institute's parent university. That university's article already has a reference showing that the university is accredited by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. I'll try to find and add more references, clean up and hopefully improve the parent university's article tomorrow morning. It's already late night here. Best Regards... Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the proposal to merge the above Institute's article with the parent university's article – Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University. Accordingly, today I removed all the primary source references and replaced them with third party independent source references at the parent university's article. Regards...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two other depts are proposed to be merged into the University's article without having come via AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University, 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: Delete, redirect or merge? They are different possible outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Life (TV series)[edit]

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

Was unable to find sources in a WP:BEFORE. Prod contested for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment reason given for removing prod was “ decline prod. No evidence of WP:BEFORE being performed”, which seems reasonable. Artw (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I have to spell out that I did a WP:BEFORE literally every time? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
would suggest that when a reason is given you just write “prod was contested” and leave it at that. Artw (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if people didn't mass deprod everything without explaining why they're doing so... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a situation entirely of your own creation and has no bearing. Artw (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's some coverage out there, mostly under the individual titles of the documentaries, though none of them make it sound like the series was super substantial. Artw (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article could do with additional information but three different, independent, sources are used so this removes any issues regarding independent references. Rillington (talk) 11:56, 20 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!} 00:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now has references to significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Irish Independent added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the addition of more references, I have now moved from weak keep to keep. Rillington (talk) 13:17, 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 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Scott Wills[edit]

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

Sources are extremely tangential or not about the artist himself. Found nothing better in a WP:BEFORE. Deprodded in violation of WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of a larger investigation into the nominator

Comment – Regarding the last part of the nomination, for context see the ongoing ANI threads and commentary:

– These are valid community concerns, and the deprod edit summary simply reflected some of those concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that I explicitly stated that I did do a WP:BEFORE is not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, unfortunately, no, it's not enough at this time. For example, at ANI, users have posted comments such as, "I have skepticism that it is humanly possible for TenPoundHammer to be doing sufficient WP:BEFORE checks on the AFDs and WP:PRODNOM checks on the PRODs at their current rate of editing", "TenPoundHammer needs to do a proper WP:BEFORE and provide better deletion rationales instead of nominating articles because they are "unlikely to be sourced" or "tagged for notability", "They seems either to have a lack of understanding about what notability is, a refusal to believe that WP:BEFORE applies to them, or a belief that their opinions override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", "it appears TenPoundHammer believes it is up to AfD participants to improve the article. This is the wrong way round, the nominator should carry out a full WP:BEFORE search and attempt to improve the article before considering nominating it for deletion", "...seems to have some WP:BEFORE problems, particularly in the claim that there's nothing in Google Books..." and "we need an iron clad commitment for the user to do a proper WP:BEFORE check on any article they nominate", among others that are also there. An issue is that you seem to be missing sources in your WP:BEFORE checks that others later easily find. Others at ANI have stated that they doubt it's even possible to perform adequate WP:BEFORE checks at the rate you have been performing deletion activities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which has anything to do with this exact nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You stated in your nomination that the article was "Deprodded in violation of WP:NPA", but this is not the truth nor the intention. Your argument directly above is a straw man. Your patterns of behavior regarding deletion matters have recently concerned many users and are being discussed at ANI. This is a deletion discussion that you created, and as such constitutes a part of the overall actions you have been performing that many are concerned about. My edit summary when deprodding simply reflected that. Hopefully you can now figure out my edit summary from the information I have furnished to you here. Good day. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not a fan of the nominator's recent patterns with PROD's and AfD's (see the collapsed discussion section above), but in this case I must admit that he is correct. Andrew Scott Wills is a behind-the-scenes songwriter who has a few songs that became hits, but the notability goes to the recording artists while Mr. Wills is only ever listed in the credits. Except for this minor introductory profile: [24], I can find no significant coverage of his career in its own right, and he is only visible in directory entries and the aforementioned songwriting/publishing credits. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The previous PROD for this article and its removal are parts of an investigation into possibly inappropriate practices (as seen in the collapsed discussion above), so perhaps the PROD's existence should not be a determining factor in whether this article falls into "no consensus" purgatory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Because of the questions about the nominator, I've done my own BEFORE here, more than once. And still, haven't decided to vote either way. Maybe this is the perfect article for "no consensus". Jacona (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is insufficient for the topic to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:24, 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.

[:2-1] "Ireti Kingibe Named Chairman of Leadership Group". AllAfrica.com; Washington [Washington]. 7 April 2014 – via ProQuest.

[2] Moses, Orjime (2022-06-09). "2023: Ireti Kingibe Pledges Better Representation For FCT". Leadership. Retrieved 2022-06-26.

[3] Levitt, Hayley (22 October 2021). "How Many More Broadway Faces Did You Spot in Only Murders in the Building?". Playbill. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

[4] Russo, Gillian (16 May 2022). "2022 Drama Desk Award nominations announced". New York Theater Guide. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]