Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 04	June 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wilkison[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 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) 21:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks reliable sources. I see no indication he has actually had multiple reliable roles in notable productions. The two database sources are in the case of IMDb not reliable. Internet Broadway Database may be reliable, but it is just too comprehensive of everything to be used to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is potentially notable and the article needs to be adjusted to reflect that. The roles seem to be significant enough to warrant a second look. IrishOsita (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in GNews, few scattered hits in GBooks, but it's a rather common name. Roles might be notable, but we have no sources to confirm them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of refs to confirm notability. Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:52, 12 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 diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Port of Spain[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Trinidad and Tobago. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey ~Kvng (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Santo Domingo[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:GNG, could only find 2 gnews hits for its Turkish name. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Caribbean. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey ~Kvng (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dear 23. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly Mary[edit]

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG Mooonswimmer 22:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dear 23. No notability asserted on its own per WP:NSONG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dear 23. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Meeson Newsagent[edit]

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

Chain seems to have existed, notability isn't apparent. Mooonswimmer 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited in this article only mentions this company once and doesn't identify it as being a newsagent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not sure about notability, but it does not have enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one source provided, so there is not enough to be notable. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Night[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Nothing to indicate notability as none of the references seem to be reliable sources. Fails WP:FILM Mooonswimmer 22:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the director well and hope that in the future he can have a chuckle that one of his early films was deleted off Wikipedia, but in the here and now this isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepy night last year. Would seem to be block evasion by Asaidmanar (talk · contribs · logs), given that past socks have deleted AfD templates and an IP is doing so here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G4 as noted above. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've speedy-deleted as WP:CSD#G4 and have since blocked the creator as a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Star Books[edit]

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

I do not believe NCORP is met. Dege31 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Companies, and Canada. Dege31 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anderson Creek, North Carolina. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Creek Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. Only source is the club itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and North Carolina. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as notable golf courses go, it's one of the better ones in the area. It is just one of the newer ones. I added some other sources and will add more. I do not believe its worthy of deletion. It has a lot of potential. -AEdmonds 174.24.189.10 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anderson Creek, North Carolina, where it is mentioned already; per WP:ATD. There is some coverage in independent sources, but entirely insufficient significant coverage to meet notability guidelines and justify a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge found glancing mentions but didn't see much that reached GNG. Agree with Wjemather that the merge target to the town would be the best option. 17:28, 10 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Crease (studio show)[edit]

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

In the Crease (studio show)

Television show article with no references, which therefore does not satisfy television notability or verifiability. A copy was created in article space with no references, and moved to draft space by User:Mcampany. This copy was then created again in article space. At this point this article should simply be deleted, and any sources can be added to the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The user continues to publish articles in main space before they are ready. Needs to learn how to use drafts. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a show with no coverage in reliable sources. Note that the overview and format section has been cribbed from an ESPN/NHL press release so a portion of what little text there is in this stub is also a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adhearsion[edit]

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

In doing WP:BEFORE, there seems to be a few academic articles about using Adhearsion in building an Asterisk system, but these don't seem to me to meet WP:GNG as they are not about Adhearsion, but more tutorials on how to use it. TartarTorte 20:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 20:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5. Created by a sockpuppet of previously blocked User:DPLIVE202. RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhumik Pravin[edit]

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

No indication of significance, let alone notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Hindu Temple & Community Centre[edit]

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

Sources only prove it exists and do not cover the topic with any significant coverage, the closest to significant coverage is routine coverage of a burglary of the premises by a local paper. Fails WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and England. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know at least three temples which are older and there is no reasonable claim to notability. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, and my long-standing standards for houses of worship. I think it doesn't even match a single factor. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Lacking indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cultural impact of Shakira. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira Wannabe[edit]

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

No topic here, just a giant violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever content is slightly notable and missing into Cultural impact of Shakira, and then delete the title. The title is a literal made-up term. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research. Very few facts; some pieces of info could fit an inclusion into the Cultural impact of Shakira, but not sure if a merge is worthy since isn't a recognized term and as Why? I Ask said, is a "literal made-up term". Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if really necessary, simply redirect to Cultural impact of Shakira, though I find it unlikely that anyone would use the title as a search term because it's not a thing. Nobody with authority uses the term "Shakira Wannabe", and unlike Elvis impersonators, Shakira's wannabes are not a community or archetype that has received independent research and media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth merging into Cultural impact of Shakira and delete the article. There is no such thing as a "Shakira wannabe" so it's an unlikely search term – this article is almost entirely original research, down to the image used... literally just a photo of a woman, with no credible indication that she is attempting to copy Shakira. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Katie^talk 16:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from the revision history, this BLP was deleted on 28 Jun 2013, citing the individual's lack of notability. Immediately afterwards, User:Nick, who deleted the article, created a redirect to Duke of Manchester. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=561991397 On 18 Sep 2015, User:Wikimandia restored the article, claiming that during the 26 months between June 2013 and September 2015, the individual now "definitely meets" WP:GNG. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=681619206 This caused some brawling among Wikipedia contributors, but in the end, the restored article remained intact. In addition to the individual's lack of notability, it seems like the article was (and still is) used to target/attack the individual with libel etc. by people who dislike him from the sole fact that he has inherited a peerage title, and there were also concerns as to the individual's children, who were (and still are) presented with full names, dates of birth, and places of birth and claimed to be illegitimate/the result of a void, bigamous marriage. I can't see what has made the individual notable after the first deletion. Moreover, there still seem to be problematic WP:BLP issues regarding both the individual and his children. I think there should have been a discussion before restoring the article back in 2015. For these two reasons, I hereby nominate it for deletion. Brox Sox (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been multiple newspaper articles about this individual; to me, that counts as significant coverage. All of the information appears to be from public sources; none of it refers to individuals who are currently minors. Brox Sox seems concerned as to how readers might use the information they find here (although no evidence of wrong-doing is provided). Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ 'Weak keep - NOTNEWS and 1BLP1E only apply to single incidents, not to a longs series of scandals caused by a person over a lifetime. He appears to be eminently notable by way of significant coverage over many years in reliable sources. There are fewer than 40 British dukes. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearian, there seems to be a mismatch between your bolded recommendation and the rest of your comment. I would point out that WP:BLP, which was invoked above, is much wider than just WP:BLP1E. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant weak keep - tells you how deletionist I've become! Bearian (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained Australian, British and American news coverage over many years. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as to the children. Information about their names, dates of birth, and places of birth isn't covered by the individual's alleged personal notability. Displaying "2" in the infobox should suffice, cf. comparable BLPs. This is also the BLP rule of thumb. (For example, Madonna is listed with "6" children.) I observe that three out of five paragraphs are dedicated to the children, in particular the son, including the claim that they be the "illegitimate" offspring of a "void, bigamous" marriage. There's also something that appears to be WP:OR and likewise lacks WP:RS. ("As his parents were not lawfully married at the time of his birth, he is neither entitled to the style of "Viscount Mandeville", and nor is he eligible to inherit the dukedom. This is because his father did not obtain a divorce from his first wife until 1996, three years after his second marriage.") In its current state, the BLP violates WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..."). Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate (move to the draft namespace for the original creator to improve the BLP) as to the individual. It should be explained, justified, and sourced why the individual is notable. Is because he is a duke? No, according to some participants in this discussion. It looks like the first AfD discussion landed on the same conclusion, establishing that the individual is not notable in the sole role of duke, a consensus that remains in force until a new consensus is reached. Is it because he has received broad press coverage of his criminal and non-criminal yet "scandalous" activities? Yes, according to ditto. My argument is that press coverage itself normally doesn't establish notability, but rather the activities in question. The individual was accused of firing a speargun at someone 1984, was sentenced and jailed for several instances of fraud in Australia 1985-1991, and was—two decades later—sentenced for one instance of fraud in the United States 2013 (committed 2011). Of course, this is a long criminal record, but it's not much longer than quite many commoners have, without the latter being awarded their own Wikipedia BLPs. Thus, my contention is that although not expressed (admitted) by participants in this discussion, the individual's ducal title (not his crime) is their real argument for notability. A factor to consider in this respect is whether he, beyond passively inheriting a peerage, actively has sought social influence or political power, be it, by taking seat in the House of Lords, guesting TV programmes or calling newspapers. As far as I can tell from the current BLP, the individual has not approached the public. Summarised, "a low-profile person who by law inherited a peerage and who has done dumb things in life" doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Even if he be notable, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies. Not least, I'm concerned that this BLP might render an imbalanced impression of the individual. The information is overall negative, violating WP:BLPBALANCE, suggesting that the BLP actually be an WP:ATTACK. Related to this, I think the detailedness of the criminal offenses should be trimmed and generalised. Now, each account is elaborated with such a zeal (e.g., "arrested again in Brisbane", "passing a $3,575 check") that this not only dominates the BLP but also gets WP:SENSATIONAL, simultaneously violating WP:EXCESS. Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is the BLP factually correct? It says that the individual was sentenced to three years of prison in Australia 1985, emigrated from Australia to the US 1986, was arrested in Australia 1991, fathered a son in the US 1992, and got married in the US 1993. How could he emigrate to the US one year after being sentenced to three years of prison? And how could he afford shuttling between Australia and the US if he were so broke that he had to write false cheques? Of course, all of this is possible, but it must be explained and sourced, be it, why the individual seemingly was released from jail in 1986. Was the sentence actually a suspended one? Or good conduct time? In sum, this BLP is very problematic. Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a fix. If the BLP stays this way, without the children and with a generalised summary of the individual's criminal offenses, I'm more inclined to vote "Keep". But I'm still not sure about his notability though. Brox Sox (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noel S McFerran - there is definite coverage by multiple external sources. Some of the issues raised are issues about the content that can be resolved by editing the article, they aren't reasons to delete the article. Deus et lex (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The duke meets WP:GNG.86.38.72.142 (talk) 12:39, 13 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 Marlboro. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morley (cigarette)[edit]

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

Topic does not meet the WP:GNG because there is not significant coverage in reliable third party sources about it. The rest of the article is almost all original research. This is an typical deletion case where there is a short dictionary definition with questionable sources, supporting a massively unsourced list. The way this is fundamentally constructed fails WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V, among others. Jontesta (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is sufficient 3rd-party coverage linked in the references. --Zac67 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marlboro since the fictional cigarettes are clearly stated to be based on the real cigarette brand, just with a different name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marlboro per Zxcvbnm. I actually had seen this discussion a couple days ago, and just could not come up with a decent solution. There was some coverage, for sure, but the actual sourced content all really boiled down to "its a fake brand of cigarettes based off of Marlboro that is used as a prop in many productions to avoid legal/royalties issues", which is not very much. Merging to Marlboro, the brand that it is clearly modeled after and based on, is a great target to include the information on its fictional counterpart. Of course, I am advocating that only the sourced information in the lead and "Justification" sections to be merged - the extensive list of non-notable trivia should absolutely not be merged along with it. Rorshacma (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marlboro per Zxcvbnm. The existence of this parody is of note, but the current list of trivia examples fails WP:IPC. I am not concinved there's stand-alone notability, since the best sources we have are low quality newspieces ([1], [2], [3]) that may fail WP:RS. My BEFORE failed to find any serious, in depth discussion in reliable sources. What we have is enough for a short section in Malboro, yes, but stand-alone article is iffy, given the low quality of covearge so far. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Does not meet the WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV. Would be appropriate to delete but the community has identified a decent target, if someone wants to focus on what the sources actually say. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:32, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brobdingnag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by the WP:GNG. The main coverage comes from summaries of primary sources that, at best, trivially mention the subject as it focuses on other aspects. Jontesta (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gulliver's Travels is an important work of world literature, several elements within it are worthy of their own article. While of course Lilliput is the best known location, I would argue that Brobdingnag is the second best known. If we are to start pruning articles then I suggest that not all of the locations in Part 3 of the novel may merit their own article. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brobdingnag is a subject of gigantic cultural significance. Sources do exist. I could easily cite a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is entirely dedicated to one individual Brobdingnagian animal; the Brobdingnagian Monkey, a notable subject in itself. Chow, Jeremy (September 2020). "Prime Mates: The Simian, Maternity and Abjection in Brobdingnag". Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. 43 (3): 315–325. doi:10.1111/1754-0208.12707.. And that's just one of the island's inhabitants. Vexations (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing above. Merger doesn't make sense as the element has independent notability and doesn't benefit from SIZE constraints applied to a combined article. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other journal papers found in a quick search include "The Sexual Politics of Microscopy in Brobdingnag" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4625129) and "The King of Brobdingnag and Secrets of State" (doi: 10.2307/2707568). Looks like there are numerous other mentions, e.g. in "Pediculosis in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels"(doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9360) and "Dual Focalization in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels" (Journal of Narrative Theory. 2021;51(1):1)/ Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, and WP:GNG, which I can't believe we're having, because many secondary sources can be found. This is one of the most prominent fictional metonyms. AfD is not a place to fix article issues. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to New Universe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Event[edit]

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

No reliable third party sources to establish notability for this article. What few sources are in this article are not independent of the subject matter, indicating this article is all original research, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event is only notable within the fiction, not independent of it. A redirect to New Universe would be acceptable, I guess, but anyone knowledgeable enough about the subject to search this term could find related articles without our help. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Universe#Concept and creation as redirects are cheap. Fails GNG on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No real objection to delete other than WP:CHEAP. Skynxnex (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, fails WP:GNG. Heavy WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:45, 10 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 Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers The Movie: Original Motion Picture Score[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No charting information, no reliable sources found, no reviews, no nothing. Deprodded with suggestion to merge/redirect, but the title seems too unwieldy and I'm not sure which target would be best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to movie article. Very little in the way of sourcing or content, seems unlikely that it charted significantly or did much of note considering the movie. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge - Not notable enough on its own. A lot of the information is unsourced and probably just need the basic into the main article for movie. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sergecross73. starship .paint (exalt) 07:38, 10 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!} 23:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Children's Mystery Theatre[edit]

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

Zero hits on ProQuest, only passing mentions and TV Guide listings on newspapers.com. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion CBS Children's Mystery Theatre discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, did you find any results on Google Books? Artw (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a show from the 80s on a major network to be anywhere on ProQuest. That was enough of a red flag for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough on Newspapers.com to warrant keeping this article, IMO. I've added several sources. There is scope for the article to be expanded. NemesisAT (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, why did literally nothing whatsoever show up on ProQuest then? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NemesisAT. starship .paint (exalt) 07:38, 10 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 18:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with Me, Kid[edit]

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

Zero hits on ProQuest for "Stick with Me Kid" "Peter Hume". No other sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:30, 5 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?)} 17:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Life, Richard (1994-07-08). "Disney sticks with European venture". Broadcast. p. 8. ProQuest 1777221486.
  The article notes: "Disney Presents: Stick with Me, Kid stars Leigh Lawson ... who plays an out-of-work TV detective. He fronts for a 12-year-old boyo who is a brilliant detective but who no-one will take seriously. The two team-up to solve mysteries in each episode in what is described by Disney as a 'fast-paced detective comedy/adventure series'. Shot in English, the series is being filmed at Bray Studios and on location in the South of London using a European production crew. It is also being produced by Disney production arm BVP International in association with UK agency IPH Associates."
2. Marich, Robert (1993-09-21). "Dis in Euro telefilm co-prod: Studio keeps creative control of ' Stick With Me to avoid mish-mash '". The Hollywood Reporter. pp. 4, 86. ProQuest 2362073111.
  The article notes: "The TV movie — "Stick With Me, Kid" — quietly went into production Aug. 31, with no U.S. sale prearranged but four European broadcasters as financial partners. ... For the pilot, the executive producer is Dan Petrie Jr., who was Oscar-nominated ... The teleplay was written by Canadian writer Peter Hume. The producer is Steven North and the director is Emmy nominee Gary Nelson ... "Stick With Me, Kid" is expected to cost about $1 million per hour to produce, which is big-budget by Europeans standards and only slightly below the American network average of $1.2 million per hour for primetime drama series. ... Once the creative team for the pilot launches the pilot, a new producing group would be brought in if "Stick With Me, "Kid" is picked up as a series. The telefilm is about a child prodigy who is a skilled detective and is forced to use a down-on-his-luck actor as a front-man for investigations since the prodigy isn't taken seriously by adults. The cast is all European: Kristopher Milnes, Louise Jameson, Rosemary Leach and Sir John Gielgud in a recurring role. ... "Stick With Me, Kid" is being shot in English, and then will be dubbed into four major European languages. There is no U.S. presale. If the telefilm is picked up, an outline exists for producing 11 additional one-hour episodes."
3. Leger, Louise (1998-09-26). "Kidding around New shows for kids, from Animania to Zzzap!". The Globe and Mail. p. 10. ProQuest 384494947.
  The article provides 94 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A true family program, Stick With Me, Kid is geared toward the seven-to-11-year-old, but older kids will like it too. Beautifully filmed on location in England, it features the analytical and clever 12-year-old Ripley Hilliard (Kristopher Milnes) and out-of-work actor, Grant Logan (Leigh Lawson), whose only claim to fame is playing a detective on TV. With Ripley's keen mind and Grant's flair for playing a detective, the duo team up to solve crimes, sometimes even collecting reward money. Ripley is a likable kid and Lawson's portrayal of the down-and-out-yet-egotistical Logan amounts to good fun."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Stick With Me, Kid to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Kvng (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Original 1978 movie and series. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Boomer[edit]

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

Fails to assert any real world notability for the character. Article has been sourced entirely to fan wikis or not at all since 2008. Prod contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer please check edit comments for DEPROD rationale. In this case it is, "consider merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series)." ~Kvng (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Would accept a redirect to the main topic about the series. Jontesta (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Original 1978 movie and series, which itself isn't in great shape, but as long as its there, Redirects are cheap. There is not enough coverage to demonstrate why this character is independently notable, and there is no sourced content that needs merged or preserved. The more notable "reimagined" incarnation of the character from the reboot series already has a separate article, so is a non-factor for this character's notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma and my original (slightly different) suggestion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a redirect, but Jefferson still does conventions on the basis of this character. [4], [5]. A couple of dead-tree references to the character would clear the notability hurdle. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, I concur WP:GNG is not met. I also suggest tackling Serina (Battlestar Galactica) next. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha Srivastava[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, fails to meet WP:NCREATIVE Mooonswimmer 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Mooonswimmer 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shafi Haider Rizvi[edit]

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

This doesn't pass GNG requirements and there isn't any indication of any subjective criteria being met as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Hemantha (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fynn Kliemann[edit]

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

YouTuber, lacks credible sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Promotional. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable YouTuber. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer on YouTube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are sufficient. Several are indepth. He meets notability. I am not sure why all above, cant consider these sources sufficient!Craigwikiman (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article are reliable, and they show notability. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the author is a blocked sockpuppet of a serial copyright infringer. Presumptive deletion applies. Note the comments at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Outdoor-Bro - BLP violations are also in play. MER-C 06:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:A9. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Rock[edit]

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

Song by redlinked rapper, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NSINGLE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar[edit]

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

Seems like a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection; with very few sources to back it up (thus also mostly failing WP:V). Wikipedia is not a song database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notable songs. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I couldn't believe this article was actually up for deletion when I saw it. There's nothing that can be better justified than this list, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here to begin with. That this article needs more sources and verification is another story, and it needs to be improved accordingly, not deleted. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't believe it" is not a reason to keep this. This is a listing of every single song supposedly recorded by this person. It obviously very much does not belong on Wikipedia, as Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a database. The lack of suitable sources for this is similarly a fundamental issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: If you're quoting me, at least quote me right and don't take my words out of context. I said "I couldn't believe this article was actually up for deletion when I saw it", and it was just an introductory note. This certainly was not the reason or my rationale for keeping the article. A list of songs does not turn into a database just by virtue of its structure, just like an actor's filmography is not a database. WP is an encyclopedia which includes lists, and this list is more than legitimate. The original use of WP:NOTDATABASE is quite gratitious, frankly speaking, as this page is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" (the section actually provides specific examples of what a database could mean, and a page like the one you seek to delete is not one of them).

Moreover, I do not understand the WP:OR claim. Do you suggest that only sources that mention all her songs together are required? It's clearly not what WP:OR stands for (basically a conclusion not warranted by reliable sources, synthesis of material, or lack of direct evidence for the existence of a particular topic). There are plenty of sources which just need to be added (either per song or per film). This topic exists - this artist is described as among the most recorded singers in history. If she does not deserve a page detailing her body of work, I don't know who does.
Having contributed to a number of featured lists myself, I know for sure how it works and how it could potentially work on this page as well. See List of songs recorded by the Beatles as a brilliant example of what could and should be done on this page. I suggest everyone to be bold and contribute. Suggesting to delete is always the easy way out (no offence meant to the nominator, just a general observation). Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the WP:OR claim - the lists claims to be a "List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar" but " does not contain all songs sung by Mangeshkar." As such, which method it used to select the songs, and how the listing was created, remains entirely unknown and unclear (did somebody go through various catalogue/CD listings and tried to compile a list? That is explicitly WP:OR, since Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, not "on research collected and organised by its contributors). Given this; and given the age of most of these recordings (many, most, are well over a half-century ago, from a region of the world where sources are not typically very easy to find and accessible), it is absolutely impractical to verify the accuracy of its contents.

This list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE because of it's sheer size. For example, we don't have a (single) List of airplanes even if those can be verifiably sourced to exist or have existed, as such a list would be monstrously large. WP:CSC provides some general guidance, and states that lists of "every item that is verifiably a member of the group" should only be created if they are reasonably short. By any definition of the term, this list is not "reasonably short" (for comparison, the Beatle's list includes just over 300 songs, which is far fewer than this one; which has over 1300). Given there is no obvious selection criteria for how to narrow this down (how many of these songs are individually notable? I have no clue, but the lists provides none either); there is no solution that wouldn't necessitate starting over from scratch (and well, losing all of this unsourced, unverifiable content is not a great loss -- WP:V is a fundamental policy, "this singer deserves a page detailing her body of work" is not).

This list also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a catalogue of works by artist, even if they are very popular or "one of the most recorded singers in history". There are plenty of sites which do this. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, a "summary of knowledge". In the same way we don't provide overly detailed nitty-gritty statistical accounts of sports events, we shouldn't provide all-inclusive database-like catalogues of works with no context or reliable sources by singers, even if the singers are very popular. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I'm sorry, I did not read the entire thing because I'm busy and can't be bothered to justify my vote to the one who wants to delete it in the first place because this nomination is, in my view, not justified. The comparison to "List of airplanes" is frankly ridiculous. All the songs recorded by one particular singer are not even remotely comparable to a list of objects. Moreover, the mention of a directory is also irrelevant. To sum it up, either both List of songs recorded by the Beatles and this list are notable, or none. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read the entire thing because I'm busy and can't be bothered to justify my vote but then you complain that, despite a length justification provided by me, this nomination is, in my view, not justified. You can't play two tunes on the same fiddle. To sum it up, either both List of songs recorded by the Beatles and this list are notable, or none. That entirely and absolutely misses the point, since whether this is notable, or not, does not change the fact it fails WP:NOT and is unverifiable as it stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian Great, then go ahead and put up every page listing songs recorded by artists for deletion. WP:NOT is, again, absolutely irrelevant here. This page is neither a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, so I don't think any of what you say above holds water because the very premise of your rationale is, in my view, simply wrong. And this is why, this nomination is, not justified. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then go ahead and put up every page listing songs recorded by artists for deletion. I've already done so with a few others. You insisting in perpetuating a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not helpful. I'll again say that the comparison with the Beatles list is very much a false equivalence; the Beatles list is much better sourced (thus it doesn't fail WP:V) and is much shorter (300 entries vs. 1300 entries).

WP:NOT is, again, absolutely irrelevant here. This page is neither a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, so I don't think any of what you say above holds water because the very premise of your rationale is, in my view, simply wrong. I have provided detailed reasoning why this indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia or on anything that wishes to define itself as an encyclopedia. You flat out refusing to engage with said reasoning and instead repeatedly dismissing it (now for a third time) as "not justified" or "simply wrong" is a classical proof by assertion, which is proof of exactly nothing at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Your so-called "detailed reasoning why this indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia" is not satisfactory, I'm afraid. Mainly because it's practically baseless, frankly speaking, despite large walls of colourful text. Just the instance where you compare this page with a potential "List of airplanes" (by the way, if you don't want others to claim other stuff exists, at least do not justify your point by asserting other stuff does not exist) creates a false, misleading analogy between songs recorded by one particular singer (who happens to be among the most recorded in history) and a random list of objects. As I said, in no way does WP:NOT apply for this page - nothing turns it into a directory or a random collection - that's why your reasoning, however detailed, is uncalled for in the first place as it relies on wrong premises. Please see the list on WP:INDISCRIMINATE - totally not true of the current page. Please see again WP:NOTDIRECTORY - nothing of what it lists as a possible example of a directory could describe the current page. The association you're trying to make between WP:NOT and this page is grossly unwarranted and, sadly, borders on wikilawyering, and your own conclusion (or, as you nicely put it - proof by assertion) of "indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia or on anything that wishes to define itself as an encyclopedia" is a clear case of WP:DOESNTBELONG.

Secondly, your text includes many wikilinks so please let me suggest that you read WP:CONRED and kindly familiarise yourself with other important portions of the AfD process and criteria, especially "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and others. Thank you for your time, I think we have made our points clear to each other and I guess it's better to agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:NOT is not something that could be improved rather than deleted. Equally, for sources, the WP:BURDEN is on those claiming they exist (as I can't prove a negative). What I do find, like "Lata Mangeshkar recorded 50,000 songs in 14 languages", suggests even more that listing them exhaustively (as this list attempts to do; thankfully only very partially) on Wikipedia would obviously be excessive and fall even more afoul of WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: No, it doesn't fail WP:NOT, as I explain above and not going to do again. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you earlier accused me of wikilawyering but then go on to dismiss the NOT argument because Please see the list on WP:INDISCRIMINATE - totally not true of the current page.; despite WP:NOT itself being clear that The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. As for "totally not true on the current page"; that is again an ad lapidem dismissal which is in this case empirically wrong. Of course, you're free to keep thinking whatever you want, just stop making an "I am right you are wrong" argument - denying that these lists are Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is at best disingenuous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Well, I'm sorry but the burden of evidence is on you to show why WP:NOT does indeed apply here. You haven't been able to do it, but this is understandable becuase this policy is irrelevant in the first place and I think you know it yourself. It is saying that this page is a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" that I find disingenuous. There's no way you can show the relevance of this quote here because it would mean every list of artistic works is. The same goes for "Summary-only descriptions of works". The only way you are able to provide your "reasoning" is by mixing up cherrypicked parts from different policies, none of which could suffice on its own to justify this nomination. As for the "I am right you are wrong" argument - do you realise that's exactly what you're doing here? And proof is in every single user's vote to keep this page (and others). You address them all and as I said - you can't accept the fact that your opinion is being countered. This results in constant bludgeoning which simply destroys this discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the burden of evidence is on you. Ok. "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit": We have
A list, incomplete, of songs by a given artist

Individual entries do not give any information about the songs except maybe the year and the movie for which it was produced.

Most of these songs (in fact, all of those that are currently in the article) are not in English, so, for most readers of English Wikipedia, there is literally no contextual information provided by the list (since, well, I, like most people, have no clue what stuff like Jab dil men tere dard could even be about)

The vast majority of these songs do not even have an article here where readers interested could find more "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit".

Of those mentioned in the previous point, the vast majority are from movies which don't have an article here either - so not contextual information to be found anywhere on Wikipedia.

The vast majority of these songs are not backed up by a single reliable source.

Of those that do have a source, most seem to be from an apparently collaboratively-contributed (WP:UGC) catalogue run by some random person on the internet ([6]), which doesn't look like a reliable source, and even if it were, itself doesn't provide any further contextual, encyclopedic information.

The only "contextual information" whatsoever provided is a poorly written and unsourced first paragraph, which doesn't give much if any pertinent information about the songs themselves - in fact, readers would be far better served on that aspect by going directly to Lata Mangeshkar.

The sheer size and number of entries, their variety precludes any effort to make a reasonable attempt at providing context without it being a helplessly vague and not-really-about-the-songs concise biography of the singer. And apparently, per below, the sources which do discuss Mangeshkar are at best insufficient for this endeavour.

I'm not going to compare in-depth with the Beatles list (which you seem to like quoting so much as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but that one has in-depth, reliably sourced information about the songs (of which there are far fewer, thus helping provide a pertinent summary of them), who wrote them, the context behind them, ...; and is also from a group whose main period of activity was much shorter, with the main group spanning altogether less than a decade, and hence all of their songs are far more obviously related to each other in many aspects, as sources show, than merely by the fact of being sung by the same person.

If that does not satisfy you, well, frankly, I don't care, because that would just mean you asking for evidence of this was just a bad excuse to waste my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It's amazing - none of your points actually supports or serves as evidence for a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". This is just a continuation of your flawed interpretation of the policies you're citing. The worst of it all is your point about songs not being in English - this is exactly the problem with many AfD nominations off late and this pretty much exposes the true motives behind such nominations. India happens to be the largest film producer in the world, and I can assure you most film titles would mean nothing to monolingual English speakers, but this is not what WP is about. What I'm left with after this wall of text by you is the saddening understanding that many of the AfDs are based on nothing but pure systematic bias against something that doesn't sound intelligible to them.

With all due respect, the only one who's been bludgeoning this page is you, so please spare me the point about your time being wasted. I didn't call you into this conversation, and trust me, I hope we're finally done here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we're done here, because none of your points actually supports or serves as evidence for a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". is one more, one too many, dismissal without even the courtesy of a reasoning behind. exposes the true motives behind such nominations. is also egregiously WP:ABF. We don't give special treatment to pages because the subject is not in English (and, well, of all places to complain about, India, which was and still is a member of the Commonwealth and where English is formally an official language, well...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I did let you know below that I do acknowledge you mean well, so I definitely assume good faith on you even if I disagree with you. It's all I can say. As for the rest of it, as I suggested before, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of songs recorded by an extremely popular singer is clearly within the realms of acceptability here. It needs improving..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This definitely belongs in an encyclopedia" is not a convincing argument, even less so when a clear reason why this fails WP:NOT; WP:V and WP:NOR has been presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop twisting what everybody says? The list easily meets content requirements in the same way that the Beatles list does. A list of songs with dates and some facts by a major artist is encyclopedic, it just needs improving with sourcing and content. You could make an article like this a featured list. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with @Dr. Blofeld. Moreover, I should suggest to @RandomCanadian - we are not here to convince you, and we do not need to meet your standards or subjective interpretation (or misinterpretation) of policy. It is also worth noting that addressing every user who votes against your opinion is detrimental to the efficiency of this process. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not twisting anybody's words. clearly within the realms of acceptability here is pretty much, quintessentially, WP:Clearly notable. If you make bad arguments, expect them to be countered. AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE but a discussion to reach consensus. The list easily meets content requirements in the same way that the Beatles list does except it doesn't because it has far, far more entries (WP:NOT, as argued) and because it additionally fails WP:V. If you refuse to discuss, then that's on you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments do not warrant deletion at all. WP:CONRED might be a useful read for the right course of action for the (valid) points you're raising here. That AfD is not a vote does not mean editors offering their view should be addressed by the nominator or be forced into a discussion until they accept the nominator's fixed position. I'm sure you mean well, by the way, just pointing this out for your own sake, but suit yourself. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination was surprising, but the lack of suitable sources was even more surprising. Internet searches appear to indicate a significant difference, both in quantity and quality, in the secondary coverage Beatles' songs have received compared to this topic, so I do not think the mentions of List of songs recorded by the Beatles are appropriate. Hemantha (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lata Mangeshkar is clearly notable. The list of songs, is notable per WP:LISTN. That is, various sources have discussed her work. That is typical for the works of a musician, writer, painter etc. The list could be included in the article on the person, but in this case there are so many it is natural to break them out as a stand-alone list. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the singer is notable is, first, irrelevant (notability is not inherited), but also entirely besides the point because this list is far too large to be acceptable (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CSC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again entirely besides the point. The objection to this list is not on grounds of notability, but on grounds of it failing WP:NOT and WP:V, as well as WP:CSC: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short and could be useful or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. Not only is this list not "reasonably short" (with over a 1000 entries); but it is very far from being "supported by reliable sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

various sources have discussed her work - Aymatth2, Can you link or at least list these? Hemantha (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 199 cited sources in the article on Lata Mangeshkar. Many of them discuss her body of work, the topic of the list. E.g. "Lata Mangeshkar: The nightingale's tryst with Rabindra Sangeet", The Statesman, 9 June 2022 or "Lata Mangeshkar: The Queen of Melody", Hindustan Times, 14 October 2019
Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of biographical and news-y links in Lata Mangeshkar and I'd say most of them wouldn't count towards establishing notability here. Both the refs you cite illustrate the issues. One says below that the content is sourced from wikipedia, among other things. The footnote in the other on Rabeendra Sangeet raises reliability questions - it says it was written by an English teacher for http://sahapedia.org. The discussion of the topic in that article is also quite short - four-five sentences at most. Sources similar to that, but more in-depth and reliable, are necessary. Hemantha (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just picked the first two major newspaper sources cited in Lata Mangeshkar that discussed the subject in some depth. There are many more. Sources often discuss the work of an artist in more depth than other aspects of their life: the artist is notable because their work is notable. Wikipedia's coverage should include information on Mangeshkar's life and works. Given the amount of relevant material, it is reasonable to split it into two or more articles. The list is a bit large, which may be an issue for readers with limited bandwidth, so perhaps should be broken into sub-lists by language and, for Hindi, by decade. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do agree with you that the topic should be notable; see my initial comment. But the reality is different and once I started trying to find reliable sources, I saw the same issues you've run into above. Hemantha (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discussion seems to be split across another similar, mostly-identical AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coming here from WP:ICTF, Discography of an internationally notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged. There is no question of deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really seeing the WP:NOT issue here. A shorter list for a less prolific singer would not raise an eyebrow, so this appears to be a perfectly fine use of WP:CFORK. Needs more sources, but there doesn't seem to be any question that the information is verifiable. -- Visviva (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: Wow, interesting - I wasn't aware of this past AfD. Thanks for letting us know. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of recorded songs by a notable artist is encyclopedic given that complete discographies are routinely published in academic reference works on musicians. Further this is a reasonable content fork of the main article. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As previously noted by DaxServer, the discussion splits across several identical AfDs. The nominator has just opened another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. A previous one for Armaan Malik has been restored by the closing admin after closure for further discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lata Mangeshkar is notable as is the list. scope_creep^Talk 06:41, 16 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 Mahmud Shinkafi. Hate doing this with women, but there is no identifiable alternate solution. Star Mississippi 18:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saratu Mahmud Aliyu Shinkafi[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Being the wife of somebody does not confer notability. Only a single source quoted and searches don't find anything better only YouTube, social media etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (minimally) to husband's page - ie give her a mention there, lacking at present, and redirect. No evidence of independent notability. PamD 08:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anne-Marie discography. ✗plicit 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karate (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP per WP:NALBUMS as it didn't charge nor did it receive significant coverage. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage is limited to its existance rather than any substantial information beyond its existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anne-Marie discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole argument to keep is not policy based, and it does not appear any more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 18:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Development Finance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article instance was deleted at AfD in 2016. This new unreferenced instance has been created over a redirect, and reinstated again after another user had reverted to the redirect [7], hence this return to AfD. Searches find listings and passing mentions of events organised by CIDEF but I am not seeing the coverage of the organisation itself needed to demonstrate notability and overturn the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Education, and South Africa. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the article is not deleted. The Chartered Institute of Development Finance (CIDEF) is a very important global institution which has benefitted 1000s of people and institutions in Africa and beyond. CIDEF is just a short name for Chartered Institute of Development Finance. If one checks www.globalcidef.com one would see the extensive activities rendered by the organisation. Rather than deleting, it will help to provide recomendations for improvements or, for editorial colleagues with more advanced skills, to assist in editing the profiling. Recommendation is to assist in building a better profile and not to delete.

105.225.105.27 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ntambo57 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ntambo57, please read WP:COI. AllyD (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC) (For context, this was my response to a subsequently-deleted comment seeking to commission paid editing for the article: [8]. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

CIDEF is just a short name for Chartered Institute of Development Finance(CIDEF). Again check www.globalcidef.com for activities of the company. Ntambo57 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination has been cycling through relists without others contributing, which is disheartening. I guess that raises the question of what is to be done. This also relates to other recent discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deletion_Criteria_#4 this. My view is that if there are no policy-based keep opinions, the outcome should be to re-apply the decision of the previous AfD on the topic? AllyD (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references in the article are either primary sources, or from universities or other institutes mentioning they are members of the program, and all are trivial mentions without any detailed information. I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is candidates need to be notable beyond from the coverage generated by their race if they are not elected. Dixon was not, and did not. Star Mississippi 18:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dixon (politician)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an unelected candidate for office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while a candidate must either (a) have some other preexisting claim of notability that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia on those other grounds anyway, or (b) show some credible evidence that their candidacy should be viewed as much, much more significant than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But this shows neither of those things, and is referenced mainly to primary sources (raw tables of election results and candidate FEC filings, etc.) that are not support for notability at all -- there's only a very small smattering of the purely expected local election coverage within his own state, which is not enough coverage to make a non-winning candidate permanently notable just for being a candidate.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just three hits of run of the mill election coverage for WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, how many times have you repeated this tired spiel? Wikipedia should be a resource, the sum of all human knowledge as Jimmy Wales himself put it, and deliberately keeping out information about newsworthy individuals through nominating this article for deletion is doing a disservice to the entire world. Kingofthedead (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he got National attention in 2016 for his Senate race. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed political candidate, non-notable otherwise. Minor coverage for the 2016 campaign, nothing I see worth putting in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm honestly of the mind that this fails GNG. I'm also going to start leaving the essay "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing" in the hopes that it stops these efforts to preserve candidate articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In accordance with usual AFD procedure, contributions from new and unregistered users have been given lesser weighting. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, it's been years since this decision was made and new information has come to light about thecompany. There have been fund raising and other news with reputable sources. Kindly restore the article so I can make necessary corrections as needed to show its notability. Abeycity37 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tdpel media[edit]

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}}.

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

Not notable, promotional. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company is popular on its own with a physical address and so I thought it should have a wikipedia presence. It is not meant for or need the promotion. Abeycity37 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the publishing company passes WP:GNG. Worldsolarpower (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website/organisation. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the publishing company passes WP:GNG. The company also has secondary notable referrence. Abeycity37 18:09, 01 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable news organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMEDIA. The award it won itself non-notable, perhaps in the future it maybe eligible for a page. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:GNG. Publishing company has secondary mentions and has notable work quotations ^[1] proving reliability, coverage and notability. Future eligibility makes a case for current eligibility. 102.89.41.54 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The, Guardian (2022-06-02). "'I have invested everything in this case': Depp superfans converge on Newcastle for glimpse of actor". that TikToks with the hashtag JusticeforJohnny or similar were watched 19.8bn times while JusticeforAmberHeard videos were watched 81m times. Retrieved 2022-06-05.

Keep Passes. I agree with the above argument. The media company is well referenced and linked, making a case for popularity. And popularity in this category, well, makes a case for notability, which is the bone of contention. Exquisit (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm somewhat uncomfortable seeing a large number of SPAs in this relative to the overall size. I've added the standard "not a vote" label to the top, though I have yet to look through online sources to see if the mere assertions that it passes GNG have any basis in reality. The sources in the article clearly don't establish its notability, however. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its promotional because 3/4 of the sources are from the company itself and show no notability to the company. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Sawyer[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a county commissioner, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and instead get articles only if they can be shown to have significantly more nationalized notability than most other county commissioners -- but this makes no such claim, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all rather than WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. The only other plausible notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a baking reality show competition, and that her name has appeared in various listicles, neither of which are automatic notability freebies either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better, more independent sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think there's evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician, non-notable contestant. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:BASIC - there is national coverage in The New York Times (2021) related to her leadership of "a campaign to remove statues of Confederate leaders around Memphis", in HuffPost (2019) for her political career, and several days later in HuffPost (2019) related to her past offensive tweets (some were also covered locally, 2). She also appears in the film Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America (reviewed by e.g. Variety 2022, NY Times, 2022, RogerEbert.com, 2022 (mentions her), Hollywood Reporter 2021, WSJ 2022). I have not been able find more than verification of the documentary of her mayoral campaign (Youtube) in addition to the film festival award cited in the article. Other aspects of her career can be verified in local coverage, 2, 3, 4, 5. The article can be revised, and expanded with sources focused on her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:NBASIC. Beccaynr dug up some good sources. I'd add this in-depth piece from the Knoxville News-Sentinel. Her Confederate monuments/remains removal work also got coverage by the Associated Press. The mayoral race got more than just routine coverage in this AP piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of all the additional sources identified, many of them national. I've also added an article from Memphis magazine which profiles her along with other "2018 women of achievement". This article just needs a bit more work. The baking reality show is trivial, but what makes her more than "just" a typical local politician is her role as a civil rights activist, and in any case there is more than enough significant coverage to justify keeping it. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 10 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. The article has been fixed to describe its subject only. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD 74438[edit]

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

Which star is this about? There is information from HD 74438 (the article title) and HD 74389 (the bold term in the lead), all mixed together. One of these stars is likely notable, the other I'm not so sure. WP:TNT; this is more work to try and fix than to start again, and would likely lead to misleading redirects lying about. Currently an orphan, although HD 74389 is in the template:Ursa Major navbox. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit more research, article HD 74389 already exists and HD 74438 appears to be a stillborn clone of it. Perhaps @Nwbeeson: will clarify if this article is a work in progress or just a mistake. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Don't delete. (Do I, the creator of the article, get a vote?)

It is definitely a work in progress. I tagged it with an "Expert needed" tag, and put a discussion on the Talk Page. I think this is an interesting example of a quadruble star, because it is young, and because it is likely unstable. It seems as though it will destroy itself in a few megayears, due to the high eccentricity of the orbits. ^[1]

My hope and expectation was that some astronomer, who is an expert Wikipedian editor, would help rectify my unintentional errors. I did indeed copy the HD74389 article as it would have the proper tags to place this in the constellation of astronomy Wikipedia articles, about which I know nothing. I am following the dictum "be bold".

I also find it puzzling that it is tagged as an "Orphan". Of course it is an orphan, it is not even 24 hours old. With hope I assumed that an astronomer interested in the star cluster IC 2391 would link this article. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about astronomy to come down on either side of this debate, but I do know a good amount about Wikipedia orphans. Orphaned articles are just ones that don't have any other article linking to them that are in the main space. Editors add tags for any problems an article may have. The goal of the tag is to increase traction and get editors to fix any of the problems it is having. So an article being labelled an orphan isn't a negative thing, its just here to increase visibility to other editors. Herravondure (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks Herravondure. I started editing Wikipedia so long ago that when the "Orphan article" tag first appeared all such tagged articles were years old. This gave me the false idea that that tag should only be applied to articles that had had several years to be linked. Since this had not happened in years it was an indication that they were not "notable" and should be deleted. Nick Beeson (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as at least slightly notable. It has been the subject of a news story and a few scientific papers, mostly by the same authors. Praemonitus (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability – several focused journal articles and at least one in more "mainstream" media – and offer potential for expansion comparable to articles on similar star systems. The issue of overlapping content or confusion with HD 74389 has been resolved, so TNT no longer applies. ComplexRational (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a very rare quadruple star system, it is obviously notable. Sbierwagen (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Plait, Phil (26 May 2022). "A weird four-star system may lead the way to catastrophic supernovae". SYFY Official Site. Retrieved 5 June 2022.

Comment Content irrelevant to the article topic has been removed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darkover series. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkover (TV series)[edit]

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

Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird, this one got a brief burst of sourcing at the initial announcement, but literally nothing afterward. If literally nothing happened other than the initial announcement, then there's nothing to write about, and therefore no notability. Prod was contested with a suggestion to merge, but there's just too little verifiable content here worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ not seeing any actual policy grounds for deletion here. Merge seems entirely viable if users other than TPH want to go that way but this is not “Articles for Mergeletion”. Nominative is currently at ANI for spamming Prod/AfD with junk entries and this appears to be an example of such. Artw (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:V not good enough for you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cover a period of 4 years, not counting the tweet which would bring it to 6? Not seeing a V issue hear whatsoever given the Variety article, suspect you just threw that one in for luck. Artw (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Nobody has any time for this. I added what was worthwhile to the main article, please go ahead and ~~Close~~ this and Redirect over to there. It's what's should have been done in the first place. Artw (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per the fifth/last point of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). I also contacted you directly regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline, shortcut WP:PATT). Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series per Artw's additions and comments, though I would suggest "keep" if it wasn't for them. Merko (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended above. If it never went into production, it wouldnt meet recommendations in WP:NTV, which were to follow the steps of WP:NFILM to eliminate the hundreds of projects that get stuck in development hell or cancelled. -2pou (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series. The actual added sources are all just pretty routine "announcement" type blurbs, which I honestly don't feel actually passes the WP:GNG. And, even if they do, the amount of information that is possible to write about this never-produced series is so brief that it still would not be appropriate to split off to a separate article, per WP:NOPAGE. Regardless of the reasoning, having the couple of sentences on the main Darkover series article, which Artw has already done, and then Redirecting there is the appropriate amount of coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NAC oveturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_June_5#Darkover_(TV_series). Relisting to be sure it shows on the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apologies on my previous bad advice - AfD should have been WITHDRAWN, not closed, and the redirect put in. Since it wasn't and we are going through the motions my vote remains Redirect, though this is effectively a merge as I've copied everythong worthwhile over. Artw (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series#Proposed_TV_series, since the information that's interesting: they tried to make a TV show, didn't happen, is now there. Skynxnex (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma and Skynxnex. starship .paint (exalt) 07:37, 10 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. The "keep" arguments were challenged as arguments to avoid, while the arguments to delete were more detailed and not refuted. If anyone would like the content moved to userspace in order to move to Wiktionary, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's better to move it to Wiktionary. 17lcxdudu (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers in various languages[edit]

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this list is nothing else than a multi-language dictionary for the ten first numbers. Also, this article is an WP:ORPHAN, and it seems that this list is WP:original synthesis.D.Lazard (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mathematics, and Lists. D.Lazard (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the article is an orphan is wholly inconsequential. Being an orphan neither qualifies something for deletion nor nudges it over the edge in close cases. It's also not any kind of original research. The topic of numbers in any particular language, or family of languages, or across languages as a whole is certainly going to be notable. But the deciding factor here is WP:NOTDICT, where this would belong as an appendix instead. A gigantic listing of the words for 0-10 in as many languages one can muster is outside Wikipedia's scope. The fact that 0-10 is used also highlights a problem that not all of these languages use a base-10 system, but trying to explain all that in a list like this wouldn't be feasible. It would be akin to having "List of color words in various langauges" for common colors, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDICT. --mikeu ^talk 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear NOTDICT fail. (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I reckon this is an encyclopedic topic. However, it's not amazing as the sprawling behemoth it currently is; a much much shorter list with some encyclopedic background given in the lede would be significantly preferable IMO. J947 † ^edits 08:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This article is not a dictionary to explain words' meaning. It is rather a useful list to compare basic words of different languages (just like other Wikilists about countries, stars, automobiles, etc.). The main purpose of it is to compare languages, therefore users can find similarities and differences easily. Orphanhood appears to be caused by disregard of editors of other linguistic pages. A better way is to move this page to Wiktionary as an appendix. 17lcxdudu 18:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDICT, WP:IINFO, and near-total lack of sources for a list that includes some 1200 langauges and is over 433 KB. There are serious problems for a comparative list — in particular, many languages have special names for larger numbers, and some languages do not use base 10 numerals. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with this page. It needs fixes rather than complete deletion.

There is a useful database (only modern languages) of numerals from one to ten in various languages

https://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/channumerals/

with reliable sources.

Other sources include Wiktionary, several proto-language databases (including American and Uralic languages) and some linguistic papers. 17lcxdudu (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this subject matter is important enough to open up the discussion to experts. This reads like a giant Swadesh list. Not sure of it passes WP:LIST. Importance is not the same as notable. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest redirect to List of numeral systems#By culture / time period. That article already has a short list.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't really make sense, though, because that's a list of various systems used to denote the numbers, whereas this is a list of the words in languages for those numbers. A redirect is also especially pointless for an orphan and an unlikely search time, such as this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate and (by assuming that counting to ten is the natural stopping point) heavily Eurocentric. I'm sure there's something interesting and encyclopedic to say about the comparative linguistics of number words, but this is too broad in scope and bare in presentation to qualify as that. It is not knowledge, only data, and not very good data at that. Also, all the sourcing appears to be very individual, so WP:SYN applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Languages with base 10 numerals are not only common in Europe, but also among the world. In fact almost all Eurasian languages are 10-based. Even Khmer has a 10-based Austroasiatic predecessor. 17lcxdudu (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous other lists throughout Wikipedia. This list is not a "dictionary" per se; the languages are arranged in families which show relationships of the languages in those families and language branches (such as the Germanic branch of the Indo-European Languages). I think this aides in showing these relations.Squad51 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other lists throughout Wikipedia Oh great! Now when somebody nominates anything for deletion one can just say "there are numerous other [thing] throughout Wikipedia". One will have understood that this kind of comment, which does nothing to attempt to address the very real issues with the list, is not persuasive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to, this page is useful and to delete it would just be cruel. Great Mercian (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal to pity combined with WP:ITSUSEFUL? How utterly unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the reasons given by J947, 17lcxdudu, and Squad51. Adam78 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Despite protestations to the contrary, this is nothing but an indiscriminate, heavily Eurocentric and unsalvageable (due to it's base concept) WP:NOTDICT failure, whose sheer size also makes it a blatant WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. The sheer size and variety of languages, as well as the lack of any inclusion criteria or sources to back this up (go look at WP:CSC), make any attempt to provide "encyclopedic value" to this doomed from the start (as it would be impossible to do more than a very shallow, superficial and valueless summary of this without it becoming excessively bloated). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the sources seem to discuss them comparatively. The only one is maybe [9], a source on which the article relies heavily and has none of the signs of a reliable source. Ovinus (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply put, this is Wiktionary appropriate content, but not for Wikipedia. Maybe there is an encyclopedic topic, but no one so far has shown what that would be. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Adam. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is at least valuable. If we finally decide to delete it, please move it to Wiktionary as a backup. (Or we can move it to Wiktionary as a compromise.) 17lcxdudu (talk) 02:02, 14 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.

Delete fails NOTDICT. LearnIndology (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Phlu[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Curation/Patrol. o indication of WP:notability of the intersection under GNG or SNG. No coverage of the intersection in sources. The is an editor-created collection of things near the intersection. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's the name of a neighborhood, but there happens to be an intersection there. On the right of the intersection on the map is Bang Phlu Canal which should be much older, perhaps century old while the road was built in the 1980s. This article has much more content than Bang Phlu MRT station (the skytrain station located there, one of not many stations outside Bangkok), Bang Rak Yai (the subdistrict this neighborhood is located in. However when people talk about Bang Rak Yai, they often don't mean the subdistrict but the name of a different neighborhood located around Bang Rak Yai MRT station), and Bang Bua Thong district (the district it is located in, but the Bang Bua Thong neighborhood is around the district office about 10km away). I think the content is fine, just need better references. Alternative would be merging into articles mentioned earlier but those articles lack content in other area of the district/subdistrict. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think its a notable neighbourhood. Shankargb (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a rather unremarkable neighbourhood that doesn't have anything going for it apart from being the location of the MRT station. No history or actual coverage that I could find about the area itself that isn't more about the MRT. The bit about the market could be covered in the other district or subdistrict articles, but a rewrite would give better context. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 06:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian High School (Lubbock, Texas)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been able to find any sources, but I am sure the state championships may indicate that they exist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Existing is not enough any more. In fact, since a RFC in 2017. The Banner talk 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I know. That's why I haven't !voted Keep. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of references to show this is a notable high school. [10], [11], [12] for starters. Like most high school sources, those are mostly about events and student achievements. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the nominator's argument in full, a review of the reliable and verifiable sources about the school and its accomplishments demonstrates that the notability standard is satisfied, including those already in the article and those identified by Jclemens. Alansohn (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would highly suggest for the nominator to pause on adding any schools to AfD. Not on bad faith but there seems to be a disconnect here with how school articles have went through a history of GNG to which the discussion summarized to create WP:NSCHOOLS and more importantly WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – The Grid (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To my opinion statistics, sport-sources and alumni-sources are not the needed independent, reliable in-depth sources. The Banner talk 14:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  What policy or guideline advises us to ignore sources that are about the school's sports and alumni? Jacona (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:V, that asks for sources about the subject itself. The Banner talk 16:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In the United States, the school's sports are not severable from the school. Sources about the school's sports are absolutely about the school. Jacona (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, it says nothing in-depth about the school itself. The Banner talk 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE and meeting at least 7 out of 10 of my factors for school notability. FWIW, I teach at a private, nonsectarian school. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources meet requirements for notability under WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question For my edification, can anyone name their favorite two sources they felt contributed to this article's passing any notability guideline? Jacona (talk) 16:07, 12 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Vikarm[edit]

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

Sending to AfD after PROD was objected by creator. Reason is still the same: No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject may be notable but that is not enough for an encyclopaedic entry. ⋙–Cometty—► 14:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches in English found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources: fails WP:GNG nor WP:NCREATIVE. BrutBrother (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Concerns from the nominator here about the state of sourcing in the article can be further discussed on the article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yu (singer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Liu Yu (singer, born 2000)

Singer who does not individually satisfy any of the musical notability criteria. As a draft, it was declined twice, and then moved manually to article space. (There is no rule against manually moving a draft to article space, but basic policies such as notability and verifiability apply.) A review shows that the subject still does not satisfy any of the criteria individually, and this article should be redirected to Into1. (I am not unilaterally redirecting the article because I am requesting the community to decide, in order to avoid edit-warring.) The article has been reference-bombed, and the references are not being evaluated. The article should speak for itself, and does not establish individual notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and China. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 陈玲玲, ed. (2018-12-04). "国风美少年刘宇是谁刘宇个人资料介绍" [Who is Liu Yu, a beautiful boy with national style? Liu Yu's personal information]. Strait Metropolitan Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Liu Yu, from Hefei, Anhui Province, is only one word apart from another internet celebrity, Liu Yuning, who also became popular because of Douyin. Unlike the latter's little wolf dog's voice, Liu Yu is a standard beautiful man. Liu Yu, a post-zero teenager who became popular because of Douyin, became famous all of a sudden after he appeared on "Happy Camp". In "Happy Camp", Liu Yu performed a casual dance for everyone in a small room with cameras on three sides. His witty reactions and cool movements made the audience boil. With handsome facial features and handsome hairstyle, Liu Yu looks like a "standard" member of a Korean boy group, but don't be deceived by his Korean appearance. The boy from Peking Opera is now studying at the Beijing Dance Academy and is still a freshman. In the variety show, he also brought a fan dance to everyone, the fan that rose gracefully, let the audience realize that "beauty" is not only suitable for girls, but also for teenagers."
2. "刘宇《星河入梦》新歌发布：这首歌里到底用了多少诗词？" [Liu Yu's new song "Dream of the Galaxy" is released: How many poems are used in this song?]. 亚洲娱乐网 (in Chinese). Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. 2020-04-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  The website of cntvan (亚洲娱乐网) notes: "亚洲娱乐网是国家工业和信息化部ICP备案审核（冀ICP备10016941号）的大型门户网站。网址为www.cntvan.com。旨在打造亚洲最专业的图文直播平台，实时追踪娱乐生活资讯". From Google Translate: "The website is a large-scale portal website of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China for ICP filing and auditing (Hebei ICP No. 10016941). The website is www.cntvan.com. Aiming to create the most professional graphic live broadcast platform in Asia, real-time tracking of entertainment and life information."
  The article notes from Google Translate: "2020 is undoubtedly a year of progress for Liu Yu, and the countdown to the college entrance examination has already sounded; for the first time, he will appear in the web drama "Dear Medicine King" adapted from the popular IP "Uncle Emperor, Please Take Medicine", which will also be with you this summer. Meet. Liu Yu, a dancer, singer, actor, and a multi-dimensional teenager, brought a serious and down-to-earth attitude to all corners of singers and actors. Not afraid of the change of actor, singer, student status, not afraid of more challenges in the future, this is Liu Yu!"
3. "《柳叶刀》不负众望，两周登录音乐榜首，国风再次走向高潮！" ["Willow-leaf Saber" lived up to expectations, topped the music charts in two weeks, and the national style reached its climax again!] (in Chinese). TOM Online. 2022-04-11. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "On April 11, the new song "Willow-leaf Saber" released by young Chinese singer Liu Yu successfully topped the list, with a comprehensive score of 78.56! Even the number of comments has exceeded 2 million! Congratulations! Congratulations! The style of this new song is traditional folk music + EDM style, coupled with breaking through the sound line to challenge the difficult High C, this song is full of passion, and the combination of the East and the West creates a fiery spark. ... As the captain of the mainland men's team INTO1, Liu Yu was well-known to the audience after participating in "Beautiful Boys of National Style". After that, he participated in the recording of "Happy Camp" many times, and then officially debuted in "Creation Camp 2021" in 2021 with the first place result."
4. "INTO1刘宇新歌《夏天的风》上线酷狗音乐古风少年唱响夏日清新旋律" [INTO1 Liu Yu's new song "Summer Wind" is launched on Kugou Music. The ancient style youth sings a fresh summer melody] (in Chinese). TOM Online. 2022-05-11. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "INTO1 Liu Yu's new song "Summer Wind" is launched on Kugou Music, the ancient style teenager sings a fresh summer melody Kugou Music continues to build a younger and more connotative music brand, and is deeply involved in the field of national style. The "Guofeng Xinyu" brand has created an exclusive music brand for national style fans in the form of songs, live broadcasts and offline activities, providing social media position. ... In addition to "Summer Wind", INTO1 Liu Yu's "Willow-leaf Saber", "Vernacular", "Chitose" and other songs have been launched on Kugou Music, and fans who like it can listen to it."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Yu (simplified Chinese: 刘宇; traditional Chinese: 劉宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yu received significant coverage in reliable sources that were published in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The sources from 2018 and 2020 were published before Into1 was founded in 2021, which demonstrates that Liu Yu is independently notable of Into1. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, the savior of pages. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Thanks for finding sources. TIA Taung Tan (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horný Vadičov. While not unanimous, valid AtD that no one is actually contesting. Star Mississippi 18:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Horný Vadičov[edit]

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

List of mayors of a very small village in Slovakia. Seems too obscure to warrant a Wikipedia article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovakia. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh huh huh, Beavis, you said "horny". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and I even thought that myself when I made the page. The article is up to date and really the best it can be, so it really would be relevance that deletes the page.

That being said the reason I went ahead with creating the page is because it is the town's history. I wanted to bring the article Horný Vadičov up to B class and add the history of the town to the page. Without listing off a bunch of mayors in the government section which would just make the article too long, I decided to just make a new sub-article List of mayors of Horný Vadičov. Johnson524 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help people find Wikipedia articles — and while it's true that a list of mayors is allowed to include some unlinked names on the grounds of completeness as long as there are other bluelinked names in it to actually provide a rationale for the list's existence, a list that comprises entirely unlinked names, because nobody in it is notable enough for their own standalone biography at all, is entirely pointless. And a list also needs to be referenced to some evidence of reliable source coverage about the people, not just to content self-published by the place's own municipal council on its own website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this description of the purpose of a list article. A list can be encyclopedic on its own, even if it contains entirely unlinked names. I think there is value in keeping and developing lists of elected officials (including mayors), and other content that expands upon primary source material. From a researcher's perspective, a list of mayors could be helpful in knowing what name to search for (even outside of this project). In cities that have partisan elections, a list of mayors could be helpful to visually identify trends in the city's voting habits. Lists of mayors could help researchers identify "firsts", even if the individual subject would not otherwise be notable on their own. - Enos733 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That claim would seem to contravene policy, which does not describes that as the primary purpose of lists.Djflem (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: You make good points Bearcat, and I agree with you it might not deserve it's own article like I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't say the information is "entirely pointless" though, and I will, while not the whole list, try to fit the key bits of information back into the main article Horný Vadičov. --Johnson524 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even seem to meet WP:GNG. GTNO6 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:LISTPURP. Djflem (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think the article needs to be deleted because it is not a bad article, but if it is not relevant enough to be kept I would at least merge it. -- Johnson524 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 18:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Irving Herriott[edit]

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

Biography of an academic and educator, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for academics. The notability claim here essentially boils down to "he existed as a person who had jobs", with no real evidence presented or sourced as to why his work in those jobs would be significant enough to warrant coverage in an encyclopedia, and the only "source" listed here at all is a university research database from which some of this article's text was purportedly copied on "public domain" grounds -- but (a) copying text from another source, even if it's public domain text and thus not a copyvio, still isn't the same thing as referencing the content properly, and (b) the link doesn't actually lead to whatever document the text was copied from, but merely to the front splash page of the database itself, and even a search on his name in that database only brings up one history student's thesis paper, which isn't a notability-clinching source all by itself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion on notability, but he appears to have published mainly as "Frank I. Herriott", which gives 2 pages of hits in JSTOR and 26 hits in the EBSCO search, though on quick glance mainly his writings. Wikipedia Library finds a three-paragraph obituary (Notable deaths. Annals of Iowa, October 1, 1941, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p157-157), which covers many of the points in the article and might be the source. (Though it has a copyright notice.) Proquest finds a brief mention that a dorm at Drakes University was named for him in 1958, more than 15 years after his death [13] which speaks to local notability at least. A local newspaper search is likely to find more, but I don't have that subscription. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I think it's possible, based on what's been found so far, that he's notable per WP:PROF as an expert on Abraham Lincoln. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Single-digit citations don't make a case for WP:PROF#C1. Based on the comment above I looked on JSTOR but almost all the hits were for reviews by Herriott; I didn't find any reviews by others of books by Herriott that could have led to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. We do have one published obituary in an academic journal, covering him in-depth and calling him a "recognized authority" on the rise to prominence of Lincoln. It's only one source but maybe if there were more he could pass WP:GNG; that's why my delete opinion is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG (not PROF or AUTHOR) and the additional in-depth sources found below. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like he published at least 8 books. There must be reviews somewhere. Perhaps on something other than JSTOR? Thriley (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell he wrote a number of long-winded journal papers in various state history journals that were reprinted as pamphlets. Are you sure you're not confusing him with Frank W. Herriott? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I’m referring to Frank I. Herriot. I think they may be mostly books. Here’s one here:[14] Thriley (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's one of those "long-winded journal papers reprinted as pamphlets". See the note on your link: "Reprinted from Deutsch-amerikanische geschichts-blaetter; jahrbuch der Deutsch-amerikanischen historischen gesellschaft von Illinois--jahrgang 1914 (vol. XIV)." Although maybe it's unfair to call it a pamphlet, given its length. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that he probably doesn't pass NPROF/NAUTHOR, but I think there's enough here for a GNG pass. I found an extensive obit in the Des Moines Register (pt. 1, pt. 2) and a shorter one in The Courier (here) He's also discussed in this book, and his death even merited a brief mention in the Chicago Tribune. I'll try to add some of these to the article (and maybe dredge up some more material from Newspapers.com) in the morning, but, especially when we consider the Annals of Iowa obituary mentioned above, Herriott does seem to clear the GNG/WP:BASIC threshold, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now rewritten the article to incorporate the newly discovered sources and to resolve any copyright concerns. I'd appreciate it if !voters would take another look and consider whether we now have enough sources for a GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 13 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica[edit]

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

Fails MOS:LISTS, lots of grammar mistakes, overuse of media files. GTNO6 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Christianity, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica, which is pretty small. Not sure we need as much detail as the list provides, but a slimmed-down version would be a welcome addition to the parent article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split then listify in Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica. This is an aberrant article as we normally have an article on each bishop and a list in the diocese article. I suspect that some of the bishops do not have an article, so that these will need to be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica. Not adhering to the manual of style, grammar mistakes, and overuse of files are nothing to do with notability and an invalid nomination statement, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate target, as suggested. Right now it's close to WP:TNT-worthy. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Banská Bystrica, seems to be the best solution. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourcing to back up the assertions of notability Star Mississippi 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent source to show WP:GNG, nor any indication how this political party rulebook stands out from other political party rulebooks in an encyclopedically significant way (i.e. WP:ROTM). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is being proposed for deletion. This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world. There's a whole strand of literature on its clause IV alone: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=labour+party+clause+IV&btnG= Wik idea 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single sub-part of this being notable is not grounds for having an article on the rest (notability, unlike the British monarchy, is not inherited, either downwards or upwards). This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world seems like personal hyperbole and probably shows how this is WP:BIAS too. Most political parties have rule books / constitutions / ... Without a reliable source explicitly saying how the whole of it is a significant document (and not just a part of it which is already covered in its own article); this doesn't go on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its very significant, but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly significant document, and that reaches beyond Clause 4 and goes to areas such as candidate selection, leadership elections, party conference and the National Executive Committee. It's the sort of thing that may well be important in a future news story for an aspect that's not covered in its own article in Wikipedia. It's also useful to have an article talking about the general nature of this important document. JASpencer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Highly significant document" requires verifiable evidence of such significance. While the document is certainly important for Labour internal affairs, that doesn't mean that the document (or the internal Labour affairs) are worthy of an encyclopedia article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:GNG per nom - notablility provided by available sources is almost entirely limited to Clause IV and the selection process for leaders. As WP:NOPAGE states, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." I would argue that the above commenters are right that this is an important document but its importance can and should be shown with reliable sources within articles like Labour Party (UK) and History of the Labour Party (UK). It does not warrant its own article as it fails to meet GNG by itself. SamWilson989 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the last sentence of the previous AfD discussion. "Wikipedia could do with a good and well-sourced article on this or a closely related topic but, at least currently, this isn't it" as it currently has no independent sources. TSventon (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Again, something might be important, but unless it's covered in depth by multiple, reliable, secondary sources, it's just original research or an essay, none of which we've ever accepted. We need to meet WP:GNG for an encyclopedia. The above argument to keep it in its current shape is untenable. Please find sources, quickly, if you want to keep it so badly. I have located a few possible sources at Google books, Google news, and Google scholar. I am willing to change my mind to userfy if someone will adapt this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialtext[edit]

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

PROD is deleted. The company failed WP:CORPDEPTH. The only source that is used is only talking about the merger of the company, which is clearly shown by the guideline as trivial coverage. A search on Google per WP:BEFORE only turns up small coverage about its products, no in-depth coverage. The top search result in Google is this Wikipedia article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and California. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Initially I thought the same, which is why I proposed the article for deletion in the first place. However, I did manage to find multiple sources (although old) discussing the subject, so even though the company is history, I think it’s still notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. Sources I found: [15][16][17][18][19]

Note: I’m new to editing Wikipedia. Any feedback left on my talk page is highly appreciated. Arxion (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable at the time (2002-2012), and in the history of wikis. That three editors thought it should be deleted points to the long-term decay of our current tools for tracking notability. That approach over time will turn most blue-linked lists into red-links... – SJ + 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article are enouigh, plus the sources @Arxion: found, and a quick search in Ebscohost found a decent write-up in The Guardian [20], a more real write-up about their hackathons [21]: Socialtext Launches Widget Wednesday: a Distributed Hackathon for Widgets & Mashups, and a decent size write-up in EWeek [22]: Socialtext's spreadsheet in a wiki. (cover story). This is above-average, in my experience, notable for a company of its size and era. Just it's defunct and there isn't current discussion about it doesn't change it's overall notability. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Sources shown by Arxion is enough to establish notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:19, 10 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. Star Mississippi 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dragana Dujović[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- sources are mostly advertorials and interview-based articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to find more suitable sources. WikiDiaspora (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps more references should be added to the article to improve it but a google news search brings up a couple of credible sources https://www.google.com/search?q=Dragana+Dujovi%C4%87&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&sxsrf=ALiCzsbFwJhNfpjcYF95IgZf4nuwvEwnvQ:1653619027498&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwif_Oj10v73AhX3tYQIHRVHD8sQ_AUoAnoECAIQBA&biw=1920&bih=929&dpr=1 I think it passes WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources you provide are interviews and appear to be tabloid-style articles. Non-notable, no reliable sources found. She's basically a one-time beauty pageant contesting living in Miami with a family. The paid article editing is also a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much UPE no GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass GNG. I looked for sources using Google News, Newspapers.com, and The Wikipedia Library. I got trivial mentions, press releases, and the small group of interview sources already used in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Mortar[edit]

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

Non-notable youtube series, fail of WP:GNG, cannot find anything that would indicate a pass of notability. nearlyevil 665 11:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 11:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The series sounds interesting, but there's barely any coverage out there for this series at all, let alone enough to establish notability. It's just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article and this could probably be speedied. It's honestly very, very difficult for most podcasts and online personalities to get that level of notability. For every one person, channel, or series that does achieve this level of notability, there are hundreds upon thousands of popular series that don't. I always like to point towards PewDiePie as an example of how very difficult this can be to establish, as he continued to fail notability guidelines for quite a while despite having millions of subscribers. The Game Grumps guys also had their articles challenged at one point or another. It's just that difficult to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a well thought out reply. I can understand the issues with notability, as I cannot reasonably guarantee the historic or societal value of the series. It's sad to think it may never get an article, based on the similar troubles others have faced, regardless of notable value.

I don't think I can make much of a case here, as I do agree with the reasoning behind the opposition. However, given the issues others have had with keeping their articles, the rules may simply be a bit scrutinous. They're also inconsistent, as I've know several other people, much smaller than PewDiePie or Game Grumps, who've had no 'notability' issues with their articles.

Again, I do understand the worry here. I believe its notable enough to be catalogued, and I hope someday the community will see it the same way. The best I can do is save the contents for if and when that day should come.

Thanks,

- Alex MagellanDragon (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting series; unfortunately, no significant secondary independent sources about the show (interviews are not secondary/independent). WP:TOOSOON — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is a WP:COIEDIT, based on initial article creation's edit comment[23], and creators userpage[24]. Both stating that they are the creator of the series Alex Nuelle. Even if people think the article is notable, at best move it to a draft and then let it go through review process after proper COI disclosure are done by author. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katina T. Stefanova[edit]

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

Sources not reliable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Assyrtiko (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Assyrtiko (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finance, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wondering why "User:Assyrtiko" is bent on getting this page removed. He first tagged it for CSD WP:A7, this was declined by BangJan1999 with valid reasons. He came back again with the same CSD WP:A7, this was declined by an admin, Liz with clear reasons. Now, he comes with an AFD with flimsy reason. This is quite disheartening!

Looking at the sources cited, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. A further search on Googlenews reveals this air of notability here.

Furthermore,Stefanova was appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, to serve as a member of the Investment Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.^[1]. This is also connotes an air of credibility and notability.Sanis Banganan (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Report of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board" (PDF). un.org.other.afics. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

Comment Assyrtiko at first glance, there seems to be some significant coverage of this person. I need to dig down into the sources a little before making up my mind but can you explain why you feel the sources aren't reliable? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases or other routine announcements used as sources, most of them are non-reliable. Almost run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The sources here are by and large unreliable and/or not independent: to take a representative sample, [25] is labeled "partner content", [26] is an interview published by a questionable source, and [27] lacks a byline and is an uncritical résumé-like piece. ([28] is a decent, if unflattering, source, but it's not enough on its own.) This article has already been salted at Katina Stefanova (with the apt comment "UPE target"), so I'd ask the closer to consider doing the same for this title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 12 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!} 07:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiscussingFilm Critics Awards[edit]

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

The current article cites AwardsWatch and Next Best Picture, which cover film awards indiscriminately and therefore do not appear to constitute significant coverage (see also this discussion). No other secondary coverage from reliable sources (Variety, THR, etc.) has been found. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to leave a comment as article creator, as I don't think the nom comment gives the full picture (obviously?).
I made this as a stub after the subject (awards) had been mentioned/included on lots of film, actor, and list of award articles - that is, the general advice is to not include awards in lists if they do not have a Wikipedia article unless there is good third party coverage, and the forming consensus seemed to be that these awards do have the right level of notability even without an article. As the third edition then had an actual presentation, not just online, I thought the article was a reasonable creation.
The nom mentions AwardsWatch and NBP by saying they give indiscriminate coverage, which isn't exactly true, but besides, I don't think they say things along the line of "these awards have been minor but will prove more influential on the season" about everything. The specific coverage should be considered.
This treads towards OTHERSTUFF but, seriously, have you seen the number of minor Indian film award articles that are just unsourced lists? This article doesn't pretend to be more than it is, that shouldn't be a reason to delete coverage of legitimate awards before cleaning up the articles on every production company in Bollywood giving themselves meaningless awards. Imho. Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the award was included in lots of lists because inexperienced editors just copy all of the awards from IMDb (which is an indiscriminate and unreliable source) and make a list, not because the awards are deemed to be significant. The same thing happens with awards from, for example, Gold Derby; even though those awards are not considered notable (see this 2020 AfD), they are often added to awards lists by editors. And the note that these specific awards will "make an even deeper impact" is copied straight from the organization's website – in fact, that entire paragraph in the NBP article is copied from the org's website – so I don't think that's reasonable analysis of the organization. If anything, it casts further doubt on the ability of NBP to provide secondary coverage. Regarding the unsourced Indian film awards, I'm sure there are issues there, and I would be more than happy to move for their deletion if there are similar issues, but those aren't relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any independent source about the awards or the organization, just lists of winners and nominees, which do not constitute significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën India[edit]

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

Could have been a redirect to the parent company but non-notable on their own. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Created by a potential WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does not become less notable if the concerning article was created by an SPA. If Ford India can have article then why not this? I will be checking for sources soon. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently notable, having received coverage in multiple reliable sources for several years.[29][30][31][32][33] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References in the article are routine launch/corporate announcements or insubstantial news which do not rise above the WP:NCORP bar. The links dumped above are also similar. Hemantha (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per this recent source, as well as some sources already cited above, also little absurd to delete a page from top 10 car manufacturer activity in India Shrikanthv (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Citroen is part of the Stellantis Group, I cannot identify any information in that article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Every single sentence in it is attributed to company insiders and is full of buzzwords that mean nothing. I suggest a re-read of NCORP if you consider that to meet it. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Quantum Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable private institution Mooonswimmer 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. For a prep school to call itself a quantum academy is absurd and certainly does not make it notable. --Bduke (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues. The Department of Education recognizes that it is a Senior High School which isn't exactly a claim to notability. No hits on Google books or scholar too. Got a clipping from Google News archives which states that one of its students won a trip to the US. I think that's nice but still not a claim to notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as educational institute. lorstaking 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete schools are institutions and as such general need to meet our inclusion guidelines for institutions which this one clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, as well as failing my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Media Pakistan[edit]

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

No independent RS coverage found (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Pakistan. (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, no secondary reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG --PaulPachad (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately I cannot assess sources against WP:GNG as there aren't any I can find. Due to a total lack of sourcing notability is impossible to establish. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City. ✗plicit 13:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasonanca[edit]

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

Zero reliable source shows up about this place. BloatedBun (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of barangays in Zamboanga City where it is mentioned --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City. Per WP:GEO, any populated and legally recognised place can be assumed notable. However, it is a zone of a city that does have its own article, and that city also has a list of the zones which includes this one. Without more sourcing, I do not see a reason for this one of many zones to have its own article. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City per Such-change47. Fails WP:GEOLAND. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Gregorio[edit]

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

Deprodded, but I think I refused to believe that there is a reliable source that talks about Kelvin instead of passing mentions only. BloatedBun (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried expanding/cleaning up, but this guy's best years were from 2007 to 2010 and it's hard to get WP:RS from anywhere beyond ten years ago. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google to establish notability in addition to the article itself failing to do so. IrishOsita (talk) 21:38, 4 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 10:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggling in fiction[edit]

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

We recently deleted the "List of media portraying drug smuggling". While this is not titled "a list of", it is de facto a POVFORK with just a tad wider scope and all the same problems. As a list, it fails WP:LISTN, as an article (which it is not), it would fail WP:GNG/WP:IPC). Another poorly referenced trivia list of works that mention topic Foo... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Crime, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK of already deleted material. Article has the same problems of lacking any reliable third-party sources, this failing WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a topic this seems way too broad for an encyclopedia article. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and also as failing WP:NOTTRIVIA. Without reliable sources showing how this is a notable topic, or showing how the books in question feature this prominently and not just passing mentions, this is nothing more than trivia which is unsuited to an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LISTN and WP:GNG due to inadequate sources. Seems to duplicate the unaddressed issues of a similar deleted article. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:44, 10 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh S Garg[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker Mooonswimmer 10:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, and India. Mooonswimmer 10:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The creator of the page seems to be closely related to the subject. Also see Niraj Vikarm and Shraddha Srivastava created by the same user. ⋙–Cometty—► 14:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Fojas[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not enough independent secondary sources. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 08:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Philippines. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 08:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability concerns. Eat Bulaga!'s skits and segments focuses on giving your typical everyman a few minutes in the limelight so it doesn't really justify notability. Unless someone provides justifications, the "awards" seems to be just events sponsored by telcom companies like Smart so I'm not sold on their claim to notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:ROTM internet personality. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 12:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Be Watching[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, per WP:NFF, coverage is only about the announcement of the film, all articles are just reprintings of press releases, lacking significant independent coverage BOVINEBOY2008 08:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Concur that the coverage does not constitute a "notable production" per WP:NFF, but the article can continue in draft space until more coverage comes out or the film is released. -2pou (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Timeline of Pakistani history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pakistani history (1947–present)[edit]

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

Article shares the same content as Timeline of Pakistani history both talk about post independence Pakistan history though later has pre independence timeline too. moving this up for discussion to merge there content in one page and delete the other one. - Anjana Larka 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Pakistan. - Anjana Larka 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MergeThat way readers won't be confused.--Evilfreethinker (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no need of a separate list for every period. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per merging SOPs. Don't see a strong reason to delete the "other one", instead of a redirect. AHatd (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Gritsenko[edit]

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

Just one line article. Nothing in News and Google search to establish notability _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - with 20 games in the Russian Top League with Rotor, I had expected to find some SIGCOV, but I can't locate anything other than match reports and statistical database entries. Perhaps if someone has access to Sport Express' archives from 1992–93, they might be able to locate something, but absent that, it looks WP:GNG isn't met. Jogurney (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't satisfy notability criteria. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we clearly do not have the sourcing to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brook McIlroy[edit]

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

Promotional article. Sources suggest notability, so WP:DRAFTIFY might be appropriate here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More than enough hits in Canadian sources, showing at a minimum they exist. They've done much design work for Native Canadian buildings, but most seem to only be passing mentions of the firm. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Davidson (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any SIGCOV or indepth coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brian Davidson has meets minimum requirements for a wikipedia article according to WP:MMABIO he has fought at least 3 times for Major MMA organisations. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting MMABIO is irrelevant in this discussion. GNG trumps all NSPORT notability criteria, so you have to prove the subject meets GNG by showing indepth/significant coverage by reliable sources. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have being added to make the article more notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fight announcements and results don't meet WP:GNG. Lacks multiple sources of significant independent coverage. Apparently WP:NSPORT has eliminated participation criteria and WP:NMMA now says a fighter must have been world top 10. Davidson's highest rank was #142 so he doesn't meet any notability standards.Sandals2 (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and nowhere close to meeting WP:NMMA. The SNG for MMA fighters is not WP:MMABIO but the latest version of WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tatweer Duqm[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrsSnoozyTurtle, subject is not notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung Dreamers Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable.......academy team for a Taiwanese basketball club? No English-language references, none found while searching for WP:BEFORE that aren't either Wiki links or casual references to the team existing. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Taiwan. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Chinese name for the subject appears to be 臺中市夢想家青年隊 from their website Justi yaya 11:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~overwhelming~~ (on second thought there isn't a lot but I would still argue there is enough for GNG) amount of reliable Chinese lang sources. See below for specific sources. Justiyaya 12:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ETtoday probably reliable per RSPS, title: "[Taichung] Dreamers Academy tryouts opening on the 19th, zh:萧顺议 joining"

~~China Times (China Times) "Taichung Dreamers Academy founded, Lu Shiow-yen: 'kids chasing the basketball dream'"~~ never mind this one does not seem reliable per Chinese RSPS

Liberty Times source appears to be currently discussed in Chinese RSPS I'm going to assume that it is reliable. Title "Taichung Dreamers Academy Youth won 3 times consecutively, (persons name) won MVP" Justi yaya 12:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the volume of Chinese language refs counts for little if they don't support notability. This team shows no evidence in the English text of the article of demonstrating notability. The club has had no success at national or international level. It appears to be like many other amateur clubs which all fall way below the bar of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Analysis of sources
The subject has received coverage in multiple national sources such as Central News Agency, China Times, Liberty Times, and SET News. Most of the sources are from June 2020 when the team was established. But the team has since received significant coverage in July 2020 and September 2021.
The July 2020 source from China Times notes from Google Translate, ""Taichung City Dreamers Youth Team" has performed brilliantly since its formation in June this year. It has won the first two rounds of the "3X3.EXE International Basketball League Competition" in the South Division. The third round of the South Division was held at WeSport Stadium in Kaohsiung yesterday. It was held, and the fighting spirit of the whole team was high. In the final 21 points, they won the Star Dynamic Galaxy Brigade Station, and won the third round championship. Player Wu Yanlun also won the MVP."
The September 2021 article from Liberty Times notes, "Taichung Dreamer Youth Team is composed of players from Yishou University. In the first two rounds, they defeated Kaohsiung Fuming International xTGF in the Southern Championship. Today, they advanced to the semi-finals in the cross-regional competition, and once again beat their old enemy Kaohsiung Fuming International xTGF."
I agree with the above "delete" voter that "The club has had no success at national or international level." However, there is no requirement in the notability guidelines for a team to have had success at "national or international level". The team meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through coverage in at least four national Taiwanese sources at the time of its founding in June 2020 followed by significant coverage in July 2020 and September 2021 in two national sources.
According to 謝岱穎 2021, from Google Translate, "The Formosa Taishin Dreamers basketball team has been cultivating in Central Taiwan for nearly four years. In June last year, it established the "Taichung Dreamers Academy" to actively cultivate the children of Central Taiwan." Even if Taichung Dreamers Academy were not notable, deletion would not be the most appropriate action. A merge to Formosa Taishin Dreamers per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion would be the better approach.
Sources
1. June 2020 sources:
  1. 潘泓鈺 (2020-06-15). "ABL／夢想家青年隊選拔賽19日開跑　蕭順議入列測試原文網址: ABL／夢想家青年隊選拔賽19日開跑　蕭順議入列測試". ETtoday [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  2. "ABL》夢想家青年隊選拔名單出爐乙組黑馬、UBA頂尖好手入列". Liberty Times (in Chinese). 2020-06-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  3. "ABL》夢想家青年隊選拔賽中台灣點燃戰火名單中強將如雲". Liberty Times (in Chinese). 2020-06-15. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  4. 陳世宗 (2020-06-10). "台中市夢想家青年隊成軍盧秀燕：孩子盡情追求籃球夢". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  5. "籃球》台中市夢想家青年隊成軍　6月19、20日選訓賽登場" (in Chinese). LTSports. 2020-06-10. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  6. 張雅筑 (2020-06-21). "選拔台中夢想家青年隊　看見熱血…李昱叡：支持年輕人追夢" (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  7. 黃巧雯 (2020-06-10). "台中市夢想家青年隊成軍 19日辦選訓賽" (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  8. 楊文琳 (2020-06-10). "台中市夢想家青年隊成軍多元方式助籃球好手築夢踏實". Up Media [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  9. 曾思儒 (2020-06-24). "籃球／夢想家青年隊曾柏諭、林信寬都入列". United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-11-21. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  10. 劉肇育 (2020-06-18). "SBL／斑霸好忙九太測試完再找夢想家". United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-09-18. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  11. 喻文玟 (2020-06-10). "籃球／台中紮根！市府與寶島夢想家合作青年隊". United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-04-20. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
2. July 2020 source:
  1. 陳世宗 (2020-07-26). "3X3.EXE聯盟賽台中市夢想家青年隊3連霸". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
3. September and October 2021 sources:
  1. 梁偉銘 (2021-09-25). "籃球》台中夢想家青年隊連3冠劉承彥獲MVP". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  2. 謝岱穎 (2021-10-08). "台新夢想家落腳洲際迷你蛋　當中信兄弟鄰居". tsna.com (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "台新夢想家籃球隊於中部深耕近四年，去年六月更成立「台中市夢想家青年隊」，積極培育中部在地子弟兵，"
    The article notes from Google Translate: "The Formosa Taishin Dreamers basketball team has been cultivating in Central Taiwan for nearly four years. In June last year, it established the "Taichung Dreamers Academy" to actively cultivate the children of Central Taiwan."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taichung Dreamers Academy (traditional Chinese: 臺中市夢想家青年隊; simplified Chinese: 台中市梦想家青年队) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think I would be the person to handle it, because of a stunning lack of ability to parse through anything not in English, but merging to Formosa Taishin Dreamers seems perfectly reasonable to me. -fuzzy510 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my review of the sources, there is enough coverage to establish independent notability and to support a standalone article. A merge would either result in the loss of sourced material to comply with Wikipedia:Due weight or would result in undue content being added to Formosa Taishin Dreamers. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Formosa Taishin Dreamers as per fuzzy510 above. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time for consensus to form on whether the proposed merger target is appropriate or not
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am confident the sourcing by Cunard demonstrates this article meets WP:GNG and hence warrants its own stand alone article. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Uncontroversially so, I'd say, given the sources surfaced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Nice work! Taung Tan (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interscholastic League[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 02:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 02:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Missouri Conference[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 02:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 02:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metro League (St. Louis)[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 02:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 02:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson County Athletic Association[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Doe not meet GNG. MB 01:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 01:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaysinger Conference[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Doe not meet GNG. MB 01:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Missouri. MB 01:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WARPs UP[edit]

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

WARPs UP

Band that does not meet any of the musical notability criteria. Declined once in AFC, and then moved manually to article space anyway. The references do not provide general notability, because none of them are independent secondary coverage, but they include press releases and advertising.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Avex.jp	Official web site of band	No	Yes		No
2	aramajapan.com	About formation of band Into1	No	Not about this band	Yes	No
3	aramajapan.com	Reads like an ad for the band	No	Yes		No
4	spice.eplus.jp	A press release about their video	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	jame-world.com	Announcement of album by band - Reads like press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
6	barks.jp	Announcement that reads like a press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	natalie.mu	Another press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
8	bandwagon.asia	Information on how to get tickets	No	Yes	Yes	No

Recommend that this article be draftified to allow neutral editors to find real sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, China, and Japan. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND at the first hurdle: "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Chamois Niortais F.C. season[edit]

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

Played in the fourth division WP:Fully professional leagues. Most sources are from the club's website. Sakiv (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you referring to WP:NSEASONS? It's much broader and nothing to do with FPL. I would lean towards keep, then again the next season was already deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks very notable to me. This a a professional French soccer team. See https://www.google.com/search?q=chamois+niortais&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&sxsrf=ALiCzsaZ7nXcXuZ-xIrWZdN0_3AqfaWYnQ:1653423045754&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI0bjq-Pj3AhUGqXIEHeWlBTIQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=929&dpr=1 PaulPachad (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The club is notable, sure, but there is no evidence or claim to notability for this season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard for me to judge because I don't speak French, but I don't see any significant coverage. Most of the coverage seems pretty routine, and the usual presumption of notability for team seasons is for professional leagues (e.g. WP:FPL, while not exhaustive, is a good starting point). Jay eyem (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see any evidence of significant coverage for this season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 13 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 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James I. Ausman[edit]

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

Appears to be the host of a local television show and the publisher of his own med journal. Sources seem to be mostly to him or to a provided bio or local coverage. valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. valereee (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a way to get Blaylock's book some attention, which is WP:FRINGE in itself. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF Keep Passes C8 of WP:NACADEMIC that automatically confers notability even without meeting WP:GNG. Surgical Neurology certainly passes that criterion, don't know about the other, newer one, but that's not relevant to this decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might be notable as a neurosurgeon, but the "China virus" book doesn't fill me with a sense of notability. Rest of the article appears to be a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is a mess and includes lots of POV-pushing that is out-of-place in a bio. I tried cleaning up some of it, but lots remain — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the editor in chief of academic journals, he has a clear pass at WP:NACADEMIC criterion #8. Please note this isn't one of these guides that says "are presumed to be notable" it says clearly "are notable". CT55555 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, it's his own journal. He edits and publishes it. It's neither major nor well-established, which is what #8 requires. valereee (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In some way, every journal is/was edited by its owners. Now if it's not major or well established, you'll be correct to challenge this. Do we know? I'm running on WP:AGF with the sources being offline. CT55555 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's major and/or well-established, that will be easily supported. valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both of them are on Wikipedia...see World Neurosurgery and Surgical Neurology International. CT55555 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. valereee (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surgical Neurology (now called World Neurosurgery) should be a major journal. Has an impact factor of 1.89 which is ok, not great, but not insignificant. I don't know what the guidelines consider "major", though. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe, can you clarify what you mean by 'should be'? valereee (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below. I do think this is subjective: there is no definition for "major". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be on Wikipedia, it has to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. This isn't a discussion about verifiability, it's a discussion about notability and therefore both journals passing wikipedias notability criteria is a reasonable shorthand for saying they are major or well established journals. If you have a better way to judge what is major or well established, you could say and we could measure against it.

If anyone wants to say that neither of these journals are credible for the purposes of WP:NACADEMIC please say so and say why. CT55555 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, ideally, to stay on WP, you need to do that. Many many many sources don't because no one has challenged them. valereee (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and fair. But they seem like reasonable articles. He'd only need to be editor in chief of one to meet the criteria. To discredit him on this basis, you'd need to argue both articles deserve to be deleted and that's a bit of a stretch. CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and major journal are two different things. To pass the C8 criterion, it needs to be a major journal. That relates to its impact in the field and its respect. For notability see the essay WP:NJOURNAL. Note also that non-notable journals may have articles, as we have lots of articles in wikipedia that don't technically qualify for wikipedia. I looked at impact factor and longevity to see whether these are major. Surgical Neurology (now World Neurosurgery) seems to me to pass these criteria. I'm much more on the fence with Surgical Neurology International. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this comment. He would only need to be the editor in chief of one major journal to meet the criteria, so does this mean you agree he's notable as a result of that job? CT55555 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shortly after the relist, the only delete vote above (notwithstanding a skeptical comment) updated to keep. This is a combination FYI for anyone reading/closing, but also a ping to User:Liz in case that changes the need for more time. CT55555 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think more time is fine. Others may disagree as to whether that journal is “major”. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer another admin to close this discussion. One might come along and close it now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read the discussions above. Based on meeting criterion #8 of WP:NACADEMIC criterion, it should be acceptable. Samanthany (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Copyright School[edit]

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

Only one of many videos by this channel and is not notable on its own. There is little to no coverage of this particular video on reliable sources from what I can tell. funplussmart (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sourcing found. Full of unsourced trivia, claiming it to be a "controversy", noticing plot holes in Happy Tree Friends characters, and citing Mysterious Mr. Enter of all people. Clear fancruft made just to bash the video. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, pretty much a plot summary, images may be copyright violations. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, no sources found for the channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 04:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Portia Davis.--MonFrontieres (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bethea[edit]

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

Lacks notability; one role on One Life to Live and apparently very little else. Nothing found in search. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:53, 5 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) 03:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability for those involved in acting requires multiple significant roles in notable productions. Articles on living people especially require relialbe sources. We have neither of those met. We would need both to be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elocation[edit]

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

Seems like what's in the article now is about all there is about this album. Only reliable coverage I can find is the already-present AllMusic review. Charted in the US (wouldn't be surprised if it also charted in Canada, if anyone is more familiar with how to find Canadian chart records please give it a look). QuietHere (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found one other review and further assertation of notability that the album was certified gold in Canada. The country doesn't seem to have had an archived chart back then, but the gold certification and reviews would put it over the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Tilson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded by Newtonewyork (talk · contribs), but was already AFD'd in 2009 and is ineligible. Their rationale was reason no. 4 from Wikipedia deletion policy - Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content - This page provides no value to the wider public as subject has not achieved anything worthwhile beyond being one of the many thousands of market pundits trying to appeal to retail investors' short-term temperaments, and so this page appears to be exclusively a marketing tool for the subject's forprofit business (or an attempt at massaging the subject's ego), and therefore not in line with Wikipedia's objectives Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Connecticut. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. The profile from CNBC is from a reliable source, but a business profile lacks independence. Financhill relays the subjects stock tips, without any significant coverage of the individual. I am not seeing any reliable, secondary, independent coverage of the subject in or outside the article. Not only does this individual not meet GNG, the article is full of what I consider to be inappropriate promotional material - such as the list of published works with external links to Amazon where one can then buy the books. These books are also not appropriate sources are they are not independent of the subject as he is the author. Case of deletion as Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and the article cannot be salvaged due to a lack of reliable, independent sourcing demonstrating notability and verifiability. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He's an author and these two reviews of his books get him a pass at WP:AUTHOR. The first is a blog, but it's a blog by people who have expertise, so I think that's OK. I've checked WP:BLOGS which is more about self-published blogs, which this is not, but does direct us towards respecting blogs by subject matter experts.

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2014/01/03/book-reviews-the-art-of-value-investing/

https://www.cnbc.com/id/30847981

The first AfD mentioned 580 news hit about him, it's not clear how many are primary or secondary, but that is notable. Searches of google news, google books, return high numbers of hits, including these independent pieces:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/18-years-in-whitney-tilson-looks-to-his-next-50.html (imperfect, includes primary elements)

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/whitney-tilson-names-cannabis-etf-favorite-pick-for-2022-but-clock-is-ticking-to-change-us-regulations-1031074824 (RfC reached no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider)

https://www.ft.com/content/06a84a73-5169-3b5a-90b4-ad9ca6342106 (not significant coverage)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/01/sheryl-sandberg-was-adult-in-room-of-zuckerberg-production-at-facebook.html (not significant coverage)

So that's two imperfect ways to say he is notable. It's not the most solid case, but the stark contrast with the first AfD being closed keep due to so many sources this one being nominated without mention of that, without justification other than PROD being refused, I find lacking. It seems to be a critique of the article, rather than an analysis of the notability of the subject and therefore at odds with the logic of AfD. CT55555 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He had good returns in the 2000s (when he worked with a co-partner at his Kase fund). Since the financial crisis, he has had obviously terrible returns since he had to shut down his fund and take on much less lucrative projects. All his returns by the way are confidential, and not available to any of the sources that quote him, etc and so even his good track record, shared with another of the 2000s is unverifiable. On the back of his great self-promotional effort, including a hefty ad budget spent on yahoo finance in particular, where his ads refer to him as a 'legend', 'genius', etc. he has managed to get news outlets to invite him to give his 'stock tips', etc. Obviously any article on yahoo finance itself is of dubious value, since this media outlet is conflicted. There are literally thousands of such individuals out there. While their social contribution is dubious at best, they definitely are not 'notable', except as comedy punchlines. His unique claim to fame seems to be that he knows or went to school or is friends with notable investors, but that standard is a very very low one in my view. Newtonewyork (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTHOR does not appear supported, because based on what I can find, there are no sources to help show per WP:AUTHOR#3 that he has created a significant or well-known work, which needs to be demonstrated in addition to multiple reviews, or support for other WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Also, the CNBC url described above as a review is not a review - it primarily relies on quotes from him and mentions he wrote a book. I also think the WP:PROMO concern is significant here, because based on my search, there appears to be a promotional non-RS ecosystem that surrounds him, as well as sources such as a 2019 Business Insider article that relies on his quotes and lacks independence, similar to the brief quotes from him in the 2022 Business Insider article noted above. Even though the 2009 AfD closed as "No Consensus", we need more independent and reliable secondary support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability, and it does not appear that any amount of editing can WP:OVERCOME the lack of notability per our guidelines and policies here. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the board needs to review attentively the subsequent developments since 2009. As I previously indicated, at the time, the subject was flying high on the back of unverifiable, great investment returns delivered by his fund (a record he shared with his then partner). Since then, things have not gone well for him. Now, on the back of his self-promotion then and today, he managed to keep this wikipedia page, however it has become clear that it is exclusively used for his own self-promotion. I suspect the question at hand is: "Will Wikipedia immortalize any person claiming to have had a period of past great investment returns? Even when those returns are impossible to verify, possibly at least partly thanks to someone else and clearly a temporal anomaly if they are followed by dreadful returns over an extended period of time." Or put another way: "If I start telling everyone that I had great returns over 3-4 years, that I know a bunch of wealthy successful investors (because I went to school with them) does that mean I should get a Wikipedia page? Do the ex-girlfriends, schoolmates of all great investors need a Wikipedia page?" Newtonewyork (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the assessments above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Spång[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:NBOX notability criteria. Also couldn't find any indepth or significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, Sweden, United States of America, and Nevada. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter or boxer. Highest MMA ranking of 180 and three pro boxing fights don't show notability. Coverage is typical sports reporting (results, databases, signings & releases) without significant coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals2 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails the SNGs for MMA fighters and boxers. The coverage I found for him is typical for a pro fighter--fight announcements, signings, and results--but nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum (1997 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

@User:Donaldd23: maybe you can prove me wrong since you claim sources exist. If you could please provide these sources, I will withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure where I found references back when I removed the notability tag, but I can't replicate it. Found nothing in a new search. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a TV guide review, but that's about it. If other sources exist, they're too deeply buried for me to find them given the sheer amount of junk hits I'm getting with the various search queries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Assault[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a trade review, but nothing else that I could use to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 04:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld Gang Wars[edit]

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

No in-depth independent secondary sources. Sources are derived from press release and twitter announcement. Fails WP:GNG. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Slywriter (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and India. Slywriter (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not ready for prime time, and if it's too soon, more sources might come up later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify agreed. It is almost never a good idea to write an article about something that hasn't yet happened. The only circumstance in which it makes sense to have an article about a game that's not yet released is if the threat of its release has aroused significant interest outside the normal circle of publicity that games producers use to sell their wares. Not the case here, so banish to drafts until some useful sources appear. Elemimele (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdraw, no opposing views. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 01:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambushed (1998 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added five reviews from the very first page of the Google search, so it definitely does not fail and I don't know where you thought you were looking. Why didn't you use Google? --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST, the sources have to be “suitable.” With the exception of TV Guide, none of the reviews you provided are suitable enough IMHO. The Film Creator (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the reviews are from independent sources that are legitimate review websites (not blogs), so they are all good sources according to Wikipedia's standards and there is absolutely no justification for considering them unsuitable apart from your "IMHO". "IMHO" is not a legitimate basis for anything and it's really sad that that's the only thing you have on which to base your argument. --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chucks Connection is a SPS, so in order to establish that it's a RS there's a need to show where it's been cited as a RS by other RS. This is usually easiest done by showing where it's been used as a source by academic and scholarly sources. The onus is more on you as the person supplying it to show where it's reliable. That said, I do see where it's been used as a RS in the following academic press books: Rowman, Wiley, and Elsevier Science. It's also used as a source in this book put out by Lerner. That said, the focus of the sourcing is more on its chronicling of Converse history. It could probably be used as a RS for film reviews, although it's not the main focus, but it wouldn't be the strongest possible source. The Ringer is probably usable, as I see some evidence of it being used as a source with stuff like this.

Now, The Action Elite doesn't seem to have been used as a RS in any academic/scholarly sourcing I can find, so that looks like it's not usable to establish notability. Actionfreunde.de has the same issue. I'm going to remove these two from the article. I'm also going to try and balance the reception section out a bit more, since the coverage is pretty uneven, with undue emphasis put on the Chucks website's review.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's best to use the strongest possible sourcing and avoid SPS unless you can establish how it's a RS, as this can actually make a topic seem less notable rather than more. It's honestly pretty rare for a SPS to be usable on here and when stuff goes up for AfD the sourcing gets extra scrutiny. It's not a case of "I want to win" as much as it's just that we want the article to be able to hold up notability-wise in the future. It's entirely possible for an article to get renominated a few months to a year down the line if notability still looks shaky. It's better to rake sourcing across the coals, so to speak, and voice any concerns about them, as that way if someone does try to renominate it, we can point to the prior AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Also, audience score typically aren't included on Wikipedia, as it's seen as just indiscriminate data. The only times that audience scores on RT (and by extension ratings on places like IMDb and Amazon) are mentioned in articles is when there's extensive coverage about the ratings. I always like to highlight Saving Christmas as a hilarious example of this type of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at The Ringer, the film is only an offhand mention so it's a trivial source at best. The quote is also somewhat taken out of context, as it's not about that specific film- rather it's about his film career as a whole. You could maybe write something like "In a review of Dickerson's Surviving the Game The Ringer noted that Ambushed, along with his entire filmography, (quote)". However even then this is still not the greatest source to base notability on, as it could very easily be argued that the mention is trivial since it's not in-depth about the specific movie at hand. I'm going to remove this one from the article as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two newspaper sources are just star ratings on routine TV listings, not reviews. The thing with these, is that there's no info on who gives the ratings. It's also seen as kind of routine and there's no in-depth look at the films. At best they'd be either trivial or a database type listing. With AllMovie, the reviews on the site are usually seen as capsule reviews that don't go into enough depth to be seen as a RS. I don't always agree with that, but it's a widespread enough opinion to where I typically don't use AllMovie. In this case the review is very, very short so it's going to be harder to argue for it to be usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The noir sources are trivial at best, but can be used to back up the basic detail that it's been classified by some as falling into this genre. I also took a look at the journal article and it has the same issue as The Ringer source, in that the quote isn't about this film in specific but rather a larger group of films. The way it's written is fine enough, but I wouldn't call it a review or anything that would establish notability. I'm going to switch it to a themes section, though. It'd work fine as a trivial source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now scrutiny aside, I did find a review from The Guardian and added it. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for finding the review from The Guardian, User:ReaderofthePack. To me, the reviews from TV Guide and The Guardian are enough to pass NFSOURCES, NFO and NEXIST. I therefore withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Casaubon[edit]

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

Lacks notability; only a collection of minor roles; unsourced and no sources found aside from fan-made wikis. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:10, 5 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) 00:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find one reference that might qualify as reliable with more than passing coverage [34], but that's not enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The, Guardian (2022-06-02). "'I have invested everything in this case': Depp superfans converge on Newcastle for glimpse of actor". that TikToks with the hashtag JusticeforJohnny or similar were watched 19.8bn times while JusticeforAmberHeard videos were watched 81m times. Retrieved 2022-06-05.

[Dr.Plait-2] Plait, Phil (26 May 2022). "A weird four-star system may lead the way to catastrophic supernovae". SYFY Official Site. Retrieved 5 June 2022.

[3] "Report of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board" (PDF). un.org.other.afics. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[1]

[1]

[1]