Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 25	May 27 >

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aankh Michouli[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, nothing but database listings. No reviews.

DEPROD with rationale "AfD it, not for PROD" DonaldD23 talk to me 21:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't think of film reviews from the 1940s, but being part of Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema is a big deal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DonaldD23 there are no notable sources PaulPachad (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable for being included in encyclopedia in Indian Cinema per point 4 of WP:NFOE#2. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Expand the article with more reliable sources. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Halder[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Ploni (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the two sources do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Hyke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Would his page on Behind the Voice Actors help in the references? He also has an official website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Behind the Voice Actors is no more a reliable source than IMDb (it's generated by user submissions), and personal web-pages (especially by the subjects of article) are generally considered unreliable. –Ploni (talk)
Keep - Let this page stay. We can improve on the references if they are found. I do admit that he did have a gap in his career with Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir being a comeback role for him. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We can add references if we find them" isn't a good rationale for keeping an article, especially given that this is a WP:BLP. If you can find good references and improve the article, then by all means, do so - but until that's done, "there might be sources out there" isn't a good rationale for keeping the article. Yes, we might find references/sources in the nebulous "someday," but we don't have them right now. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This actor simply does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion, and even the claim to notability in the article itself is a bit sketchy - the "and other blockbusters" in the lead sentence made me chortle a bit, to be honest. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalob Martinez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage, very little information at all outside of IMDB. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sharpe (cybersecurity)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable security consultant. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42, and the only news results that come up from a search are a few interviews. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not seem to be any suitable sources with significant coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bowens Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

More leftovers from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, where they were not individually discussed. Searching indicates that these are apparently named road junctions, not communities; I can find no indication that any of them meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG.

Also included in this nomination are:

Speedy delete Thanks again to Hog Farm for coming back to ensure these false non-notable pages are deleted when they weren't before. Reywas92^Talk 01:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are not communities and do not merit articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These communities are only notable at the local level, if that.TH1980 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't think intersections, short of major interstates, should be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus for or on redirect location Star Mississippi 02:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Buddy[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability; known for his one role only on One Life to Live. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal roles beyond OLTL, seems to have slipped back into private life. No indication this meets WP:NACTOR at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one significant role and only articles I can find about him are short tabloid DUI arrest type stuff. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as per criteria WP:NACTOR. Only one significant appearance. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Life to Live or possibly to Cole Thornhart. I'm not much of a soaps guy, but from the coverage I've managed to find, Buddy's character was clearly an important part of the series, so it may be better to redirect to the role for which he is significant than to delete altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen Beker[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable producer. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete , he has produced notable films but he is always one of the producers. Maybe a person who just invests in films from business mind and that’s all. Not notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable film producer. Fails WP:BASIC. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So he won a Golden Calf with Black Book (film). That part is promising. I miss WP:SIGCOV coverage, however. If someone finds it, they are welcome to tag me. gidonb (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the film article and he didn't win anything for it - "It won in three categories: the Golden Calf for Best Actress (Carice van Houten), for Best Director (Paul Verhoeven), and for Best Film (San Fu Maltha)." SL93 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So like San Fu Maltha, Beker is one of the film producers. The award was for the film. That part does work in Beker's favor. Yet, no WP:SIGCOV means fails WP:GNG. Delete is the bottom line. I.e. the award is nice but not sufficient. gidonb (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Voznesensk[edit]

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

If Battle of Voznesensk (1920) is notable, it needs its article. Otherwise, a hatnote leading to Voznesensk (or any other article that mentions it) does the job. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created this disambiguation page so that the redirect "Battle of Voznesensk" resulting after I moved Battle of Voznesensk (2022) to its current title made sense. I'm pretty sure if I had RfDed that redirect the result would have been to make a disambiguation page or just do anything possible like giving it a new inappropriate target to avoid deleting it. Wikipedia's bureaucratic processes love confusing editors and contradicting each other. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this page was improperly moved because apparently there was another Battle of Voznesensk in 1920. However, the article Battle of Voznesensk (1920) does not exist on the English Wikipedia. Unless such an article is created, Battle of Voznesensk (2022) is unnecessarily disambiguated, and this disambiguation page is preventing that page from being moved back to its original title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure nonsense. There was another battle in Voznesensk and it can get an article. Thus the disambiguation in the title for the newest one is necessary. Simple. We can't completely ignore events everywhere in this website just because their link is not blue yet. Super Ψ Dro 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the purpose of disambiguation pages, which is to serve as a directory of actual, bluelinked articles in order to avoid confusion. Since there is not even an article for the 1920 battle, there is no confusion. Per WP:DABSTYLE: Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself (see the previous bullet), or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. Please familiarize yourself with these guidelines before calling other editors' comments pure nonsense. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to this disambiguation page getting deleted. What I am opposed is to removing the year from the 2022 battle's title when there was another battle in the city a century ago. Your earlier comment seemed to suggest that. Super Ψ Dro 15:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Articles only need to be disambiguated if there is another existing article with the same title. This is not the case here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's an unnecessary disambiguation, though if the redlinked Battle of Voznesensk (1920) is significant enough to have its own article, that would obviously change. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Gourmet Summit[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable event. Sources seem to be self-source, bare mention, affiliated, or routine. valereee (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. valereee (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes GNG. I found a paper in the International Journal of Hospitality Management discussing the summit and its effects on tourism in Singapore, and a few sources discussing the 2017, 2019, and 2022 summits. The newspaper clippings from 1997 listed at NLB Infopedia may also contain significant coverage regarding the formation of the summit, though I don't have access to them at the moment and can't confirm that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the subject passes GNG, as I was able to access several news articles about the subject through Newslink. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV per KN2731. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Updated with sources from offline sources (Singapore main stream media). Offline sources added is available for anyone who like to verify (please ping me so I can email you with pdf of the source). Passes GNG with coverage on various editions of the summit. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passaic Torah Institute[edit]

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

A thorough Google search finds no reliable and verifiable sources that would support a claim of notability. The article has been around for a decade and has never been expanded beyond a few dozen words. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get three hits in Gnews, I guess the rabbi lost someone in the Israel Army, and one hit about Jackie Mason being involved somehow. Nothing notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Country[edit]

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

Single-market show, unlikely to be notable. De-prodded with a source added, but it's from the market the show aired in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:15, 26 May 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?)} 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Mathematics, and Kentucky. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kentucky Educational Television#Former programming. While not notable itself, the show is not mentioned at the target yet and there is an obvious slot to place it. Felix QW (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "the source is in a market the show aired in" is not a deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brown, Ann (1978-01-07). "Madisonville youth to star in KET series". The Messenger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The series of programs, called Math Country, will be filmed in color, and used in teaching math to second and third grade students across the state, beginning in September of this year, Lawrence Holden, KET producer said today. Math Country teaches by dramatic and comic example rather than by the use of a teacher on television, Holden said. ... The three young parts in Math Country were cast after a state-wide Talent Search conducted by KET in October of 1977, when hundreds of children auditioned for the parts at eight locations over the state. Over 140 child actors were finalists and had their auditions recorded by KET. Many will have small parts in the series."
2. "Nine To 15 Year Olds Sought For KET Series". The Dawson Springs Progress. 1977-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Currently in pre-production, "Math Country" is a multi-part dramatic series which will be used as an educational supplement by second- and third-grade mathematics students in Kentucky. "Math Country" tells the story of Carol Hardway and her two children, Martha and Jerry. The family lives on a farm owned by Cousin Lionel Hardway, a 12-year-old millionaire banker who does not have an understanding of math."
3. "Students Star In New Program". The Advocate-Messenger. 1978-06-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The day is gray and rainy. Inside an old barn where a scene from KET's newest in-school production, "Math Country," is being taped, it's damp. Pigeons squawk from the rafters while below, the director of the series discusses the next shot with his crew. Three teenage actors climb on hay bales, laughing and joking with one another while awaiting the next scene. It's a typical day on location."
4. Reed, David (1977-09-29). "KET offers parts to aspiring thespians". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The three regular roles open are Jerry Hardway, a scout who likes being outdoors and is very much like most youngsters; Martha Hardway, an athlete and similar ot most youngsters; and Lionel Hardway, a 12-year-old millionaire banker, totally ignorant of math and who doesn't want to learn anything. Also available are supporting roles such as classmates, children next door and visitors to "Math Country."
5. Film & Video Review Index. Pasadena, California: Audio-Visual Associates. 1979. p. 1631. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Internet Archive.
  According to one of the first pages of the book, the index "contains reviews and award citations for the many formats of film, videorecordings, and television programming".The book notes: "Math Country [TV] Kentucky Educational TV Series 1979 15M (each of 30). Agency for Instructinal TV Newsletter 10:2 Win/Spr79".
  This confirms that Math Country was reviewed in the Agency for Instructional TV Newsletter published by the Agency for Instructional Television.
6. Furtaw, Julia C., ed. (1992). The Video Source Book: A Guide to Approximately 126,000 Programs Currently Available on Video From More than 1,500 Sources (13 ed.). Detroit: Gale. p. 1631. ISBN 0-8103-6979-6. ISSN 0748-0881. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Math Country. Mathematics. 15 mins.; Beta, VHS, 3/4U; 30 progs. A series that places special emphasis on additional and subtraction operations, and on geometric and numerical patterns. Ideal for second and third graders."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Math Country to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shout out to Cunard for once again providing such an excellent analysis of sources, which have again persuaded me notability is sufficient to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarter (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has found and presented clear evidence that the television show is notable. Dream Focus 20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW, no reason to prolong this discussion now notability is proven and all votes are keep with no active current discussions. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short Ribbs[edit]

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

Only aired on one affiliate. De-prodded with sources added, but they're from the market the show aired in, suggesting the show is of local interest only. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 26 May 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?)} 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 citations in article. Yes, both from LA Times, but it is an LA show. Wouldn't expect an LA show to get coverage in, say, Michigan. Being local only isn't a rationale for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL disagrees with you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ESSAY, not POLICY DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is something notable if only the local papers cover it? I've been in my own local papers multiple times. Does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the 5th largest newspaper in the US a "local" paper. List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States#Top_10_newspapers_by_circulation DonaldD23 talk to me 22:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the court case has more coverage, it would help the case for notability. Local or not, so long as we have decent sourcing for a topic, we can write about it in Wiki. Hyperlocal stuff can still be described here so long as we have adequate sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Richmond, Ray (1989-03-01). "'Short Ribbs' on station's Saturday menu". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "A unique 13-week news/variety television series that will combine both comic and serious elements -- and be hosted and reported by "little people" -- will be produced for KDOC/56 and begin airing on Saturday nights in April. Entitled "Short Ribbs," the show is the brainchild of show business veteran and dwarf Billy Barty, whose infectious personality has made him a TV favorite in comedies and kids' shows since the 1950s."
2. Richmond, Ray (1989-09-23). "ABC opts for sensation in recounting 'The Preppie Murder'". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The review notes: "Prognosis: It could survive beyond its 13-week order, but only if it improves drastically and/or KDOC proves desperate for original product. The concept for "Short Ribbs," a new locally produced variety series, sounded a little bizarre but somewhat intriguing when it was first broached last spring. Creator and performer Billy Barty planned to take a group of little people and create a satirical world in which normal-size adults are the freaks. The potential for social commentary was immense. That, unfortunately, isn't quite the way it turned out. Sadly, "Short Ribbs" is a disaster on every level. It's a lowbrow waste of a fun concept, an embarrassing stab at comedy that's almost impossible to watch without covering one's eyes."
3. Pinsky, Mark I. (1989-09-18). "A Small-Screen Natural: Barty's 'Short Ribbs' Debuts on KDOC-TV". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Come Saturday night, when his comedy-variety series “Short Ribbs” debuts on Orange County’s KDOC-TV Channel 56, Barty, 65, hopes the half-hour show will enable other little people “to act like regular people.” ... Another recurring character, also played by Barty, is a consumer reporter named David Halfowitz. The other cast members, Patty Maloney, Jimmy Briscoe and Joe Gieb, are all veterans of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus."
4. Articles about the court case involving Bill Winckler:
  1. Lynch, Rene (1990-03-11). "Barty Is Sued by TV Writer – Valley Man Says Actor Owes Script Payments". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article note: "Bill Winckler, 25, said the dwarf actor has ignored a contract guaranteeing him pay for each script plus a percentage of syndication profits. The show, in which Barty starred, is described as a "Saturday Night Live"- type show cast mostly with "little people." It ran from September to December on KDOC (Channel 56) in Anaheim. ... Winckler filed his small claims suit in January after repeatedly asking Barty about pay for the pilot and scripts, he said. Winckler said he began working on the scripts in December 1988 and continued to provide them while the show aired."
  2. Lynch, Rene (1990-03-20). "Barty Ordered To Pay Writer $1,300". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Actor Billy Barty was ordered in small claims court Monday to pay a Woodland Hills writer $1,300 for his work on a television show called "Short Ribbs." Writer Bill Winckler, 25, and Barty, 65, both claimed victory outside the Van Nuys Municipal Courtroom after a hearing in which Barty said that he employed Winckler for about a year but did not pay him because his work was not satisfactory. ... Winckler said that he began working with the dwarf actor in December 1988, when he drafted a pilot script for the show, which is described as being similar to "Saturday Night Live" but using mostly dwarfs. Barty was the star of the show."
  3. "TV Writer Sues Dwarf Actor". Deseret News. 1990-03-14. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Billy Barty is being sued by a TV writer who says the dwarf actor owes him $2,000 for his help on the brief-run show Short Ribbs. Bill Winckler, 25, of Woodland Hills, Calif., said Barty has ignored a contract guaranteeing him pay for each script plus a percentage of syndication profits."
  4. "Small Claim Filed Over 'Short Ribbs'". Mercury News. 1990-03-14. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Diminutive actor Billy Barty is being sued in small claims court by a television writer who says the star owes him $2,000 for his help on the briefly run TV show "Short Ribbs.""
  5. "Short Takes: Barty to Pay; Claims Victory". Los Angeles Times. 1990-03-20. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Barty said he considered Monday’s decision a win because he didn’t have to award 10% of future syndication profits for his show, “Short Ribbs,” to writer-producer Bill Winckler."
5. Article about the court case involving Warren Taylor:
  1. "Short Takes: Barty Ordered to Pay TV Writer". Los Angeles Times. 1990-05-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Actor Billy Barty was ordered to pay $428 to a television show writer who claimed that he wasn’t paid for creating several comedy sketches. Burbank Municipal Court Commissioner Dennis H. Shanklin on Monday granted the award to Warren Taylor for sketches he wrote for “Short Ribbs,” which aired last year on KDOC-TV in Anaheim and is no longer in production."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Pinsky, Mark I. (1989-03-06). "A Little Humor. Billy Barty Plans Comedy-Variety Show at Anaheim's KDOC". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Both Barty and Clavin Brack, general manager of KDOC, said they hope the 13-week series, entitled "Short Ribbs," will be picked up for syndication after its scheduled debut in April."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Short Ribbs to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidence has been found and presented that the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 20:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Varrez[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable actor. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn’t realise Wikipedia policy for actors. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, does not cite any credible sources. fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW, no reason to prolong this discussion now notability is proven and all votes are keep with no active current (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration, Please![edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but one is just a press release. I could hardly find anything better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 26 May 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?)} 20:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both are valid reliable sources. You can call The Associated Press articles a press release all you want, but they are not. Every time that argument gets used in one of these discussions multiple editors point out that AP articles are valid and not press releases. Not sure why this keeps getting brought up in discussions? DonaldD23 talk to me 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources lists AP as a reliable source per 6 DISCUSSIONS! 1 2 3 4 5 6 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The network it's on doesn't even have an article, and neither does the host. There are literally no links inbound for this page. How much less notable can you get? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to the fact that there are 2 reliable sources quoted in the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how will it ever be de-orphaned if there are literally no other articles to possibly link it from? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use Wikipedia:Orphan as a guideline to de-orphan it. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The network it was on doesn't have a page. The host doesn't have a page. Nobody associated with the show has a page. There is literally no other page to link to it. Do you suggest I just plop it onto some random page just to de-orphan it? I know, let's link it from Main Page! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hallmark Channel does have a page. Odyssey Network was its former name and redirects to it. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The church it was filmed at, Trinity Church (Manhattan), also has a page. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on the fence about its notability, so I'll let this ride. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Robichaux, Mark (1996-03-12). "Religious quiz show gets its inspiration from divine sources". The Wall Street Journal. ProQuest 398482887.
  The article notes: "The respondents are devoutly wishing for the same thing: a spot on a new cable-television show called "Inspiration, Please!" Billing itself as the first religious quiz show in TV history, "Inspiration, Please!" shuns sultry letter-turners and roulette-style wheels. The show's host is a Christian stand-up comic named Robert G. Lee, whose wife, Anne, calls him "the funny bone in the body of Christ." ... Inspiration, Please!" became a hit last year when it debuted on cable TV's Faith & Values channel, which is partly owned by a unit of cable giant Tele-Communications Inc. of Englewood, Colo. While the program's ratings are puny compared with shows on broadcast networks, Faith & Values says viewer response is strong. So strong, in fact, that the channel has ordered 52 new episodes and plans to make the program a daily feature this fall. ... But the success of "Inspiration, Please!" has made it the lightning rod in a storm over the soul of religious TV.To some viewers and rival religious broadcasters, "Inspiration, Please!" is proof that Faith & Values has sold out to mammon and Hollywood. ... "Inspiration, Please!" is taped in a cramped studio inside the historic 150-year-old Trinity Church on Wall Street in Manhattan."
2. "Game show tests theological smarts". The Marshfield News-Herald. Associated Press. 1995-10-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Think of it as a mix of "Jeopardy!" without the greed, "Wheel of Fortune" without Vanna White, and other popular TV shows without the double entendres. What is left in "Inspiration, Please!" which bills itself as the first Bible quiz show, is an entertaining game that draws upon contestants' knowledge of the Bible and other spiritual resources. ... "Inspiration, Please!" is like a lot of other game shows in style with [Robert G.] Lee standing beside across a podium across from three contestants ready to pounce on buzzers in front of them."
3. Gambardello, Joseph A. (1995-07-01). "'Inspiration, Please' puts contestants on spot - The 'Jeopardy!'-style religious quiz show to make debut soon". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Mann, 42, who shouts the answers while watching Jeopardy, answered an audition call for Inspiration, Please, a name inspired by the old quiz show Information, Please. The first 13 episodes, produced by Trinity Church in Manhattan, are scheduled for taping in mid-July. Beginning in October, they will appear on the Faith and Values Network, an interfaith cable station."
4. Briggs, David (1997-08-11). "Game show takes a lighter path to biblical literacy". The Standard-Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "If you answered "lust," "the harp" and "Golgotha," you might be ready to audition for the "Inspiration Please?" TV game show, or at least to test your skills with a new book based on the show. The show, aired daily at 930 a.m. EDT on cable's Odyssey channel, recently completed taping 26 episodes. In November, Morrow will publish "The Inspiration Please? Trivia Quiz Book." A cross between "Trivial Pursuit" and "Wheel of Fortune," the 2-year-old show has won a following by taking a lighter approach to biblical literacy."
5. Bell, Charles W. (1995-06-17). "Religious quiz show due. Contestants sure to seek 'Inspiration'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article note: "Unto the Parish of Trinity Church there came an idea, and the idea was a weekly primetime TV religion game show. And verily, it came to pass. It's called "Inspiration, Please," a knock-off of an old radio and TV show called "Information, Please," and it starts in October on the Faith and Values Channel, which is carried on 1,450 cable systems piped into 24 million homes. ... Taping of the first 13 episodes starts in July at the Trinity Place studios in the heart of Wall Street. The grand prize is a trip for two to — of course — the Holy Land. The emcee is Roberg G. Lee, a Christian standup comic ..."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Gaouette, Nicole (1997-04-21). "From Sermons to Game Shows, Religious TV Wears New Look". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "On the sleek set of the game show "Inspiration Please!," host Robert G. Lee is grilling his three contestants. "Which emperor made Christianity the Roman Empire's official religion?" ... This snappy half-hour game show on the Odyssey channel is part of a new brand of religious television."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Inspiration Please! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Associated Press article is not a press release. Whether the article can be de-orphaned is irrelevant to notability and whether this article should be kept. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, an editor who is making these clearly non-policy-based arguments either should stop making these arguments or stop nominating or participating in deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard found clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. And as mentioned in previous AFDs and again now, the Associate Press is not a press release, and counts towards notability. This and other reoccurring issues with the nominator are now at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer:_prods_and_AfDs. Dream Focus 20:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Hudson[edit]

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

TJ Hudson is a local politician who ran for a single statewide office. Treutlen County, Georgia is approximately 6,885. This is well below the threshold at least regional prominence defined under Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES for local officials. I do not believe his candidacy does not pass the test that he could be referenced to such an unusual depth, range and volume of press coverage that her candidacy could be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (see Christine O'Donnell). He is an African-American first according to the article, but that is contradicted by List of first minority male lawyers and judges in Georgia. I believe that he therefore does not meet the notability standards for political figures. Mpen320 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state).--Mpen320 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heads of counties are not default notable, and those over counties with less than 10,000 people are almost never notable. Nothing to suggest he would be the extremely rare exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections they haven't won yet — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations database for aspiring future officeholders to promote their candidacies in the meantime. But the only other attempted claim of notability here is that he's county manager of a county, which is not a notability-clinching office either. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Von Harten[edit]

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

Most likely non-notable football player according to WP:NCOLLATH. Additionally, there is only one source and it is a stats website. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Football. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Von Harten played 12 games in the CFL, which formerly would have given a presumption of notability under NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Found his obituary here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article here which is probably WP:SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then there's some brief coverage here, here, here, here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary you cited appears to be a paid death notice rather than an editorially-independent obit. Accordingly, it does not contribute to GNG. The only item that appears to be GNG-contributing is the piecs about his senior curling efforts here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Adding on to Cbl62's comment, I wouldn't consider the article on his curling exercises at old age from the Vernon Morning Star to be significantly contributing to the article, despite being from a somewhat major newspaper. It is a reliable, primary, and significant source, but not a useful one, as it does not make any mention of his curling being competitive. You can't base an article on someone off an article in a newspaper about something minor. Even being in the New York Times doesn't necessarily mean you are notable. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having thought this through and done my own searches, I don't see WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources that would qualify under WP:GNG. One other further point. I don't think he would have qualified even under the old NGRIDIRON. Per this, Von Harten played for the BC Lions in 1956 when they were part of the Western Interprovincial Football Union, i.e., before the formation of the CFL. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per CBL62's and Capsulecap's comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Belle Isle[edit]

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

David Belle Isle is a local politician who ran for a single statewide office. Alpharetta, Georgia is approximately 67,213. This is well below the threshold at least regional prominence defined under Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. His candidacy does not pass the test that he could be referenced to such an unusual depth, range and volume of press coverage that her candidacy could be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (see Christine O'Donnell). I believe that he therefore does not meet the notability standards for political figures. Mpen320 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is elected he will be notable but not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He lost the primary--Mpen320 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections they haven't won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations database for aspiring future officeholders to promote their candidacies in the meantime. But the only other attempted claim of notability here is that he's mayor of a city which is not large enough to secure the "inherent" notability of its mayors in the absence of any substance or sourcing to actually get them over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bathing#Bathing babies. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infant bathing[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Removing all the how-to stuff would get the article down to the very first sentence, so that is not a plausible option. Rewriting does not seem all that possible. Could be redirected to Bathing#Bathing babies. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 19:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 19:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:NOTGUIDE — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Besides being a how-to guide, it is a very specific article. However, it is still worthy of redirecting somewhere, perhaps Bathing#Bathing babies. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the previous comments.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as specified above, seems to be the best option. This isn't WikiHow. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Floyd memorial (disambiguation)#Artwork. RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd mural[edit]

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

Completely subsumed by the disambiguation page George Floyd memorial (disambiguation), which is perfectly serviceable, much more comprehensive, and created by the same editor who made this one. On top of that, this page only features two links: one of which is to an actual article, but the other of which is to a short section of the article George Floyd Square occupied protest. Even if this page weren't wholly redundant to the other disambiguation page, there would still be no compelling argument for keeping it, because it only exists to link to one article and one relatively narrow portion of another. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the deletion of George Floyd mural now that the article George Floyd mural (Portland, Oregon) is properly titled with the location as there are many other George Floyd murals in the United States and elsewhere. The blue and yellow mural at George Floyd Square is the most notable and it is discussed there. I am the editor noted above. Minnemeeples (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd memorial (disambiguation). This seems like a common search term but as the nominator stated it is subsumed by the other page. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 16:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd memorial (disambiguation). MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHDL[edit]

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

Not notable, less than 30 citations in total for published papers (I could find only 2 papers, and they are both primary sources/original research) relating to BHDL on Scholar (note, many articles containing 'BHDL' are not related to the BHDL as defined on this Wikipedia page). Simple Google Search shows nothing about BHDL, have to use "double quotes" search function to find related results. No citations and references are dead/out-of-date/primary sources Hadal1337 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does seem to be secondary coverage in one poorly cited source, Hallerstede, S. (2004). "BHDL: Principles and tools for generating proven hardware". UML-B Specification for Proven Embedded Systems Design. Springer: 109–120., but I agree that this fails WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VHDL or B-Method as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable to be merged into either of them IMO. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see very few papers on the topic and even fewer citations to those. I should point out that I also had to search for "B/HDL" and "B-HDL" which didn't improve the results much. --mikeu ^talk 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Podi Patharakari[edit]

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

Minor fictional character in a Sri Lankan TV series, not even protagonist. The protag character or any other characters from series doesn't even have pages. Appears to be WP:PROMOTION for the actress. UtoD 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiswar[edit]

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

The term Jaiswar is not mentioned in any of the articles listed and thus fail WP:DABMENTION. I could not see any existing article with content that would support a redirect. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim So-jeong[edit]

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

It's been over a year since I tagged this for notability and she still doesn't meet WP:ENT. No new major roles in films or television. No solo music career. Recommend redirect to GFriend. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sowon (singer). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to draft: As seen in this revision before the move to mainspace, the draft was clearly rejected multiple times for notability reasons hence I'm not sure why HDORS even moved it to mainspace. Also noted that the same thing happened on 2 December 2020 at 19:05 (UTC) where HDORS also moved to mainspace despite the submission rejected by Robert McClenon in May 2020, again for failing to meet notability requirements. Maybe a move protection should be implemented if the result was to move back to draftspace. I do however, oppose redirect to GFriend as firstly, there is nothing to merge which was what the first AfD results is, in which nothing was merged, and secondly, I do believe the efforts should be kept until the subject meets either one of the notability guidelines. Fyi, the first AfD kind of spawned this article, even if the result was "merge to GFriend" of which nothing was actually merged. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A total WP:SNOW deletion. JBW (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganguly–Durjoy Trophy[edit]

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

Per this discussion at the Cricket Project, concerns and doubts have been raised about this trophy actually existing. All the sources hint at the possibility of giving the Test series between Bangladesh and India a name, but nothing from any reliable cricket source (ICC, Cricinfo, etc) have confirmed this to be the case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this trophy actually exists. The sources for the series since this trophy "started" make no mention of it, and I see no evidence of such a trophy being awarded. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the discussion in the cricket talk page. Only mentions are a few "demands to name the trophy" and these appear in fairly unreliable websites. No hits from any major sources or that the trophy was acutally given that name. Tintin 09:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the discussion. No reliable sources mention this particular trophy. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Human (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other commentors. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Abbasulu (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Credit where it is due, this article has managed to survive for 5 years despite being totally made up! A record for a fake article on this site perhaps? StickyWicket (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: - close, but not cigar! See Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts:. Wow! 16 years! Seems this was some way off that record! StickyWicket (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one cricket-related hoax on that list, relating to Adam Gilchrist! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts:. When this is deleted it can join the Adam Gilchirst being a Marxist claim on there! StickyWicket (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be snowing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just like last April at Headingley. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pynns Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pynn's Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

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

Same topic is found at Pynns Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Evans II[edit]

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

The article lacks sufficient independent sourcing to demonstrate that Mr. Evans meets the requirements of the general notability guidelines and the subject specific notability guidelines for academics. It has previously been speedily deleted under G11, however it does not read as unambiguous promotion, and I think it's likely Mr. Evans does meet WP:NPROF - the article just doesn't show it. Please note this is a procedural nomination on my part - I am not !voting either keep or delete at this time, and I have done limited WP:BEFORE. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for me this is short on independent references and I'm concerned about the undeclared COI. To be fair to the article creator, who's a student, some of the shortcomings could be attributed to inadequate instruction. Deb (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON for academic notability and this does not seem to be an exception. In particular the citation record [1] does not yet pass WP:PROF#C1 and the minor student awards and fellowships do not pass #C2. If this is a student project, the instructor should have cautioned the students very strongly to pay attention to our academic notability guidelines when creating articles. There are plenty of people who pass those criteria but do not have articles (fellows of major academic societies, for instance); there is no need to lower our standards to find worthy topics of new articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comment: WP:Too soon to pass WP:Prof in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Leaning delete. I tend to agree that WP:PROF is not met despite the one fairly highly cited paper which has 11 co-authors (139,78,43,34,24); it is a very citation-heavy field. With a PhD in 2016 I think this is probably too early in the subject's career. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Polarity Therapy Association[edit]

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

References provide only passing mention of the organization and are mostly about polarity therapy, not the organization. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:ORGCRITE. Search finds nothing better. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything to suggest this is notable, so it fails WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your inputs on this article . However it is the only Organisation globally certifying members as therapists in Polarity and hence I feel the nomination for deletion for this article is not correct. I request this article could stay for public interest and making Wikipedia a good informational platform. Kindly suggest. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi in order to demonstrate notability we need sustained in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources. I can’t find that - can you? Mccapra (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. Thanks for your reply. I understand it doesnt have substantial coverage. However the theraphy certified by it is widely recognised. For the informational sources based on that cant we include the organisation supporting it. Gardenkur (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete. I have filed an AfD for polarity therapy itself, which I do not consider notable. Nor is its 'professional association' notable by the same criteria.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relists, we have some support for deletion, some for merging/redirection (but with different suggestions for where), and some for keeping (with a list of sources that was not responded to). Perhaps further discussion of the merge/redirect options elsewhere can produce a non-deletion solution, but at this point there is no consensus for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasbeel[edit]

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

Lack of notability or secondary sources that make it notable. Gabe114 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Gabe114 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google search reveals only WP:CRUFTY sources. The second result is literally from Fandom... Sungodtemple (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books search shows inclusion in multiple "dictionary of angels" sources ([2], [3], [4], [5]), verify it is from the Book of Enoch (not a Christian book, Hebrew Bible pseudepigrapha....) I suggest it be added to List of angels in theology and if not kept, merged there. However, looking at a selection of entries there, there are a lot of other angel articles with similar sourcing, so I think keeping and adding the RS'es to it is preferable than merging. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable book sources identified above so that deletion is unnecessary as WP:GNG is met imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Book of Enoch is regarded by most Jews and Christians as non-canonical. Rather than having articles on individual characters mentioned in it, it would be better to have an article on each of the main sections of the book, to which an article such as this could be redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the redirect, or an outright delete. No fixed opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan James (clothing)[edit]

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

i think this may be a hoax in terms of notability and even existence - I can't find anything in terms of sourcing to support it's inclusion much less existence, even their own website doesn't verify the content. I've searched google books, google news and newspapers for both Ethan Farrell (as it pertains to clothing/business as opposed to the young actor) and Ethan James and I can't find anything. A google search of "Embrace by Ethan James" for the perfume also brings back all Wikipedia mirrors. Their archived website doesn't even exist save for a placeholder and there really just isn't anything I can find to support a single statement here. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Products, and United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, seems to be a hoax. The page was made and edited significantly by two users with "Ethan" as part of their usernames too. Medarduss (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon David Guerrero[edit]

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

doesn't appear to be a notable crime or person as tragic as it may be and despite the sentencing seeming excessive, it's pretty normal in these cases and this set of crimes doesn't appear to have received any significant national or international attention. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of the most proliflic serial killers in the history of California. He has one less proven victim than the Zodiac Killer. Clinton Baptiste (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sources state this? Because outside of some SD specific local sources, I don't see any national or international coverage of him or his crimes, and this is absolutely a WP:BLP1E. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than killing three people, he's just another criminal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It got covered in the Daily Mail in the UK, and also the New York Post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7936455/Man-pleads-guilty-killings-San-Diego-homeless-men.html

https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/san-diego-man-pleads-guilty-to-gruesome-railroad-spike-murder-spree/ Clinton Baptiste (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton BaptisteIt would probably be best if you read WP:RS and visited wP:RSP, specifically WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:NYPOST. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which are tabloids that "oversell"/overhype things to sell papers. Bums in seats, eyes on screens kind of deal. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NBIO. One source, even a reliable one, doesn't even seem like enough to be merged into a stand-alone list. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Allen[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems more like a CV than a Wiki article, fails notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medarduss (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one source that is referenced is a primary source from Cognis, the company which he worked at. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Ascher[edit]

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

Very poor low quality referencing, passing mentions and interviews. One film won an award. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Exactly. Potentially notable. therefore keep. I am surprized a long time editor does not know such basic things. The article is reasonably referenced. "Passing mentions" you must be kidding. There are lots of Israeli newspapers writing discussing this particular case of the major Israeli literary award. And there is nothing wrong with itterviews, which mean the person is notable. I promise when I see an interview with User:Scope_creep about their award, I will write a Wikipedia article about them despite the fact that this person is stalking me. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loew Galitz: Refs are primary, passing mentions or profile or event listing. I hope somebody will come along and offer 2 or 3 secondary sources but currently she not notable and fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. If you state I'm stalking you again and I'll take your straight up to WP:ANI and make a complaint about you directly to the WMF for breaking the code of conduct. I suggest your retract that aspersion. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disagreed, but I will no go into bickering. Let other people !vote. As for "stalking", that's not an aspersion, but an observation. YOu are messing with several my articles in an unpleasant way. In one case you caused a severe disruption and I spend almost an hour to fix it and you simply ignored my message in your talk page, which is indicative of your attitude towards me. There are zillions of edits in wikipedia and somehow you are on top of mine every day. What shall I think? Loew Galitz (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Keep - the article includes mention of several nominations for a notable award for editing, but I am also concerned about the quality, independence and depth of the sources that I have been able to find. I found a 2017 Jerusalem Post review for the film she directed and co-wrote, a one-graf review of the film in a 2015 Variety article discussing a film festival, the 2015 Times of Israel 2-graf review and report of the film winning the Israel Critics’ Forum Award in an article about another film festival, and a mention in a 2016 Forward article about another film festival. The Screen Daily interview relates to the same film and includes one graf of independent content at the beginning of the article that notes highlights from her editing career, then summarizes the film in two grafs, and then is an interview (not independent), although it does include the biographical detail of her daughter. There are also database entries and another interview in the article, based on my Google translations, and a reference that does not verify a film festival award. This does not appear sufficient to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:CREATIVE notability, but additional secondary sources focused on her and her career would shift my !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am beginning to understand the two votes above after your detailed explanation. What your argument essentially boils down to is that here we have a WP:BLP1E case. But it this case the correct solution is to redirect to A.K.A Nadia , not "delete". But I would still disagree with this, because many sources describe her as a notable film editor with over 40 films in her portfolio even before her debut as director. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated my !vote to keep due to the multiple award nominations, the critical attention for AKA Nadia, the national cinema encyclopedia, and this source mentioning her in context: Women Directed Just 11 Percent of Films Screened in Israel in 2017 (Haaretz, 2018, "Of the 36 new Israeli films that played in the country’s theaters last year, only six (16 percent) were directed by women."), as well as reviews for films she has edited, e.g. Variety, 2003 (comments on her editing), NYT, 2005, NYT, 2009, Hollywood Reporter 2010, NYT, 2011, Hollywood Reporter, 2012, which help support her WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per biography in the national cinema dictionary[6] and WP:ANYBIO #1 and the WP:GNG per above. Absolutely no case for deletion was made. Intro focuses on references, instead of sources as it should by WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a really major film director.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my mind her resume shows the notability even if proper references need to be found.Dan Carkner (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Beccaynr: You definently think she is genuinly notable? A lot of those references, is work as an editor and are passing mentions, listing of work positions. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep, I was thinking about writing 'weak keep', or 'borderline', and it is a collection of circumstances that helped shift my !vote, including my AGF about the national dictionary/encyclopedia, as well as my inability to search in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the Ophir Awards (she has two nominations and a win for her editing) are referred to as the Israeli Oscars in its article, so there seems to be some WP:ANYBIO notability from that, and/or support for WP:CREATIVE#4 "significant critical attention". Also, when I looked again at reviews for films she has edited, I noticed she was often working with the same team, so I see potential for prose to be added to the article about her career. The reviews of films she has edited also seem to help support WP:CREATIVE#3, because her being listed (even though I only found one directly talking briefly about her work) seems to indicate the significance of her role in co-creating the films. However, I would like to see at least two reviews for more than one film. Overall, with this attention for her editing career, I feel comfortable enough that we are outside of WP:BLP1E, so the critical attention for the film she directed and co-wrote then adds to her notability, and after I found the detail of media attention related to a widely-published story about disparities in the industry tailored to filmmaking in Israel, even though she is only listed at the end of the article, it seems to add further context to help boost the significance of her work. As a side note, I am not in favor of a redirect to her film because I am not sure there is sufficient support for WP:NFILM notability at this time, especially if her BLP is kept. On another note, I think this article would benefit from editing for a more neutral, encyclopedic tone, and generally to split her career from her early life/education and personal life, because the current format seems to obscure the notable aspects of her career. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: That is a perfect elucidation of the notability policies as they are applicable to this article. Seems to more than borderline, which I thought it was below. I thought perhaps a few more years, i.e. WP:TOOSOON. Thanks. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperable PDK Libraries[edit]

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

2008 no consensus shortly after launch. But other than run of the mill announcements following its launch, there is nothing to indicate ORG compliant sourcing. URL is dead, which makes me think alliance is no longer, and never established notability while it existed. Star Mississippi 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. Star Mississippi 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to those still active from prior AfD: @Narutolovehinata5, Fabrictramp, and Malinaccier: Star Mississippi 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appeared around the founding there was substantial coverage, but I can't find much now to establish notability. As the nominator indicated, the links to the Reuters articles I found in 2008 don't work---I'm sure I could find archived versions, but the fact that there has not been continued coverage makes the old coverage somewhat irrelevant. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is promotional in nature and there are no significant sources demonstrating that notability guidelines are met. MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Aitken (footballer, born 1897)[edit]

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

The article lacks sources, and a Google search found nothing. Appears to fail GNG, which wins over NFOOTY which is now gone. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there will be WP:OFFLINESOURCES like the one in the article, plus Michael Joyce, as well as historical newspapers etc. Expecting there to be online coverage of somebody born in 1897 is ridiculous. Giant Snowman 07:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:But there must be sources! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not keep articles because other sources are alleged to exist. We expect sources to be spelled out before articles are created, the is the very basics of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GiantSnowman. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:But there must be sources! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to failing WP:GNG. We cannot assume sources exist; their existence must be proven. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NFOOTY was discarded because it was very poor at predicting GNG. Assurances of SIGCOV existing that are based on the same criteria that used to be in NFOOTY should therefore be disregarded absent actual evidence of these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assam cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barun Das (cricketer)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Officially voting keep but redirect if necessary. How are we still finding names that slipped under the radar. Strange. Bobo . 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers per Lugnuts. It would be nice for certain users to stop hitting the ctrl + v on their keyboard and actually look at WP:ATD. StickyWicket (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers Per Lugnuts, Played a single FC game, and no real GNG passing coverage, but redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Assam cricketers. Redirects are cheap, preserve page history and allow expansion should sources emerge. There's an outside chance this could be Barun Das (business professional) - playing under-15 cricket at age 11 isn't unheard of. I don't suppose it's likely to be him, but it's possible. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Buran Das has a Twitter account here if anyone with an account fancies asking him. StickyWicket (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recent trend at AFD has been more skepticism of sports biographies where the subject had minimal professional play, but in this case the subject's larger number of appearances and the possibility of non-English sources has led to the benefit of the doubt. RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subroto Das[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on him playing in nearly 50 first-class matches would indicate that there must be some coverage of him somewhere in non-English sources. Or redirect to List of Bihar cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This player has played nearly 50 first-class matches, so the chances of there being no coverage in local non-English sources is virtually nil. As a rule of thumb, the more matches someone plays, the more coverage that is likely to exist. StickyWicket (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This player's obviously played a large number of FC/LA matches, so coverage likely exists in either offline (given the time he played) or in non-English language sources. Played for a few teams, so no real suitable redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very worst there is a redirect possibility (which needs a lot of work), but it's not unreasonable to make an assumption that a player who took part in so many matches would be very likely indeed to have received coverage, some of it no doubt in non-English language media - likely Hindi or Urdu but the looks of it - or in media that there is no accessible online archive for. So I'll err on the side of preserving the article and vote to keep here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris App[edit]

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

This app does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Having a large valuation or being part of an accelerator program does not make a company notable on its own. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. My google was apparently broken when searching. Star Mississippi 21:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobe's Guides[edit]

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

I love this series, but cannot find any evidence of notability or any discussion of the series. Publisher is a redlink (and a BEFORE doesn't indicate notability on which to build a stub) so no viable merger. Star Mississippi 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google news search does bring up a number of quick references in passing, usually because an author has done something else or as to spice up a regional article a bit with a fun fact. Not really sufficient though. Artw (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to confirm any of the print cites, which is a shame as the last two look solid. Was able to confirm the times article exists but not get the text. Artw (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Coverage about the Xenophobe's Guides series:
  1. Datta, Vikas (2016-12-04). "A humorous insight". The Hans India. Indo-Asian News Service. ProQuest 1843399092. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "... But equally to blame is a lack of knowledge of other cultures and peoples or misconceptions, and one easy, entertainingly funny, yet useful way, to remedy this is to peruse this series of books, ironically named "The Xenophobe's Guides". Terming its mission to highlight the unique character and behaviour of various nationalities -- in a manner that is "almost guaranteed to cure xenophobia" through judicious dose of humour and the irrepressible laughter it engenders, the series was started in 1993 by Anne Taute "as a humorous take on the UK being an island nation and its prevailing attitude being 'us' (the British) and 'foreigners' (everyone else)". The humour is typically British -- wittily irreverent, deprecating (self-deprecating when needed) and uproariously hyperbolic at some points, though the writers are not necessarily only British, but, in many cases, hail from the country they seek to profile or have lived there extensively. Among them is Zhu Song, author of "The Xenophobe's Guide to the Chinese" (2010), who confesses she dislikes three phrases ... That sets the tone for the series, which presently comprises 32 installments, with all, except three, dealing with a specific nationality (the exceptions are the Scots, the Welsh and the Californians, who differ from the rest of their countrymen in taking "their beliefs so seriously that many lose touch with what doesn't need to be believed")."
  2. Pritchard, Bill (1994-05-14). "Foreign foibles". Burton Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The Xenophobe's Guides series has launched a couple more of its handy pocket sized guides to other nations, bringing the total to 10. Joining the guides to the English, Spanish, French, Germans, Aussies, Poles, Russians and Welsh are guides to the Greeks and the Swedes. The format is the same as the others, with chapters on humour, culture, health and hygiene and behaviour. As ever, the chapter on obsessions gives a valuable insight into the character of the people of the country."
  3. "Access Russia". Russian Life. Vol. 41, no. 4. April 1998. p. A1. ProQuest 224007847.
    The article notes: "The Xenophobe's Guides The last thing we would do is endorse xenophobia. And certainly these provocatively-titled books do nothing of the sort. In fact, their intent is to cure xenophobia through humor and honesty. Published in the UK (and hard to find in the US), these concise guides are frank, irreverent and intensely funny guides to the culture, beliefs, traditions and foibles of nations. Get the Russian or Polish guide for yourself, and give a gift of the American guide to your foreign partner. Then exchange copies. Your relationship will be the richer in the process. Xenophobes's Guide to the Russians [GA959·64 pp., softcover·$5.95] Americans [GA956·64 pp., softcover·$5.95] Poles [GA958·64 pp., softcover·$5.95]"
  4. Gogarty, Paul (1993-11-07). "Bookshelf". The Sunday Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The book notes: "Greek to me. If you're already thinking about amusing (and cheap!) stocking fillers, Xenophobes Guides may be one answer. The new series has so far unleashed guides to the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Aussies and, hold on, the English. They run to some 50 pages, cost £2.50 and are published by Ravette Books. The publishers set the irreverent tone at the outset by defining Xenophobia thus: "Greek noun — an irrational fear of foreigners, probably justified, always understandable".
  5. Pritchard, Bill (1994-04-23). "Nowt as queer as folk from elsewhere". Burton Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Following last year's launch of five Xenophobe's Guides — English, Spanish, German, French and Aussies — three more of the lighthearted guides are on their way to bookshops. The new ones are The Xenophobe's Guides to the Welsh, the Poles and the Russians. Published by Ravette Books at £2.50 each, they are well worth reading before you visit any of the countries, or if like me you have relatives that hail from those parts of the world they can explain a lot!"
2. Coverage about individual Xenophobe's Guides books:
  1. "Last Word". Swedish Press. Vol. 65, no. 8. 1994-08-31. p. 42. ProQuest 217803732.
    The article notes: " The Last Word on Swedes is the "Xenophobe's Guide to the Swedes" (Ravette Books Limited ISBN: 1 85304 741 4) written by Peter Berlin. The Xenophobe's Guides are a new series of books that take a wry, irreverent look at the character and behaviour of different nations. Now it is the Swedes' turn to be put under a magnifying glass. ... Time Keeping The Swedish businessman is likely to show up 15 minutes early for business appointments, start circling the block to kill the extra time, and get arrested for kerb crawling."
  2. "Papageientaucher zum Abendbrot" [Puffins for supper]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). 2018-10-25. ProQuest 2124646822.
    The article notes: "Den Grundgedanken dieser Reihe kann man so auffassen: Der sogenannte "Fremdenversteher" nimmt Klischees aufs Korn und macht sie dadurch lächerlich. Diese Fremdenversteher, die deutsche Ausgabe der britischen "Xenophobe's® Guides", wollen aber auch tatsächlich etwas über die Franzosen, Italiener, Engländer oder wie hier Isländer erzählen. Der Spagat macht es etwas schwierig, da es so doch zu einer Aneinanderreihung von Pauschalurteilen kommt. Es ist ja verwegen, solche Sätze in die Welt zu werfen: ..."
    The article notes from Google Translate: "The basic idea of this series can be understood as follows: The so-called "stranger understander" makes fun of clichés and thereby makes them ridiculous. These foreigners, the German edition of the British "Xenophobe's® Guides", actually want to tell you something about the French, Italians, English or, as here, Icelanders. The balancing act makes it a bit difficult, as it results in a series of blanket judgments. It's audacious to throw such sentences out into the world: ..."
  3. Gerson, Katherine (1995-12-16). "Hungry for more? The Xenophobe's Guide to the Chinese by J.C. Yang. Ravette Books, £2.50, pp. 64". The Spectator. Vol. 275, no. 8736. pp. 71–72. ProQuest 1295870519.
    The article notes: "You don't have to go to China. You certainly won't have to spend years studying the language and culture of the Middle Kingdom. To acquire sufficient working wisdom on the subject to guide your company in its business, advise your anxious government, or simply add China to your understanding of the world just pay £2.50 and read this tiny book. Xenophobe's Guides claim to provide 'an ..."
  4. Myers, Jo (1997-03-22). "Catley takes new direction". Evening Standard. p. 11. ProQuest 314134969.
    The article notes: "Now, at 74, she has written a book. It's called The Xenophobe's Guide to the Kiwis and is part of a series put out by Sussex publisher Ravette. Cape Catley has taken on the New Zealand agency for the Ravette guides. ... Her brief for the xenophobe's guide was to write "a cheeky, non- politically correct but affectionate run-down on the Kiwi character". After years of working as a journalist, faithfully checking every statement and attributing them, she found it a novel experience to be able to make bold, sweeping statements about the Kiwi psyche and lifestyle. ... There are also xenophobe's guides to the Aussies, Americans, Chinese, English, Germans, and soon the Japanese."
  5. Judd, Alan (1995-11-25). "Books of the year". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "J.C. Yang's The Xenophobe's Guide to the Chinese (Ravette, £2.50 pbk) is a witty and affectionately critical appraisal of about a quarter of humanity. The pseudonymous Yang, clearly British, deals with everything from food to noise, sex to calligraphy, lavatories to gambling. Xenophobe's Guides and their sisters, Bluffer's Guides, are outstanding value, absurdly underpriced. Buy now."
  6. McGinty, Stephen (1999-10-03). "Scots attack guide book as a filthy lie". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "Argumentative, depressive, inebriated lotharios. These unfortunate qualities are the defining characteristics of the Scots, according to a controversial new guide book. ... The nation is reported as unhealthy, too, with a life expectancy two years less than the English - whom they detest - according to the Xenophobe's Guide to the Scots. The book, to be published this month, is aimed at travellers and businessmen preparing a visit. ... The latest in a series of guides to countries around the world, the book is designed to offer a light-hearted look at a nation's lifestyle and characteristics. The guide, however, has provoked irritation and confusion among Scottish academics and cultural societies."
  7. "If you go". The Oklahoman. 2000-07-30. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "Buy the book "Xenophobe's Guide to the English," a humorous but largely accurate look at the English culture and personality (there are Xenophobe guides to dozens of other nationalities, including Americans). It currently takes up to six weeks to get it, but this tongue-in-cheek look at the English is worth the wait."
  8. Allardyce, Jason (1999-10-04). "Scots unamused by humorous jibes". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "SCOTS are an unemotional, republican lot - obsessed by the weather but uninterested in personal hygiene, according to a controversial new guide book.David Ross, the Scottish author, has sparked outrage in his attempts to reveal Scots' national characteristics. ... And in the forthcoming Xenophobe's Guide to the Scots Mr Ross writes ... The book is the latest in a series providing a light-hearted look at the lifestyle and characteristics of nations."
  9. Tait, James (1999-10-04). "Book slur isn't good clean fun". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "A controversial new guide book claims that Scots are argumentative, depressive drunkards obsessed with the weather. The Xenophobe's Guide to the Scots also says many people would prefer to see Sean Connery on the throne rather than the Queen and slams hygiene standards."
  10. Hogan, Michael (2012-02-19). "The Observer: Review: Agenda: People: The unpredictable lifestyle choices of Lembit Opik". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "Ever the renaissance man, Opik has also turned his hand to literature, co-authoring "humorous" book The Xenophobe's Guide to the Estonians. On Amazon, it is selling for the cut price of pounds 3.79. One customer calls it "a mind-blowing piece of garbage"."
  11. Farrer, Gordon (2004-11-27). "A slice of Swiss cheese - Switzerland". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "Paul's Bilton's slim volume The Xenophobe's Guide to the Swiss is an amusing insight into the Swiss national character."
  12. "Books: Paperbacks". The Observer. 1993-08-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
    The article notes: "Xenophobe's Guide to the French by Nick Yapp and Michel Syrett (Ravette Books pounds 2.50). 'The French produce the most beautiful paintings in the world and the ugliest wallpaper. They work hard, but are never seen to be working. Drive through France at any time of the day, week, month or year and 95% of the country appears to be uninhabited or fast asleep'. Short, aphoristic, seriously funny, not that xenophobic and almost entirely apt guide, perfect homework for the fortunate on ferry or plane."
  13. Sage, Lorna (1993-08-08). "Paperbacks". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The book notes: "Xenophoboe's Guide to the French by Nick Yapp and Michel Syrett (Ravette Books £3.50). 'The French produce the most beautiful paintings in the world and the ugliest wallpaper. They work hard, but are never seen to be working. Drive through France at any time of the day, week, month or year and 95% of the country appears to be uninhabited or fast asleep'. Short, aphoristic, seriously funny, not that xenophobic and almost entirely apt guide, perfect homework for the fortunate on ferry or plane."
  14. Bray, Roger (1993-09-08). "Secret art of the medicine man". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Hard to resist a book entitled The Xenophobe's Guide to the Spanish (Ravette Books £2.50), one of a series which also covers the French, Germans, Australians — and the English — and is published on the premise that the more you know about people, the less you fear. It debunks the idea that Spanish men are pumped full of machismo and notes that despite bullfighting they are not generally cruel to animals. It also concludes that they view the British ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xenophobe's Guides to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard found clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW, strong policy based arguments, all in favour of keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamata Kanojia[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cricket, and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually passed the updated and revised notability of WP:NSPORT for cricketers (WP:NCRIC) - "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" with 11 matches for India. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another ridiculous nomination of an international cricketer. As mentioned above, she meets the updated WP:SPORT notability criteria for cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Fade258 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International cricketer, passes updated WP:NCRIC and WP:NSPORTS standards. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes every standard and requirement. --Indian Cricket Rocks (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)— Indian Cricket Rocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's not unreasonable to assume that there will be non-English language coverage some of which is unlikely to be accessible given the period in which Kanojia played for India - that tricky period before proper web coverage and with little chance of being able to access archives. As a result I'm happy to keep here - as others have noted, she passes NCRIC in both its former and present forms and has had a very long domestic career: last played in 2020/21 and has played in more than 200 top-level domestic matches. CricketArchive has a photo of her. It doesn't have one of most male international cricketers. That confirms my keep vote. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Group[edit]

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

An internet search came up with just one independent source for this company, and it only pertained to a new type of crane that they had just obtained in 2021. The company fails WP:VERIFY as well as WP:CORPDEPTH for broad geographic coverage. If it has been in existance since 1969 it should not have been hard to find independent coverage for this company if they are a major player in their business. Blue Riband► 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Could not find indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Anderson[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, lack of in-depth converge in independent RS. There is some coverage in publications of the University of California/Merced where she graduated and are not independent. Others are minor mentions or otherwise not Reliable Sources. MB 00:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. MB 00:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recommend deletion for the following reasons.

Coverage cited overall is weak. Sources include those directly from the subject's alumni, a LinkedIn post that no longer exists, more alumni posts, and a link to their spotify. There is one independent article cited, but the coverage is trivial and mentions the subject only briefly. This does not constitute significant coverage independent of the subject.
I was not able to locate any further significant coverage. There is some coverage here, here, and here. These sources are reliable and independent. However these articles are about rocket launches and only trivially mention the subject in relation to their live-streaming the launch.
So, looking at WP:GNG, I do not think the coverage is significant enough to warrant an independent article.

Overall, a good nom for deletion. Such-change47 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The prior redirect should be restored instead of outright deletion. MB 23:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ooof! Her name is "Jessica" not Jessie. You find more using her real name, not some nickname. That said, I find quotes NPR, LA business journal, Endgadget but nothing substantial about her. I recommend Delete as per TOOSOON, and should the article come back later I hope it gets her name right. Lamona (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More hits on a lady in the Walking Dead with her name, this individual seems to be just another corporate employee. I find nothing about her musical career either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of GNG. Thriley (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus clear subsequent to relist (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Lie Like a Dog[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. I couldn't find anything at all on newspapers.com or GBooks. Deprodded right under the wire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 2 May 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?)} 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I noted when I remove the Prod that there was GNG coverage at Proquest; why not check there User:TenPoundHammer? Also there's a good redirect target at List of Animal Planet original programming#former programming. I'm not sure the relevance of the timing of the Prod, given that User:TenPoundHammer is making hundred's of prods; very few of which have been deleted - are these WP:POINT failures? Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to Proquest so I can't check it. Can you WP:PROVEIT for me? Also the last thing I redirected, you undid it literally two seconds later. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has access to Proquest through WP:The Wikipedia Library - which is why it's listed in WP:BEFORE. Not everything is a redirect target - if you disagree about a redirect, start a talk page discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you're the one who brought it up, the burden is still on you to prove that the sources exist. Just saying "but sources exist" is not an argument to keep on its own if you don't, you know, show them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there's a single AFD, adding a source to the article, or at least listing it here is reasonable; but when someone is creating dozens of simultaneous AFDs (very few of which are looking like there's consensus for deletion), that's asking a bit much. I don't need to fix your BEFORE failure - it's your job to BEFORE and consider ATD before going to AFD. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is "I found nothing at all on newspapers.com or GBooks" not a WP:BEFORE? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how many times it's not giving you results that are out there - no, I don't think it's good enough. Though I confess I'm surprised that for American shows you aren't finding more in newspapers.com ... it's not great for most countries though, but I'd think it would be good for the USA. Though a problem I find with newspapers.com for TV shows though is that you lose the tree of wisdom in the forest of TV listings. Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's really the downside, weeding through all the TV Guide listings first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "You Lie Like a Dog" + "Animal Planet" gives me several hits on ProQuest, but only one (a review from Entertainment Weekly) is even about the show, and it doesn't show even an abstract so I can't gauge how in-depth it might be. The rest are just passing mentions in articles about Animal Planet as a while. "You Lie Like a Dog" + "JD Roberto" only gave one hit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several? It gives me 56 with the Wikipedia Library account. (58 if I include non-Wikipedia databases). First one I see on the list looks very relevant, a 2000 Denver Post article ... which searching some of the text, I can also see a copy of that everyone can see at here. I haven't dug much further though User:TenPoundHammer, but the blurbs that come up in the search often mention something called "You Like Like a Dog" in quotes ... looks like an Animal Planet TV show ... Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I see is only passing mentions. Like listing it among several shows on Animal Planet. That one looks fine though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the other AFD's, WP:NTV is an essay, not a policy/guideline and should not be invoked as a rationale for nominating something for deletion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a clearer consensus on whether the subject passes notability guidelines. If there are refs with sigcov founded, please add them to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less sniping, more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so far, no one has proven that any sourcing beyond the most superficial exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Eicher, Diane (2000-02-09). "Lying Down With Dogs". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article provides 802 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "But for the most part, filming for the newest game show to hit television, "You Lie Like a Dog" on Animal Planet, has been free of incidents - and considering that half of the cast is of the four-legged variety, that's surprising. No dog bites or cat scratches, no misdirected skunk sprays. A turned-on turtle who had the hots for a wooden pull toy performed on cue, and a llama that does the limbo was well-behaved. ... In Round One, three contestants all claim to own the same pet, who's on stage with them. The ce lebrities try to determine "who's lying like a dog" by quizzing them about the animal's diet, tricks and bad habits. (On a recent episode, they asked the alleged owners of Rosie, a pug, to imitate her snore.)"
2. Fretts, Bruce (2000-06-23). "You Lie Like a Dog Animal Planet, weekdays, 7 p.m.". Entertainment Weekly. No. 546. p. 47. EBSCOhost 3273140.
  The article provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A panel of celebrities (mostly quick-minded stand-ups like Kevin Meaney and Cathy Ladman) tries to sniff out the fibbers among a trio of alleged pet owners by asking such tricky questions as, "Where does the dog like to be scratched the best?" (Answer: on the butt.) It's not as simple as it seems. ... With helpful interspecies info (e.g., a demo of mouth-to-snout resuscitation) and all prize money going to animal charities (e.g., Helping Hands: Monkey Helpers for the Disabled), you'd have to be a real rat not to love this Dog."
3. McDonough, Kevin (2000-01-31). "Game show goes to the dogs on Animal Planet - Animals, not people are the winners on new show". Charleston Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article provides 130 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The cable network Animal Planet takes a bite out of the game show craze with its new entry, "You Lie Like a Dog" (7:30 p.m.). A flea-bitten variation on "To Tell the Truth," this show pits a panel of celebrities against three contestants all claiming to be telling the truth. In round one, three people all claim to own the same pet. Only a volley of celebrity questions (by the likes of Jimmie Walker, Fred Willard and Dr. Joyce Brothers) can ferret out the truth. While no one is going to emerge a millionaire from this game show, animals come out the real winners. The celebrity panelist with the most points at the end of the game will have a donation made to the animal charity of their choice."
4. Raouf, Neda (2000-03-09). "That's his dog, really". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article notes: "Rudd and Rosie will have a chance to become known to a greater portion of the Long Beach region tonight, when the two appear on a taped comedy game show airing on cable. The show, You Lie Like a Dog, on the Animal Planet cable station, is scheduled for 11:30 p.m. Rudd will display his dog-owner skills to prove that he owns Rosie, who is 2 1/2 years old. Celebrity contestants will quiz Rudd on Rosie's favorite toys, weight, sleeping habits, and if he can, imitate her snore, said Rudd, a substitute teacher for the Long Beach Unified School District. The celebrities who collect the most points by matching owner and animal will have a monetary donation made to the animal charity of their choice, he said."
5. Eliason, Marcus (2000-01-28). "PBS Studies U.S.-China Relations". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article provides 85 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Cable's Animal Planet is introducing a game show to demonstrate that, of all the creatures in the animal kingdom, people are the least trustworthy. You Lie Like a Dog features J.D. Roberto presiding over three celebrity guests and three contestants, all of whom claim to own the same pet. It's up to the panel to determine who's lying like a dog by quizzing each contestant on day-to-day life with the pet. Airing each weeknight, Lie Like a Dog premieres tonight at 7:30 p.m. EST."
6. Williamson, Dianne (2000-02-13). "She Doesn't Like Spiders, and Snakes \ That Isn't What It Takes To Replace Court TV". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "I told Mr. Goldstein that one of the shows on Animal Planet is called You Lie Like a Dog and involves contestants trying to figure out which panelist is fibbing about ownership of respective pets, along with other pet issues. "Well, not every single thing is intellectual," he noted. ... The show You Lie Like a Dog conjured instant images of the O.J. Simpson trial. And when I learned that the black beetle "thrives on dung and decay," I could have sworn I saw the soul of Jenny Jones staring out of its beady little eyes."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow You Lie Like a Dog to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relist - please consider the new sources presented in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources identified above by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Day International cricket umpires. RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. Karimanickam[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Day International cricket umpires per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Lugnuts. Where an WP:ATD exists, just be WP:BOLD and do it! StickyWicket (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason we should redirect from people who are not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Day International cricket umpires per WP:ATD. Plausible search term, no matter how many times Johnpacklambert objects to creating redirects in these scenarios. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Day International cricket umpires Despite John's comments, umpiring an international fixture is quite notable. There doesn't appear to be enough coverage to suggest a GNG pass, but redirect here is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of One Day International cricket umpires - umpiring an international match between two full members in the modern era is pretty darned notable in itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 40 Below Summer#Studio albums. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 23:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side Show Freaks[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Allmusic review already in the article is relatively detailed. Looking for more. This was released right before they signed to a major record label, and albums like that often get retrospective coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:31, 8 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!} 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 40 Below Summer#Discography for now. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. My WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: not finding any additional coverage. QuietHere (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following a relist for consensus 5 days ago, the main contribution has been a source assessment table. The arguments for keep cite the article meeting GNG, which the source table demonstrates. No other contributors have offered a rebuttal, and so this table adds weight to keep arguments over delete. Overall, a clear keep consensus. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Acharya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E case. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Hatchens (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not WP:BLP1E, as discussed in the previous AfD, and WP:GNG is supported by the independent and reliable sources in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am leaning towards 1E. But might come back to it. Changed vote to Keep. Not a 1E because of coverage in high quality publication like Indian Express [7] that's talking about events other than the Hanuman image. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Despite referencing in RS in some cases, the first three of those that I have checked fail. They are interviews with the artist, and are churnalism. Whether it is WP:BLP1E or not is open to discussion, and I think is a distraction. I tend to feel that this coverage is not for an event, but is coverage of the subject's art. That leads me to question whether it is the art that has notability or whether it is the artist. This is a fine point of balance. My thoughts are that, at this stage in the life of the art and the life of the artists the scales are tilted 51:49 in favour of the art, but that neither of these have shown sufficient notability. At present I see Acharya as failing WP:NARTIST in particular and WP:GNG regardless. I do see that they may acquire true notability in the future. Once they do we may have an article here. Until then, not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its the third time its being nominated for deletion, somehow someone lists it every time again. Where does this end? Amitized (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough quality sources to pass GNG. The first time this article was nominated it was deleted, so attacking nominating it multiple times when it clearly does not meet inclusion criteria makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability guidelines through cited references such as the Indian Express. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source assessment table of sources from the article can help demonstrate WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:CREATIVE notability and how more than one event is covered by the sources in the article:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The mystery behind why Bengaluru is covered in stickers of ‘angry Hanuman’ (Scroll.in, 2017)	Much more than an interview, includes substantial independent content, as well as commentary from Philip Lutgendorf, Professor of Hindi and Modern Indian Studies, Girish Kumar, a taxi-driver, and Srinath, a shopkeeper who sells stickers.	Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the work is the primary subject of this article, and is well-known, e.g. "The image, vector-style, is everywhere in Bengaluru and in several other parts of Karnataka."	✔ Yes
Karan Acharya, the man behind the viral Hanuman vector, wants to copyright the image (Hindustan Times, 2018)	More than an interview, includes substantial independent content about Acharya, the sticker, and an upcoming comic book.	Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the work is the primary subject of this article, and is well-known, e.g. the image is "raging across the Capital, after turning into a nationwide phenomenon over the last couple of years." Also includes support for WP:BASIC notability with secondary content and context about Acharya and his career.	✔ Yes
Meet Karan Acharya, the Bengaluru artist whose mythological images of common people are going viral (The Indian Express, 2020)	Much more than an interview, includes substantial independent content about Acharya and his career.	Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the collective body of work is the primary subject of this article, and is well-known, e.g. "Karan Acharya, a graphic artist from Bengaluru, has become an internet sensation after several of his digital artworks went viral on social media." The secondary content and context also supports WP:BASIC notability and demonstrates coverage for multiple events.	✔ Yes
Meet Karan Acharya, the artist who was hailed by PM Modi in Mangaluru rally (Daijiworld, 2018)	Mostly an interview, but includes independent content about career, biographical information, political reactions to the art.	value not understood Secondary content and context supports WP:BASIC notability.	? Unknown
Will Shiva blues Trump Hanuman rage? (The New Indian Express, 2017)	Includes independent content in addition to an interview	value not understood Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the collective body of work is the primary subject of this article, and his work is well-known, e.g. "Today, almost every other vehicle, especially cabs and private vehicles, sport the half-faced orange and black coloured Hanuman stickers." Also covers more than one event, e.g. "The man behind it — artiste Karan Acharya — is now back with a blue coloured Adi Yogi Shiva sticker [...] He has designed stickers for Jallikattu and Kambala as well." Secondary content and context supports WP:BASIC notability.	? Unknown
Stoic Rama after Angry Hanuman: Artist Karan Acharya reveals what he plans next (The Financial Express, 2018)	More than an interview, includes independent content about new art, the Hanuman t-shirt, his company, Paridhi Media Works, the copyright, and popularity of the Hanuman image.	value not understood Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the collective body of work is the primary subject of this article, and his work is well-known, e.g. "Karan’s ‘angry Hanuman’ has become so popular that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi underscored it in an election rally". Also covers more than one event by focusing on multiple works of art and future plans. Secondary content and context supports WP:BASIC notability.	? Unknown
‘Pride of Mangaluru’: PM Modi lauds artist who created viral angry Hanuman image (The News Minute, 2018)	Includes a focus on debate/criticism of the image, as well as praise from PM Modi	Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the work is the primary subject of this article, and is well-known, e.g. "It has been less than three years since the image was created and it has become a rage in many parts of the country including Bengaluru and New Delhi, where the image appears on the windshields of vehicles and on smartphone covers."	✔ Yes
Man behind super viral Lord Hanuman poster, now comes up with PM Narendra Modi’s painting, (The Financial Express, 2018)		Per WP:CREATIVE#3, the collective body of work is the primary subject of this article, and his work is well-known, e.g. describing him as "probably one of the most popular graphic artists in India". Secondary content and context about reactions to his art, career, and new work supports WP:BASIC notability, and helps demonstrate coverage for more than one event.	✔ Yes
Vinay Bharadwaj to create first impression with Mundina Nildana poster (The New Indian Express, 2019)		value not understood An announcement of a new work, demonstrating coverage of more than one event.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Other sources that could be used to expand the article include Mangaluru man’s half-done Hanuman is India’s new icon (Bangalore Mirror, 2016), which helps further demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr the source assessment table is something awesome I've learnt here. Thank you for sharing. Amitized (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are no policy-based reasons to keep the article presented. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Ronen[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)

Fails WP:NSINGER. Previously deleted, this is the 2nd attempt. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are profiles, event listings and interviews. No social media coverage, no streaming coverage, no secondary coverage. Fan page. scope_creep^Talk 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something like 8 sources total in GNews, two in Hebrew with this exact photo, rest seem trivial or unrelated. No charted hits. Performing at a jazz festival is different than being a headliner, she's just a working musician. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To have charted hits is somehow not an important criteria for the relevance of a musician nowadays. Google news finds some articles about her. It seems she is a regular at swiss television and swiss radio (german and french part). And she seems to have media coverage in several countries, including germany, israel and switzerland. She seems to be a notable musician in israel and switzerland. Guz808 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Guz808 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I added some secondary references to support the notability of this artist. The article specifically fulfils the WP:NM notability criteria for musicians points 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12. I have added secondary references to support 11 and 12, namely the placement of a song in a rotation of a national radio station (11) and a 2 hour radio special (12). Scavengo Azul (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Scavengo Azul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article does not fail WP:NSINGER, it does not fulfil the clear criteria for speedy deletion. Buda etterim (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Buda etterim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi @Buda etterim: This isn't speedy deletion, it is WP:AFD. Genuine secondary sources are need to prove the person is notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recent edits added support of notability of this singer songwriter. Hanoluka (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC) — Hanoluka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Vote stricken due to confirmed sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added an illegal cross-Wikipedia wikipedia link and a ref to podcast which is primary. None of them prove she is notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, I beg to differ. Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music): the added ref is a 2h national radio special that corresponds to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" point 12 (also released as podcast). The discussed song was placed in regular rotation of the same radio station (point 11 of the notability guide). Hanoluka (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I addressed the notability criteria issues and added more sources of national radio specials. Scavengo Azul (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Scavengo Azul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Vote stricken due to confirmed sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you done added a several non-RS links and an illegal crosss-wiki link, using Wikipedia as a reference which is illegal. We will go through the references. Regards the point. One radio statio is nothing. It is zero notability. I will check these references in the table. It the same kind of work the last time, there is nothing. No reviews of the work. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stricken due to sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for that. Externally grateful. It was the exact same behavior as the last time. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kerala cricketers#K. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Karunakaran (cricketer)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kerala cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Officially voting keep but redirect as per Barun Das (cricketer) if necessary - not sure how there are still names that slipped under the radar. Bobo . 16:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kerala cricketers Played a single FC game, but doesn't seem to be anything to suggest a GNG pass. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Kerala cricketers. Redirects are cheap, cheaper than deleting, preserve page histories and leave open the possibility that sources may be uncovered on day. In cases like this I don't see why the bytes required to run an AfD are necessary - the general consensus for a number of years has been to redirect to a suitable list if we don't know a forename or birth dates. If you want someone to check CricketArchive leave a note at the wikiproject and someone can do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hennadiy Perepadenko[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about a notable footballer (named to Soviet "all-star" list in 1991, represented the Soviet Union internationally, played several seasons of professional football) which has some recent online Russian-language coverage that approaches SIGCOV (unfortunately, most of the coverage involves interviews with the subject). If I could access the Sport Express archives, I would expect to find more in-depth coverage while he has playing. I think the same is true for Spanish-language newspaper archives, although Mundo Deportivo's is online and most of that coverage is trivial. Overall, the article is close on the GNG, and common sense suggests if we had offline newspaper access, it would meet it easily. Jogurney (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep National team player. Sources should be searched in Cyrillic (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --Yakudza (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a number sources in Spanish about the subject [8] [9] [10]. Quite possibly there are more of him in Cyrillic. --Angelo (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, clearly since the nomination there has been plenty improvement on the article to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. I feel there is enough coverage for GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 10:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources that have been found recently. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Investigators (2000 TV series)[edit]

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

Could only find press releases. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:08, 12 May 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?)} 04:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is little coverage of this TV show. Mainly links to services providing access to the show via streaming. Some reviews and TV guide style links, but nothing constituting significant coverage so the show is not notable enough to warrant an article. Such-change47 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing or that had aired on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disorder in the Court (TV series)[edit]

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

No sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 12 May 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?)} 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no sources for the TV show, plenty using the phrase itself. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another "caught on camera" filler show. I generally think filler video shows usually don't meet N, especially if the only staff heard in the series is an announcer. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Rom[edit]

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

No major roles in notable productions, nor press coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference that cites her https://www.businessinsider.com/charmed-fun-facts-2018-10#rose-mcgowan-said-she-gained-weight-for-the-role-of-paige-9 only mentions her in a tangential insignificant way. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yamaha CS-80 users[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of stuff: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. We don't need a separate article for this; notable users of the CS-80 synthesizer can be covered, in context, in the main Yamaha CS-80 article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. Popcornfud (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That a notable person used a particular syntesizer is not a notable enough thing to create a list on. As I say about a lot of lists that link together non-defining things, down this road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, doesn't need to be a seperate article. Medarduss (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was one of many synths that came and went and was used by a plethora of artists, if there is something notable about usage by a particular artist, detail in main article. See an example of a list article in this vein that perhaps is justifiable: List of Stratocaster players. States: "This is a list of musicians who have made notable use of the Fender Stratocaster in live performances or studio recordings." Acous mana 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keith Boykin. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Voice (African-American news website)[edit]

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

Redirect to Keith Boykin; The article is only notable in that it is associated with its creator. It only has one non-primary source, and I could not find any others that adress the website directly, just the creator of the website. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. No credible secondary sources cited. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Boykin seems most reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 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 no consensus. Closing, no consensus. No discussion in two weeks and no special reason to relist for a third time. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee[edit]

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

Not notable, no coverage Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three Wikipedia articles explicitly on railroad operating rules, two of which are nominated for deletion, and more articles on "railway signalling" which might be the broader topic.

Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee, at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee
General Code of Operating Rules, at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules
Canadian Rail Operating Rules, not at AFD currently

And all of these, plus many more articles, are within broad category Category:Railway signalling, which includes an article for signalling (and operating rules) in each of many countries.

Note that the main article Railway signalling includes a section on Operating Rules.

Please consider commenting at other AFD(s) and closer should consider all AFDs together. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This deletion request fails on at least two levels: (a) First, a standard that is applied by a major subset of an industry is per se relevant. This is e.g. also true for all ISO standards, and also all major laws. It is not necessary by WP standards that the amount of secondary literature about a subject is used as a indicator of the relevance - adoption of something in the real world by itself can make it relevant. (b) But additionally, there are thousands of documents citing and using the NORAC; first of all of course derived rulebooks, but then many FRA documents e.g. about accidents or incidents, and also secondary literature about e.g. adherence to standards. Probably quite a few of these can be found online (FRA documents), but also scientific literature. Of course, one can doubt the quality of an article that does not try to explain why its subjects matters - but this is no reason for deletion, only for improvement. Further, encyclopedic information about NORAC is relevant to many users of Wikipedia interested in information about railways, as indicated by this article's longevity, created in 2007 and edited and improved by many Wikipedians. Truthanado (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As above. --User:Haraldmmueller 19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to a suitable target. (Noting that I was made aware of this AfD at my talk page [11]) The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy, merely saying "we can't delete it because people use NORAC in the real world!" I own a copy of NORAC myself, that doesn't mean it's notable. Ideally I'd like to see an article on Railroad safety in the United States or Railroad operations in the United States, where something like this topic could be briefly mentioned. An article's longevity means nothing about its notability. I once got a 10 year old hoax article deleted. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/General_Code_of_Operating_Rules - do we have to copy-and-paste all arguments over both discussions?? --User:Haraldmmueller 09:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have bundled these articles together in one AfD for this reason... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, although should be renamed to be more clearly about the rules, which were needed and are significant, not about the committee. If it were really about the committee, it would name the members, etc. Operating rules seem important, and there is history involved. It would also be acceptable to merge this into a combined article about railroad operating rules and/or a list-article describing the major ones such as this one. Or specifically it could potentially be merged into Railway signalling#Operating Rules. Personally, I think a list-article could be better in providing context, showing variety of the operating rules adopted. In the absence of an editor actively developing a merged list-article, at the Railway signalling article or separately, keeping seems best for now. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep GBooks alone has enough hits on the first page from gov't sources and others to show notability. The article badly needs a rewrite though. Even a few mentions in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fox Feature Syndicate#Fox characters. History is available if anyone believes there is content that should be merged. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Jones[edit]

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

I've prodded this last yaer with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". While it has been improved, I am afraid this hasn't been sufficient - the article is still just a publication history and plot summary, with zero evidence of significance (no reception, analysis, etc.). The only evidence of wider context is a sentence in the lead that describes the phenomane of WWII-era US patriotic superheroes (a likely notable topic), but that doesn't mean all such superheroes are notable. Some certainly are, but this one I am afraid does not. I recommend SOFTDELETE and redirecting to Fox_Feature_Syndicate#Fox_characters, maybe a small merge too. But unless we can find a reception of this that meets WP:SIGCOV and goes beyond one-two sentences of plot summary (as in the sources cited), I am afraid there is no compelling reason to keep this as a stand-alone entry (interestingly, it seems there is more coverage of its collectibe pinback button than of the chracter itself...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I support the OP's suggestion that it be redirected to Fox_Feature_Syndicate#Fox_characters, while the sourced content should be merged into the appropriate page. Perhaps something about the collective pinback button can be put on the appropriate page as well. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listify I agree that this meets V but is arguably NN, and might be best represented in a list article. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Fox Feature Syndicate#Fox characters. Any pertinent cited material could be added there, and at this point there's no need for a separate list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per User:onel5969. Article doesn't have sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Melissa d'Arabian. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Dollar Dinners[edit]

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

Yet another contested prod. I got several hits on ProQuest, but most of them were along the lines of "Melissa d'Arabian, host of Ten Dollar Dinners, to do blah blah blah." Almost none were about the show itself, save for the one Longview source I added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:32, 12 May 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?)} 04:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Melissa d'Arabian. Here is less significant coverage about the subject:
1. Boyle, Katherine (2012-09-15). "Deal hunting on TV". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Ten Dollar Dinners. The Food Network is a must-watch for the dining-obsessed who could save a few dollars by learning easy, cheap recipes. And Melissa d’Arabian’s “Ten Dollar Dinners” is a good place for the novice cook to start. She focuses on cheap and easy dinners that can feed a family and takes the pledge literally: four people, $10. Yes, she proves it is possible to eat Kale chips and shrimp scampi on a budget. The show airs weekdays on the Food Network."
2. Evans, Glenn (2009-09-09). "Budget dinners for 9-9-09 Food Network star shares frugal philosophy on 'Ten Dollar Dinners'Budget dinners for 9-9-09 Food Network star shares frugal philosophy on 'Ten Dollar Dinners'". Longview News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "... said Melissa d'Arabian, whose show "Ten Dollar Dinners" reflects the frugal yet tasty philosophy that earned her the top place in season five of "The Next Food Network Star," a kind of "American Idol" for the cooking set. ... Understanding simple flavor profile and having them at the ready is a big part of "Ten Dollar Dinners," which is premised on feeding a family of four for $10 or less."
3. Acken, Lori (2012-02-19). "Tasty Tv". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2022-05-11. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "ut d'Arabian had a few tricks up her sleeve that helped her ace the competition and earn her her own Food series, "Ten Dollar Dinners if With Melissa d'Arabian," which is still popular three seasons later. ... So by the time she wed her French-born husband, Philippe, at age 34 and produced four daughters over the next three years, she was well prepared to switch gears from helping the House of Mouse save cash and make wise investments to making the d'Arabian house run just as smoothly - and, via "Ten Dollar Dinners," the households of her frugal fans."
4. Snyder, Leslie (2009-08-04). "Name that show: 'Ten Dollar Dinners'". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "The new name of Melissa d'Arabian's Food Network series is Ten Dollar Dinners. ... The former Keller stay-at-home mom, who now lives near Seattle, won her own show Sunday night on The Next Food Network Star."
5. Sterbens, Laurie (2009-08-12). "Budget: $10 - Ideas: Infinite - New 'Star' launches Food Network show". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Just over a week ago, 40-year-old mom and self-taught cook Melissa d'Arabian of Kirkland, Wash., was named "The Next Food Network Star" for the show's fifth season. In her new show, "Ten Dollar Dinners," which premiered Sunday, d'Arabian shows viewers how to make creative, tasty meals while adhering to the promise of "four people, 10 bucks, infinite possibilities." Using her own recipes and tips culled from her experience as a home cook, d'Arabian's budget-friendly meals include approachable Parisian and Moroccan menus and sophisticated upgrades for everyday fare such as chicken or pork."
Cunard (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melissa d'Arabian. The show itself is not notable for purposes of a standalone article. valereee (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Miracle (TV series)[edit]

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

I found a few press releases announcing the show's hosts, but as we all know, press releases are WP:PRIMARY sources. It's also mentioned in passing in various articles about new shows debuting or being renewed on PAX, but that's the key phrase: "in passing". No reviews seem to have been published at any point in the show's history, nor did it do anything worthy of media attention outside a couple "Local X to appear on It's a Miracle" type human-interest stories which are not enough on their own to support the article. This show was just... there for its entire life. I'm not expecting FA-level coverage on a no-budget Christian show on a network that doesn't even exist anymore, but this one seems to have flown completely under the radar. However, the show's relatively long shelf life (six seasons) is the only reason I'm sending this to AFD and not PROD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 12 May 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?)} 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Solid search for sources cannot locate any, let alone significant, coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This TV show is insufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Such-change47 (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my vote to keep based on the sources found by Cunard MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2009). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 676. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The book provides 247 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes that It's a Miracle was first telecast September 6, 1998, and last telecast August 12, 2006. The book lists the hosts: Billy Dean (1998), Nia Peeples (1998–1999), Richard Thomas (1998–2003), and Roma Downey (2003–2004). The book notes: "Each episode of this inspirational series presented several incidents in which miracles had changed or saved the lives of people. Most segments used re-creations of the actual incidents, with the real people describing what had happened to them, and in some cases actually participating. After their stories had been told, some of them were introduced to the studio audience in the theater from which It's a Miracle originated. Among the topics were medical miracles, dreams and visions, guardian angels, premonitions, and warning voices. One segment told of a man who didn't understand why he had been drawn to the Hermosa Beach Pier until meeting a fisherman with whom he became friendly. He found that his kidneys were a perfect match for the fisherman's, who needed a transplant to save his life. In another a man survived the crash of his small plane when he was guided by an angelic presence, and got out of the burning plane just before it exploded. Each episode also included a few "miraculous moments"—short man-on-the-street-type interviews with people who related what they believed to have been miracles in their lives." The book provides one more paragraph about the show.
2. Peralta, Jessica (2002-04-23). "Making of a miracle // San Clemente Hospital serves as the site of a PAX network program, 'It's a Miracle'". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Producers of the PAX network show, It's a Miracle, thought the hospital would make a good location for filming a re-enactment of a "miracle," and it turned several hospital employees into actors. ... Actor Richard Thomas hosts the show, which began in 1998 and re-creates true-life accounts of miracles. ... The miracle filmed Monday was related to the story of Sandy Rish, 49, of Fullerton. She played herself in the film. ... At the hospital, the film crew shot in the radiology unit for an MRI scene, in an emergency room, in a patient room in acute rehabilitation and in an operating room. ... It's a Miracle -- a 60-minute reality-based show -- is aired locally at 8 p.m. Thursdays on Channel 8. Rish's story has yet to be scheduled."
3. Dickenson, Elane (2004-01-20). "'It's a Miracle' - Two local stories being filmed by PAX TV". Wallowa County Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Two different producers of the PAX TV cable station picked up on both of these stories separately, and a crew arrived in Wallowa County from Los Angeles last week to recreate the stories for its popular "It's a Miracle" program hosted by Roma Downey. ... Filming started on the Hileman story Sunday morning at the Wallowa County Sheriff's Office, the nerve center for the search for her in the fall of 2002. It was moved later in the day to the Dave Nelson place in Allen Canyon in rural Lostine. ... Filming continued until after dark and through Monday, when Mischelle Hileman and her parents, Benny and Jan, who live also live on Allen Canyon Road, were interviewed and filmed. ... Among those who played a part in the TV reenactment were Bill Lehr and Marilyn Siefert, the friends ..."
4. Plunkett, Marguerite M. (1998-10-01). "'John-Boy' Will Co-host 'It's a Miracle' on PAX-TV". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Richard Thomas, whose role as John-Boy in The Waltons was as wholesome as wholesome gets, will host family friendly PAX TV's show It's a Miracle, Paxson Communications Chairman Lowell "Bud" Paxson said Wednesday. Thomas joins actress Nia Peeples as co-host of the show, replacing country singer Billy Dean. The change is set for this Sunday. ... It's a Miracle is a one-hour weekly series that airs at 9 p.m. Sunday. The program tells stories of real-life miracles, such as a pet that saved family members' lives and the success of a young man who started life as a drug-addicted, abandoned baby."
5. Farrell, Neil (2003-08-20). "Surf Survival Story Filmed - 'It's a Miracle': Surfing Accident Re-Enacted". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "Mike Downey's miraculous survival from a surfing accident in January will be a featured segment on an upcoming episode of TV's "It's a Miracle" on the Pax Network. A film crew was in town Friday and Saturday to interview those involved and to re-enact the accident that almost claimed the Los Osos resident and professional surfer's life. Christopher Poole, a freelance director working on Downey's story, has worked for the reality show since it began. Now entering its sixth season, the show will have eight new episodes, with the re-enactment of Downey's near-death experience set for airing in mid-October, said Poole. Actor Richard Thomas, of The Waltons fame, is the host of the show."
6. Cohen, Ruth-Ellen (2001-08-01). "Lost watch story to air on 'It's a Miracle'". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "A feel-good story about a watch that lay at the bottom of Phillips Lake for 68 years until it was unearthed by a determined scuba diver will be featured early next year on the Pax Network show, "It's a Miracle." ... Hosted by actor Richard Thomas, "It's a Miracle" airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33. A four-member crew from Los Angeles will visit the Bangor area next week to begin filming for the 15-minute segment, which will combine interviews of the actual participants with recreated scenes."
7. Calder, Amy (2002-03-14). "Lost ring story to air tonight on 'It's a Miracle'". Morning Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article notes: "The true story of a Fairfield man whose ring was lost last year in Waterville before it turned up in a box of golf clubs in Florida will air at 8 p.m. Thursday on the PAX TV show, "It's A Miracle." The show, hosted by Richard Thomas of "The Waltons" fame, is available through Adelphia cable as well as via regular broadcast in some areas. The show will recount the saga of Jonathan Klane, 41, of Fairfield, who lost a 70-year-old ring in February 2001. ... "It's a Miracle" producers contacted Klane last year after a story about his experience appeared in the Morning Sentinel as well as on the Internet. A television crew from California came to Waterville last June and filmed the show at locations including Larsen's Jewelry Store on Main Street, and Mail-It-Quik on College Avenue, according to Klane, who appears in the show."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Pennington, Gail (2002-10-03). "PAX: The Last Refuge for Wholesome Programming". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "The most enduring Pax original is "It's a Miracle" (10 p.m. weeknights), in which Richard Thomas ("The Waltons") introduces feel-good stories of reunions and rescues (tonight, a moose is saved!), all badly re-enacted but calculated to ensure a much better night's sleep than watching the news ever would."
  2. Smith, Austin (1999-08-23). "Goodness!; G-rated TV; Can angels save newest network?". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "It turns out that Pax is more successful when it doesn’t try to clone “Touched By an Angel.” Take “It’s a Miracle” (), for example. Starting its second season Thursday night at 8, “It’s a Miracle” is sort of a reality-based news show, Pax-style. Host Richard Thomas reports on modern-day miracles, which are told in reenactments and in interviews with the people who witnessed them. Corny as they may be, you’d have to have a heart made out of concrete not to like the stories on “It’s a Miracle,” especially the one about a beloved dog named Sailor who was so sick he would have been euthanized if not for the intervention of another dog named Angel."
  3. Mason, M.S. (1999-08-20). "Pax TV debuts a new lineup of 'uplifting' family programs". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "It's a Miracle (Thursdays) can get pretty gooey, too, but unlike the superior "Twice in a Lifetime," it's a stranger-than-fiction approach to perfectly plausible events with more or less happy endings. Host Richard Thomas (John Boy on "The Waltons") lends some credibility because he projects sincerity. But the title, and worse, the melodramatic tone of the stories, seem excessive for the kinds of events the show chronicles."
  4. Boedeker, Hal (1999-08-24). "Hold Back Hallelujahs for PAX TV - The Network's Pat Formula for Feel-Good Programs Cheapens the Messages". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "Another TV veteran, Richard Thomas, plays the chipper host of It's a Miracle, beginning its second season on Thursday. The show is a hybrid of Rescue 911 and Dateline - the cheapie graphics recall the NBC newsmagazine. The show mixes tacky re-enactments of unusual incidents and interviews with those who lived through them. There are astonishing recoveries by a lifeless patient in the operating room and by a declining dog visited by a pooch named Angel."
  5. Hager, Peggy (2003-11-27). "The Power of Prayer - Dying of Lung Infections at Age 4 1/2, Girl Lively at 10". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "Elizabeth's story will be profiled tonight on Pax network's It's A Miracle series, airing today at 8 p.m. on satellite networks and at 11 p.m. on cable. The episode, hosted by Roma Downey, will be a combination of a re-creation of the event and interviews with the family."
  6. Crump, Sarah (2001-09-15). "Cleveland-area folks to re-enact hospital 'miracle' for TV show". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "Marty Rosenblum is not an actor. He's the suite-catering supervisor at Gund Arena. But a friend who is a casting agent thought he would be just right for a part in Pax TV's "It's a Miracle.""
  7. Barr, Annette (2002-05-02). "Show Recounts Area Woman's 'Miracle'". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "More than a year ago, Carol McAdams prepared for her television debut. The story of a dulcimer and her search for a connection to her father landed her a segment on PAX-TV's show It's a Miracle. The show is hosted by Richard Thomas, made famous by his role as John-Boy on the popular 1970s series The Waltons. McAdams' segment, titled Instrument of God, will air tonight at 8. ... McAdams re-enacted her story for a film crew in Asheboro in January 2001. Both Collectors Antique Mall and Evans Music Center were used as locations during taping. Richard Evans of Evans Music Center also is featured in McAdams' segment."
  8. "Peeples, Dean to Host 'Miracle'". The Seattle Times. 1998-09-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "Actress-singer Nia Peeples will join country crooner Billy Dean as co-host of fledgling Pax TV's "It's a Miracle." ... Story categories include romantic miracles, answered prayers, angel encounters, medical miracles, good Samaritans, miracles from the animal kingdom and children's inspirational stories."
  9. Thompson, Kevin D. (1998-08-30). "New Programs Scheduled, Too". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "It's a Miracle. What it's about: Think Unsolved Mysteries meets Oprah. Producers re-create miracles, then interview the people involved. You'll hear about dogs who saved little boys from drowning and lovers who fell in love at an organ donors convention. Wait . . . the producers swear It's A Miracle won't turn into a sleazy, reality-based show. ... It's hosted by the odd-couple pair of Nia Peebles (Dance Party) and country singer Billy Dean. If the stories are boring, at least we know the hosts can sing and dance."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow It's a Miracle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. All but the first of those is just some variant of "Local X to appear on It's a Miracle". They confirm that the show exists, but nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that discuss local people who have appeared on the show provide significant coverage of the background and production of the show's episodes so establish notability about the show. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  They're still just local human-interest stories, not actually about the show itself. All they confirm is that the show exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources that cover the background and production of the show's episodes do more than confirm that the shows exists. They provide a basis for verifying content about each of the article's episodes and the show's history. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those sources gives background info on the show? I didn't see a word of that anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brooks & Marsh 2009, Plunkett 1998, Farrell 2003, and Cohen 2001 all provide background about the show and the show's episodes in the quotes I have provided here. Cunard (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And they're just going to automatically add themselves to the article, right? I don't know why you even bother digging up sources if you're just gonna dump them in the AFD and just hope and pray that somehow they add themselves to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I previously replied to you here about why I do not always add sources to articles I support retaining at AfD. Cunard (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Cunard's sources:

The first source is an encyclopedia, which itself is not sufficient absent anything else.
This one is all about the hospital, and says literally nothing about the show other than it airs on PAX. After the first paragraph, it gives up on mentioning the show entirely.
The Wallowa County source does not load for me.
This is a press release made by the show itself.
This also says literally nothing about the show other than it airs on PAX, and doesn't even talk about the show after the first paragraph.
This? Same deal. Literally all it says about the show is that it "airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33."
This? Says nothing about the show other than that Richard Thomas hosted it.

So out of eight sources, one is dead already, and the only information gleaned from ALL OF THEM is "this show airs on PAX". Where is information on production? Hosts? The length of the show? The content of the show? I don't see an iota of it in all of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Notes on your Analysis

From WP:PSTS Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability Tertiary sources(encyclopedias) are fine. While better to have secondary, they still help establish notability per policy.
Short but detailed article about the filming of an episode, multiple mentions of the show and its production process. First 159 of of 548 words Miracles might not happen every day. But it did Monday for San Clemente Hospital. Producers of the PAX network show, It's a Miracle,... ...The show itself takes real people with real experiences, Jackson said. ``Call it coincidence, we like to call it miracle. are about the show, then 193 of 548 words discuss the Rish(mention she plays herself also) and the miracle. Then another 77 words about the show Jackson said the show's researchers look for inspirational stories like this to re-tell for the viewing public. ``Everything these people have gone through are stories that need to be told," he said. He said the show has produced hundreds of such stories. Jackson said it usually takes about a day for interviews with those involved and two to three days for the filming. Rish's story was being filmed at San Clemente Hospital and in her Fullerton cafe. Then a small bit about the hospital and where they filmed, and list the other people from the hospital that were featured in the show. Then those closing sentence with the shows information. Please explain what you mean it says literally nothing about the show other than where it airs, and explain how it gave up mentioning the show after the first paragraph. This article discusses the show, and gives details about this specific episode and where/when it was filmed
Here is an alternate link to the Wallowa County source. It covered production information of this and another show that was being filmed there simultaneously.
Explain what you mean by press release made by the show itself. It was written by Author/Byline: Marguerite M. Plunkett - Palm Beach Post Staff Writer What does The Palm Beach Post or M. Plunkett have to do with the show or it's production? What is the relation you are stating when you say made by the show? "Thomas' publicist couldn't be reached Wednesday. Sloan would not reveal the terms of his contract."Does that sound like someone from the inside?
Similar to #2, detailed article about the filming of a specific episode. First 150 of 449 words are about the show/filmcrew/episode/director. 185 of 449 about the miracle itself, mentioning a few names of people. Then 49 words, mentioning those people and others invovled volunteered to take part in the show. Also describes how the episodes subject's wife found it difficult to watch the film crew recreate the scene at hospital. Once again, it talks about the show/episode, and it does so well after the first paragraph. Explain you reasoning for saying it doesn't talk about show past first paragraph.
Couldn't load archive, but same article here. 216 of 335 about the show. It tells us the shows host, it tells us the name of the segment the local women is about. It also names two other segments that are airing on the same episode with a brief description of one. It tells us the local women re-enacted her story, tells us city it was filmed tells us two specific location where it was filmed and the presumably owner of one of the location is also featured in the episode. How is that nothing but "airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33"?
The show, hosted by Richard Thomas of "The Waltons" fame, is available through Adelphia cable as well as via regular broadcast in some areas. Info about show's host and its broadcasting availability. "It's a Miracle" producers contacted Klane last year after a story about his experience appeared in the Morning Sentinel as well as on the Internet. A television crew from California came to Waterville last June and filmed the show at locations including Larsen's Jewelry Store on Main Street, and Mail-It-Quik on College Avenue, according to Klane, who appears in the show. Details when show contacted the subject, along with exact locations where they filmed the show, mention Klane appears in show. Rest of article just about Klane. This one is only one with just "first paragraph about show". 187 words if you want to include everything from that section, or 126 words if you exclude the part describe the miracle the episode is about. But it definitely tells more than just Richard Thomas hosted it.
From the sources he listed, a few talked about production of the show(or an episode). The first one list all the host for the 7 years that it was on air, other sources mention the host at the time of printing, some detailing what else they were known for. Multiple articles provided mention it is an hour long show, included in one of the quotes from above. Multiple source describe the show as combination of reenactments, interviews, and involved people telling the story. The sources he cited literally describe all the things that you claim you don't see an iota of any of it. I don't understand why dismiss everything and then claim they don't provide any info. Please read and review articles before dismissing it completely. I can't believe any of these articles were seriously read when you claim information that is actually in the articles isn't there. If you are going to argue that something is not significant coverage, please do not claim things about the source that aren't true. Unfortunately some people will not read the source and will just read your comment and believe it to be true, taking advantage of that is not productive. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment Found an additional source while I was looking for sources about the three books he wrote, I only found brief mentions such as this one. GOODE, STEPHEN (March 1, 2003) "Spirit TV - The Small Screen Takes on Eternity." The World & I, vol. 18, no. 3, sec. TELEVISION, p. 70. - Mentioned multiple times throughout article, but it is not focus of article. Describes what a typical episode consist of, and describes a specific episode's story. Talks about host Richard Thomas, mentions his book of same name It's a Miracle, a compilations of stories from the show. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an admirable effort has been made by Cunard (talk), I feel it was obligatory to review their work and reassess my vote. I recall having previously been swayed by this user on another AFD vote and voted keep. On this occasion, I remain a delete vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} makes a solid argument the sources listed do not constitute significant coverage conferring notability on the subject, and so I remain unconvinced in the articles notability, hence it ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will focus on the first two sources on my list of sources. It is undisputed that the first source, Brooks & Marsh 2009, provides significant coverage about the show. It is a 247-word entry about the show.
I will spend time looking at the second source, Peralta 2002. The article says that actor Richard Thomas is the show's host, the show began in 1998, the show is in its fifth season, the show is 60 minutes, Peter Jackson is the field producer of the show, the show "re-creates true-life accounts of miracles", interviewing people involved in the miracle takes roughly a day, and filming takes two to three days. The article discusses the production details of an episode involving Sandy Sish who had had seizures. It says that San Clemente Hospital was chosen to reenact the "miracle" and that hospital employees became actors for the episode. The hospital employees who acted in the episode included a doctor from a San Clemente hospital, a nurse, a physical therapist, a radiologist, and two operating room surgical technicians. Further production details are that filming took place in "the radiology unit for an MRI scene, in an emergency room, in a patient room in acute rehabilitation and in an operating room". The substantial coverage of the production and background constitutes significant coverage of the television show.
These two sources are enough for It's a Miracle to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The other sources provide production details about other episodes; examples are Dickenson 2004, Farrell 2003, and Calder 2002.
Cunard (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a brief but critically negative source about the subject:
1. Mason, M.S. (1999-08-20). "Pax TV Debuts a New Lineup of 'Uplifting' Family Programs". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article provides 67 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It's a Miracle (Thursdays) can get pretty gooey, too, but unlike the superior "Twice in a Lifetime," it's a stranger-than-fiction approach to perfectly plausible events with more or less happy endings. Host Richard Thomas (John Boy on "The Waltons") lends some credibility because he projects sincerity. But the title, and worse, the melodramatic tone of the stories, seem excessive for the kinds of events the show chronicles."
Cunard (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple articles on the show or individual episodes of the show were already found, the show was on the air for ~7 years and filmed all over, we can assume there are others out there, but more than enough have been found to pass WP:GNG. Each source does not need to contain every little detail about the show, a combination of many sources can give us the information we need. The sources already provided above aren't just trivial mentions they are significant enough to help pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the sources contain no detail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the details I provided above in my comment about your analysis when you previously claimed that they provide no detail. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't prove at all how the sources say anything about the show. I just went through every single one, and combined, all we know is that it aired on PAX. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't prove they say anything about the show? What are you talking about. I talked about several things the articles mention about the show in my comments above. I literally quoted or described what they said about the show. This isn't a scientific proof, either they talked about the show and told us about it or they didn't. They did. I can't be bothered to argue if you are going to just keep claiming all they did was tell us it airs on PAX. Also I asked several questions about your prior analysis. Feel free to respond to them. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question this TV show existed and someone somewhere discussed it online. the issue is whether or not the coverage is significant. The coverage is not significant. The sources are not meaningful, substantive coverage of the article subject in reliable, independent publications. Hence this article subject simply is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He said all we know from the coverage is it aired on PAX. I said they said a lot more than that, that was what my response was to. If you agree with him, you agree with him. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the extensive list above, coverage of the show exists, while most of it is trivial, added together I think we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. Passes at the very least WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interestingly, all 3 book volumes are in my local library. It had 1.6 million weekly viewers at one point. Never mind that, with the sources above this passes GNG.Jacona (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Keong[edit]

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

this is a WP:BLP1E with lots of other BLP implications - I fail to see how he's notable even for a crime, much less as an academic. PRAXIDICAE💕 11:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, I am really sorry to interrupt but I do not understand how the subject is a low-profile individual. As a member of the community that the subject was once in, everyone knew the subject, and after the subject was on national news, it’s quite clear he is not a low-profile individual. He’s not only known for one event; he was known for a couple, which one has been deleted to meet the guidelines. Could you please at least consider this? FedFoxEx (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to add on I’ve used many reliable sources as the citations, such as ABC news (public broadcaster), 7 news, courier mail, etc. FedFoxEx (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are really two events here, but only one we can mention: (1) some minor kerfuffle involving religious instruction in state schools five years ago, (2) recent criminal charges not yet resolved. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot mention (2) in our article, nor even use any sources that are primarily about it. That leaves only (1) as the basis of an article, and as an individual event that does not appear to have any ongoing interest (except maybe peripherally in connection with the criminal charges) it does indeed fail WP:BLP1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, as I am fairly interested in this subject I believe it is fair to consider other's opinions. The original creator of the article had no intention to criticise, nor create a false article to attack the subject. I understand the creator has received warnings based on there actions towards publishing the article, however I cannot understand why this can't be negotiated. The page provides all necessary, and extremely reliable sources, even though some of them are bound to your strict policy about criminal allegations. If these weren't included, The case on religious instruction is actually a serious issue which took place, and now shapes the curriculum at the subjects previous workplace. These were supported by numerous citations and sources. I am personally offended by David Eppstein's comment about a "Minor Kerfuffle" as I experienced extreme discrimination as a result of the situation. As a Wikipedia editor, David Eppstein should reconsider his language before reviewing issues that they have no personal experience with. The subject is well known in the Local area as they were common amongst the community. Even though the subject may not be notable in foreign countries such as the United States, the subject's actions have caused drastic effects on their local area. Including the subject's criminal allegations was not intended to attack, or share negative opinions towards the subject, nor provide information that the subject was under bail or experiencing legislative impacts. Rather, it was intended to provide information to others interested in events relating to the subject, and highlight that he has been accused of them. I cannot see how the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, and would appreciate any feedback, and would ask for editors to explain how the page can be improved, in order to be published. Paddyfr21 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how strongly you feel about this matter and how closely connected you are to it, you might have a COI. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As long as his legal issues cannot be mentioned as per WP:BLPCRIME, he is a WP:BLP1E character. I agree with David Eppstein that notability is not established. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I agree with paddyfr21 - you need to see the other perspectives and opinions. I am not sure whether you are in Australia or not, however paddyfr21’s point of the issue being well known in the local area as well as the whole city, potentially the country is a valid point. Even if the legal issues are not included, you stated you agree with Mr. Eppstein’s comments about notability, which I bring back to mr paddyfr21’s comments again; the incident was not a ‘minor kerfuffle’. Given that the subject was on the national prime time news on the national broadcaster (ABC) shows the severity of the case, as well as the reactions from both sides, showing a very sensitive issue. If you have any suggestions to improve the page, then I welcome them. FedFoxEx (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject appears to be of local interest only. The BLP looks like an attempted WP:Attack page, an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hello there, again this is another misunderstanding. As explained before, the subject is well known locally, and around the city. You stated that the subject 'appears to be of local interest only', yet the subject featured on the prime-time ABC News bulletin that is nation-wide. ABC News is the national broadcaster of Australia. If you want to have a look at a youtube video that was uploaded a couple years ago with the story of that, it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KmIKerODT8 . As well, it featured prominently on news websites such as The Brisbane Times and ABC News' website. You stated that it is an 'attempted attack page', yet all the editors above clearly never stated that, and the article was written in neutral tone. As explained before, this article has been created to inform, not to attack; we are not abusing the wikipedia platform, so I would advise you review the page carefully first before reaching such conclusion. The issue of the religious instruction clearly is not only of local interest given the coverage it received; clearly it has been a sensitive topic given the response stated in the media. Obviously, it may not be that prominent in foreign countries; I do not know where you are from, however you should factor in everything I said before you reach a conclusion. FedFoxEx (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:BLP1E. Deus et lex (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Limited participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Month of Sundays (2001 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at last AFD because it was the last role for one of the actors, but this alone is not an assertation of notability if there is nothing else to say about the film. I was unable to find any actual reviews, just a bunch of obituaries on Rod Steiger that mentioned this movie in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stieger's IMDB page lists this as his third-to-last film role before passing. The only claim to notability isn't even accurate, and while Stieger meets the "significant involvement" portion of WP:NFILM, it is definitely not a major part of his career. -fuzzy510 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment review, albeit short, at Variety [12]. Not enough on its own, but a possible start? DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep two reviews are now cited in the reception section, weak because the Variety one is short, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Copyright Act[edit]

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

Bill that did not pass, and received no coverage beyond its introduction in the 117th United States Congress, i.e. failing WP:LASTING. Not to be confused with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which this bill sought to update. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Internet, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deprodder Lurking shadow (talk · contribs) attempted to retract their own deprod. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough coverage on it.Craigwikiman (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an enough coverage on available online news portals. Fade258 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LASTING doesn't apply as the subject of the article is not an event. Therefore the notability guideline to be met is WP:GNG which can be met by coverage in Pitchfork, Politico, and Variety. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once notable always notable Rlink2 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before We Ruled the Earth[edit]

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

PRODded with notability concerns, but it had already been prodded in 2010 over unclear concerns about original research that likely regarded content that is no longer in the article. Only current source is IMDB, Allmovie has no reviews (Part 1, Part 2), and the miniseries is not even on Rotten Tomatoes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and History. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as prodder (There really needs to be a better way to catch that). Nominator has proven my point that no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A two-programme TV series of 20 years ago is clear NN. It is merely reporting facts on certain species, probably nothing particularly original. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Klossner, Michael (2006). Prehistoric Humans in Film and Television: 581 Dramas, Comedies and Documentaries, 1905–2004. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 172–174. ISBN 0-7864-2215-7. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 2.25 pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth (2003) U.S.; dir. Pierre de Lespinois; Evergreen Films/Discovery Channel. 2 49-min. parts; color. Producer, Bill Latka; writers, Brian Fagan, Sandra Gregory, Bill Latka; music, Dean Grinsfelder; narrators, Linda Hunt, John Slattery."
  The book further notes: "Dramatic reenactments (including computer-generated images of extinct animals) show the lives of Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and early Cro-Magnons, including the use of fire and tools and the development of communications. There are several brief segments titled "How We Know What We Know" which discuss fossils and other evidence on which the program is based. ... This excellent documentary packs a lot of information into its little dramas. The first part is about humans whose bodies and brains were different from ours. The second part deals with anatomically-modern humans. Humans advance from scavengers to predators. People first speak not at all, then fluently. ... Of course the reenactments are speculative but they reflect sophisticated, up-to-date information about prehistoric man. ... The stories are dramatically effective precisely because they are convincing. The tale of the Neanderthals' failing in their last hunt is perhaps the saddest scene in any prehistoric film or TV show, while the story of the three incredibly brave Berringian women killing the mammoth is probably the most terrifying and awe-inspiring scene involving early humans. There are no films that do as much as this program to encourage respect for our ancient ancestors."
2. "Glimpse into prehistoric Earth". New Straits Times. 2003-04-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  The article notes: "The series started yesterday with the premiere of Before We Ruled the Earth. The two-hour programme looked at the development of humankind from as far back as 1.7 million years ago in Africa. Hunt or be Hunted, the first part of the programme, featured the evolution of early humans, Homo Ergaster. In the world of scavengers, it was men against beasts. However over the years, men made major progress with the discovery of fire and various uses of stone. From scavengers, men became predators. ... To end the week-long series, dinosaurs come into focus in When Dinosaurs Ruled: At the Ends of the Earth. A far cry from the action-packed movie Jurassic Park, this documentary showcases the toughness of dinosaurs which survived the extreme heat of Australia and the icy cold of Antarctica."
3. "Before We Ruled the Earth". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth is an odyssey of evolution, from Homo ergaster in Africa at 1.7 million years ago, to Paleo-Indians living in North America at 11,000 years ago. Detailed recreations of hominid life over seven time periods, stunning wilderness locations, state of the art makeup effects and photo-realistic 3-D animated animals bring the past to life. Factual. Entertaining. Riveting."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Zad, Martie (2003-02-09). "'The One,' Plus Amazing Dogs". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
    The article notes: "SUNDAY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL at 8 p.m. "Before We Ruled the Earth" airs two one-hour episodes, "Hunt or Be Hunted" about the Homo ergaster who scavenged to survive in Africa 1.7 million years ago, and "Mastering the Beast" about the Cro-Magnons 15,000 years ago, who possessed all of the abilities of modern humans: speech, reasoning skills and a belief in the afterlife. The program combines dramatizations with photo-realistic animated creatures."
  2. "Complete list of Emmy nominees". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2003-07-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
    The article notes (my bolding): "75. Sound Editing for Nonfiction Programming (Single or Multicamera): "American Experience: Seabiscuit," PBS; "American Masters: Joni Mitchell: Woman of Heart and Mind," PBS; "Before We Ruled the Earth," Discovery Channel; "James Cameron's Expedition: Bismarck," Discovery Channel; "Unchained Memories: Readings From the Slave Narratives," HBO."
  3. Daudelin, Art (December 2002). "Broad strokes". Emmy. Vol. 24, no. 6. p. 19. ProQuest 2293605241.
    The article profiles Pierre de Lespinois. The article notes: "In 1999 de Lespinois founded his own company Evergreen Films, based in Pacific Palisades, California. Impressed by Verne, Discovery Communications came knocking, which resulted in their 2001 co-development of Montreal-based Meteor Studios for the latest visual effects and digital animation. "In the first year, we delivered forty films," he says. A dozen more were due to wrap by Christmas, including Before We Ruled the Earth and Prehistoric Worlds, upcoming on Discovery."
  4. "From bad puppets to Atwood Stories; Canadian lineup borrows old ideas, tries some outrageous new ones and relies heavily on documentaries". Waterloo Region Record. 2002-09-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
    The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth offers the latest scientific knowledge on evolution from early Homo sapiens' fight for survival over seven time periods. Speed: Without Limits takes viewers on a fast-paced look at the world behind the wheel."
  5. "The city slicker falls for the crusty cowboy (again)". Sun-Sentinel. 2003-02-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
    The article notes: "Discovery Channel's Before We Ruled the Earth airs two one-hour episodes at 8 p.m. Sunday: "Hunt or Be Hunted" deals with the Homo ergaster who scavenged to survive in Africa 1.7 million years ago; "Mastering the Beast" is about the Cro-Magnons 15,000 years ago."
  6. "Quest - Eureka!". The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2003-02-05. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
    The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth. 8 p.m. Sunday on The Discovery Channel. A new two-hour special on evolution that examines the first days of our lives, or rather, our ancestors', from Africa's Homo ergaster 1.7 million years ago to the paleo-Indians of North America 11,000 years ago. Filmed in wilderness areas around the world, with dramatizations using photo-realistic animated creatures."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Before We Ruled the Earth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including books and newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Emmy nomination plus the sources provided above meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no further discussion of sources following the initial relist, one more keep argument made since second relist. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wimba Sutan Fanosa[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a multi-page biography of the subject. The description of him in this article also makes me think other coverage of him exists. EternalNomad (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the above two sources, I have also found Bola which is more than a passing mention. His every move seems to be covered quite heavily. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bola piece is short, mainly about his wife's pregnancy, and imo trivial. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient covering has been provided for passing WP:SPORTCRIT.ZanciD (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- At AFD WP:SPORTCRIT #5 only applies as reason to delete, not to keep - failing it means the article must be deleted, but passing it doesn't indicate notability. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more time to discuss the sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources from EternalNomad and Spiderone are probably sufficient for WP:GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants rightly pointed out that county boards of education are not covered by WP:NPOL. The article may be re-created when the subject holds a country/state-wide office or when sufficient sources are available. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaheela Ahmed[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NPOL. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As while she is currently not notable, she appears likely to win a seat in the Maryland Senate. Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school board members are almost never notable. This article provides no substance on the subjects actions as a member of the board, but even if we had something, it would need to be to the level of articles in publictations far from where the person lived that provided indepth coverage of them, not just coverage about a vote that they participated in that got widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding the information about Raaheela and added references from reliable resources. She is the elected politician of Prince George's County Board of Education in Maryland, representing District 5. Passes WP:NPOL. Blaster Oak (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County boards of education don't pass WP:NPOL. The lowest level of office that does that is the state legislature — and even that's holding a state legislature seat, not just running for one, so the fact that she's running for a state legislature seat doesn't help. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A county board of education is not an WP:NPOL-passing office in its own right; school board members are notable only if they can show and source a credible case for why they should be seen as much more nationally significant than most other school board members. But this shows nothing of the sort, and is referenced much, much more to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, raw tables of election results, etc.) than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage — and even her current candidacy for a state senate seat is not a notability booster, because the notability test for state legislators is holding a state legislature seat, not just running for one. So no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the state legislature election, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus appears keep, and no discussion for three days except for one more keep vote. Closing as there is a clear consensus and no active discussion. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Venable[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of the subject, whose request (with permission) is copied below. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia:
I am the subject of a Wikipedia page named "Charles L. Venable." I am an art collector and retired museum profession who now does occasional consulting. I do not now consider myself a truly notable person, and never have. In fact, I do not know why a page on me was ever created in the first place.
Especially troubling is the fact that the page is regularly reedited in what I consider a negative tone and an unbalanced viewpoint. This happened yet again recently when someone updated the page with new and accurate information, only to have one or more other editors remove most of that information and to cast the page negatively to the point of disparagement in my opinion.
Therefore, I formally request that the page "Charles L. Venable" be permanently deleted.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Venable

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Indiana. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources, including three substantial articles in the NYT. If there's a problem with bias or undue coverage of events in his career, then let's fix the problem, rather than delete the article. There is some useful context at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Charles_L._Venable. If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines, then I'll withdraw my vote. Storchy (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines - there isn't, just the recommendation that in borderline cases we acquiesce to their request. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of marginal notability; depth of coverage does not seem present, except as being mentioned in a few articles in passing related to one single controversy. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems borderline enough to delete. --Jayron 32 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Storchy. I disagree that the notability here is a borderline case, or that everything is one controversy. This HuffPost article has some in-depth coverage of him, alongside coverage in this IndianpolisMonthly one and significant coverage in this ARTnews article, both of which are well before 2021. In conjunction with the mentioned NYT articles (including this extensive one), notability seems firmly established. I agree with Storchy that this is not a solution to the stated problem (though it does not seem like the article covers ~~anything~~ too much with undue weight either).--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree it could use a bit more balance, but coverage is coverage, good and bad. I see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider that the notability extends beyond one event? CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's the author of several scholarly texts and worked at the art museum. The "stuff" that happened is neither here nor there, but it helps establish notability, given the extensive NYTY feature. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I misjudged the BLP one event thing, User:Cerebral726 corrected me on that below. CT55555 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete (updated to weak after reading solid counter arguments) As per the very specific guidance contained within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that seems to exactly match this scenario: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, it remains to be determined whether there is "no rough consensus", so I'm not sure basing your argument on that policy makes sense to me. The consensus/lack of consensus needs to be reached before WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair, I guess I was pre-empting things a bit there, maybe the spirit of it still applies. I suppose to some extent I was running on empathy and trying to find policy to fit my opinion. I'll try harder to make my argument: Let's consider:

Is this guy really notable beyond one event? (The event: www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/arts/design/indianapolis-museum-job-posting.html)
Is that one negative event being used as a WP:COATRACK to justify keeping the article? i.e. it seems like the guy did something bad, lost his job over it, and wasn't a notable guy before that, but now we are using that to justify keeping an article up about him? I advocate for a bit of kindness for a retired museum curators desire for privacy. Check out this paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#The_Attack_Article CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughful response. I would assert the three articles I linked (this HuffPost article, this IndianpolisMonthly one, and this ARTnews article) are certainly enough to establish notability outside of the one event and pre-date the job posting event. The article also includes plenty of content about the good he did at the museums he's headed, despite the fact that a significant portion of coverage of him is about the multiple (instituting an admission fee, populism over traditional art displays, deaccession work, to name a few from the linked sources) controversial (not necessarily bad, but certainly controversial) decisions he made as head of the IMA/Newfields. It is not an overly critical article in my opinion, and is certainly not so damning that it justifies deleting the article when there is such evident notability versus trying in places to make the article more balanced where it is needed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think you've refuted any "one event" basis to my delete argument, so I concede that.

My empathy for people not wanting articles about them, combined with him not being high profile, leads me to remain advocating for deletion, but I see that the strength of my delete is diminished by your fair and reasonable arguments. CT55555 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's written at least 3 notable books and several articles in peer-reviewed journals, he certainly passes our requirements for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see that now. I now consider that he meets the notability criteria, but still advocate for delete on the basis people's right to privacy, and his notability not being high, him seeming to get publicity without seeking it. I should maybe say "weak delete" as I recognise I'm making a weaker argument than I thought I was when I started. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that having details of the "stuff" that happened to him posted here isn't helping his cred in the art world. It's not our concern, so long as the presentation here is fair and balanced. NPOV Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider there is any policy that would support some empathy in these circumstances (not very high profile person, wanting deletion)? CT55555 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the article's coverage already shows empathy by following WP:DUE. The article matches coverage readily available all over the internet, and the service Wikipedia provides as an amalgamation of that information is valuable enough that it outweighs one person's discomfort with it all being presented in a single place. Further, I would assert that Venable doesn't really qualify as a WP:LOWPROFILE person. The linked essay includes examples of "has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", and "has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." He has intentionally promoted himself multiple times to promote Newfields and the museum's he has headed, and given multiple interviews. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. All fair points. I'm currently somewhere between weak delete and abstain. CT55555 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted my own comment above CT55555 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's been deputy director of a major American art museum and an important director of two regional art museums. His work attracted national attention and national media coverage in more than one place and at more than one time.Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have done a substantial amount of editing on this page. I think that it tends to be a leaning a little critical. If making the article more neutral is not an option, than I would vote to delete it as per his request. Candied tangerine (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Candied tangerine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is definitely an option to make the article more neutral. However, I'm not sure which aspects are overly critical beyond what is WP:DUE and well sourced. Do you have an opinion on what particular sections need to be edited? Cerebral726 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:Wikipedia is intended to crowdsource truth. Clearly on this page, the warring 'editors' are not striving to contribute to a version of truth because that would contain various perspectives. Instead, they are attempting to obliterate any comments that conflict with their myopic interpretation. This behavior does not lead to truth. Given that, especially since it has been requested by the subject of the page, Wikipedia should delete this page. BobRoberts555 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Storchy (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerebral726 and Storchy, as long as it meets WP:DUE. Mario Jump 83! 02:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~

Notability debatable, and based on the requesters comment it appears there is high likelihood that the regular editing that is being done is an attempt at disparagement or at least an opportunity to utilize the platform as a weapon against the requestor.

~~In the very least if this is a borderline case for removal then deferral to the persons privacy request should win out. JohnEventide (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Storchy (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Notability debatable. Reads more like a resume and self promotion. Based on the requesters comment it appears that the original creation and recent regular editing (even though all events happend greater than 2+ years ago) is being done is an attempt at disparagement or at least an opportunity to utilize the platform as a weapon against the requestor.

In the very least if this is a borderline case for removal then deferral to the persons privacy request should win out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martini3202 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) — Martini3202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Two very similar comments in succession from accounts with only one edit above are testing the limits of my ability to assume good faith. Martini3202 are you also JohnEventide ? CT55555 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about the agenda of people who have such strong feelings opposing the request of an individual to seek privacy. I would suggest that if Mr. Venable would rather not be the target of petty sniping, he has that right. Please delete. 97.85.87.21 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel confident enough to say that the people who want to keep this article (the people who have therefore disagreed with me) most certainly are making the case because of their enthusiasm for this encyclopaedia project. CT55555 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make sure it's accurate (Venable should spell out all inaccuracies on the talk page and work with editors), well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. After reading the arguments for and against the deleting of this article, I would agree to deleting it. Wikipedia is a source used for informational and educational purposes. There does not seem to be sufficient or pertinent information in this article that can be used for information or educational purposes. In the subject's own words, he feels he is not of a notable source and is concerned about the validity and accuracy of the information presented that he has had no control over. The article reads like a resume and a corporate bio, outlining a timeline of his career. As someone connected to the art world, I cannot see any redeeming merit in keeping this article on someone who appears so normal and inconsequential, and just wants to live a private life. He is like any other museum director who has worked hard during his career, wrote a few publications, promoted his museum for the greater public good, retired, and now wishes to invoke his right to privacy. I find it curious that there are a few people advocating for keeping this article on someone who is not notable, just worked hard in career field, resigned, and now doing some minor consulting in his retirement. Nobody is talking about this subject in the art world, there has been no national news or crisis connection with this person, and I venture to say that he is now like an art relic or museum piece that few know of and nobody cares about. Again, DELETE this article and save everyone the time and effort of caring about a subject that wants to invoke his privacy and remain inconsequential. Arifjan2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) — Arifjan2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(refactored discussion to put Arifjan reply in the right placeJahaza (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I think so far we have five or six single purpose accounts, whose entire edit history is on the topic of Mr Veneble. I would encourage who ever closes this to take a quick look at the edit history of each of the editors whose name is in red to assess if there is an unlikely pattern of new editors all starting their wikipedia journey on this specific page, or perhaps something else happening. CT55555 (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable and the article should be corrected to ensure accuracy rather than destroyed. IrishOsita (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pets[edit]

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

a look on the web for "dream pets" returns online games.

the only ref in the article is a book that refers to dream pets in only two pages. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mongoose Publishing. Participants are encouraged to move over verifiable information as they see fit. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infernum (role-playing game)[edit]

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

non-notable game, unsourced article FMSky (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; could not find secondary sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ununacceptable unreferenced substub. There is a chance it could be improved, of course. Ping User:BOZ who has done a lot to save many similar articles from the chopping block. Do ping me if this is improved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one source, and will see what I can do about finding more. I think that is enough to at least argue for a merge to Mongoose Publishing if all else fails. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artw and Hobit, I've been advised that RPG Geek lists a few reviews for the first two volumes. Infernum, Volume I: Book of the Damned was reviewed in: "Eye on Mongoose" Signs & Portents (Issue 20, Mar 2005, pg2), "Games" Game Trade Magazine (Issue 209, Jul 2017, pg25), and "RPG Reviews" Fictional Reality (Issue 20, Jun 2005, pg83) [13]. Infernum, Volume II: Book of the Tormentor was also reviewed in "RPG Reviews" Fictional Reality (Issue 20, Jun 2005, pg83) [14]. If anyone can find copies, that might help. BOZ (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Merge is best option, unless more material can be dug up which doesn't look likely. Artw (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the one source, I'm fine with a merge. Ping me if anyone finds more. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mongoose Publishing. Does not appear to have the coverage needed for its own article, but a reasonable redirect target exists. Given the lack of information currently in the article, I'm not sure if there is anything here that would actually be appropriate to merge into that article, but I have no opposition to moving any information over to the redirect target if others see anything of value to move over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Road, Melbourne[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Local road, no claim of notability/significance. Sources confirm it exists, mention some rail crossing improvements, but do not demonstrate there is more than routine local coverage. MB 06:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. MB 06:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom fails WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now where it has significant coverage only on ref. 6 which is not able to pass WP:GNG. As we need more references like this where there is an enough coverage in multiple published independent sources of the subject. Fade258 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above arguments, but histmerge the 2007 creation back to the old title at Blackburn Road. This page was moved during this subject's creation, and it appears only the article is the problem here, not the longstanding redirect before this. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Tatts Group. Star Mississippi 14:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tattersall's Sweeps[edit]

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

Non-notable organization failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The references aren't indicating any sign of notability. Chirota (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tatts Group as a very valid alternative to deletion. Any sourced material could be merged if appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Chiro725:, you seem to have nominated a few Australian lottery companies at the same time. I'm not saying the rationales aren't valid, but can you please consider alternatives to deletion before raising these nominations? Deus et lex (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is the official Victorian State Government licencee for lottery products in Victoria. The entity is one of four State Government licencees for lottery products in Australia, excluding Western Australia. They are all operated by The Lottery Corporation a result of a recent demerger of Tabcorp Mantuku (talk) 05:43, 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 Tabcorp. Star Mississippi 14:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lott[edit]

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

Non-notable organization failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The references aren't indicating any sign of notability. Chirota (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only references given are databases; that's not sufficient. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabcorp - a perfectly valid alternative to deletion that should have been suggested instead of outright deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabcorp. There are many sources not in the article such as this, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/somebody-in-victoria-just-won-80-million-dollars-powerball/100374564, and this. This brand is quite famous in Australia, but I do not think it needs its own article as a subsidiary of Tabcorp. Could also be merged, but there isn't much original content, if any so redirect. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Responding the the redirection of this article. There are a range of articles within Australian Lotteries that need improvement and better referencing. Including this one. Can I suggest that this page be redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery_Corporation instead of Tabcorp. In May Tabcorp demerged its lottery and keno businesses and a new company was formed (The Lottery Corporation) and is independent from Tabcorp i.e. there is no legal or commercial relationship. The new company owns The Lott and all the State Government licences for lotteries in Australia, excluding Western Australia. The company is composed of the 100 year history of being the biggest lottery provider in Australia including owning all the State licenced businesses (NSW Lotteries, Tatteralls, SA Lotteries, Golden Casket) and previous companies such as Tatts Group. There is a lot of media coverage and documentation to verify the structure of this business and notoriety in Australia (Majority of Australian population have purchased a lottery product from the company's licencees at some point in time) That are also a major taxation source for State Governments.

If it suits, I am in the process of expanding the article relating to The Lottery Corporation with appropriate referencing and inclusion of The Lott and the lottery brands it represents. I am happy to take guidance on the best way forward to clean up that page and the other Australia Lotteries articles in Wikipedia. Mantuku (talk) 04:45, 8 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. ✗plicit 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitaikakushi[edit]

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion based on it being WP:DISPUTED and it lacking notability. I already marked it for normal deletion on the 19th, but it was removed by an admin a day later on the basis that its talk page merits an Articles of Deletion discussion be had. And I mean totally deleted, not a redirection or anything. The word "hitaikakushi" must be expunged.

The current Talk page is in agreement, however, that the article is both unnotable and flagrantly misleading at best. As was already stated there, the minuscule article's content has already been present in entirety on Yūrei for a while. Pretty sure this is WP:NOPAGE. It fits better within context in Yūrei. The article of clothing here does not even has its own Japanese page, as was stated before on the talk page.

Aside from all of that, it's just plain wrong (as was also discussed about in the talk page). The term "hitaikakushi" (額隠し) used in reference to this article of clothing is incredibly obscure to non-existent in Japanese sources. As shown in the talk page (yeah IDK if I have to keep restating that), the most comprehensive Japanese dictionaries do not list the triangular headpiece that yūrei wear as a definition for 額隠し. If you search up "額隠し" on Google you will not find any pictures of that headwear from Japanese results. The only currently proposed source that claims "hitaikakushi" is a valid word used to describe this head garment is Zack Davisson on both his blog[15] and book Yūrei: The Japanese Ghost. However, these non-academic, uncited sources seem to cross the threshold into WP:DUBIOUS. I also noted that "hitaikakushi" was among the last of a list of words he chose to describe this cloth.

The actual most commonly accepted name for this headwear is tenkan (天冠). In fact, it's the first word Zack Davisson uses in both of his writings on the topic. I don't think changing the article's name is enough. It should be deleted. There is an absolute dearth of reputable sources on the topic in Japanese. The only one I could find is [16] (again, 天冠 is used most here). I can find zero sound sources in English. The reason I proposed deletion in the first place was because I kept seeing this article of clothing being referred to as "hitaikakushi" in pop culture fandom spaces (basically the only other place besides academia that widely discusses these things). Everywhere on the English WEB calls this thing "hitaikakushi", a word Japanese people don't even use in that context, and it all traces back to this Wikipedia page. What's more interesting is that Zack Davisson's blog post and book were made in 2011, 5 years after the "Hitakakushi" page was originally created. He may have gotten it from here. Given how long it's been I wouldn't be surprised if it found its way into other English published media. This citogenesis can not go on any longer.

I originally planned to mark the page for Speedy Deletion before regular Deletion since I thought the case was clear-cut. I'm miffed that it's gone all the way here. In the end you'd be hard pressed to find any good sources for this article of clothing. Your best bet would be Japanese research papers and scholarly publications. Even then, I believe there wouldn't be enough content to add to the article to make it notable. It's weird that this stub has persisted for over 15 years and weirder that it's this hard to delete when it's been actively propagating misinfo. Apologies in advanced for my breaking of any of Wikipedia's myriad etiquette norms or rules or the like. I'm new (made an account solely for this) and never thought there'd be this many bureaucratic hoops to jump through. Hisouhihisouten (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of anything else, the subject is not independently notable enough for its own article, and there is really no argument for why this should be WP:SPLIT from the article on Yūrei. Merging is not necessary because the only sentence of information here, that Yūrei are often depicted with a triangular head cloth, is already present on that article in the section on their appearance. The discussion on the Talk page, which is summarized in the nomination, makes a pretty convincing case as to why the term should not even be used as a Redirect, as its becoming increasingly more likely that it is inaccurate. Rorshacma (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no complaints. Discussion on talk page seems to have resolved in favor of non-notability.
Comment - I'm wondering, does this process also delete the versions of this article in other languages too or do separate processes go into making that decision? All 4 of them are entirely based on the English page, with the same reference. Hisouhihisouten (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hisouhihisouten, this process only applies to the en-wiki. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment thread at es:Discusión:Hitaikakushi pointing readers to this page and the Talk:Hitaikakushi page. I have not yet dug through to figure out their policy for AfD.

I don't have sufficient facility with French, Italian, Catalan, or Vietnamese to do anything about those. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no salvageable content so not worth renaming to the actual term for this (tenkan). Doesn’t even explain why Japanese ghosts wear these. Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stumbled across the Wikipedia entry when following up on the activity of a user who has been a long-time problem at EN Wikt, persistently adding incorrect Japanese content both there and here. This user does not have any ability to read or understand Japanese, and gets their ideas from pop culture and other English-language materials -- which, more often than not, aren't quite correct to begin with.

As described on that Talk page, the article is basically entirely wrong. The only undisputed factoids are that there is a triangular piece of cloth in Japanese culture that is worn on the forehead in specific situations, and that this is associated with Japanese ghosts. More detail on the Talk page, including a run-down of the names for this cloth, none of which are hitai-kakushi. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma above. Llwyld (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as citogenesis is one of my waking nightmares(!). Hisouhihisouten – I know you're new, but these kinds of low-editing-traffic stubs can get left in the weeds for over a decade or more, and even if deletion wasn't the right decision (though in this case it definitely is), I'd like to thank you for taking up an awkward little stub article and giving it some attention. It makes Wikipedia better when we focus on the little things as well as the large, high-importance articles.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 10:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hitaikakushi is the pretty local name of the mentioned piece of Japanese burial clothes. See Here. In the book 葬送習俗事典 (roughly: Dictionary of the funeral customs and practices in Japan), 12 or 13 local names of that piece are shown. Hitaikakushi is one of them. 紙冠 (shihan) or 天冠 (tenkan) are proper name for this burial clothes. Creating the Tenkan (crown), and creating the disambiguation entry Shihan (clothes) and the redirect Sankakuzukin (三角頭巾) are adequate, if any. In amazon-jp, this piece is sold under the name tenkan, sankakuzukin (here). The word Tenkan has 5 or 6 usages, one of them means this piece. (In ja wikipedia, they seem to feel necessity of the article 天冠. See ja:Shiroshōzoku). Tenkan is fairly notable word (see Digital Daijisen). For the article Tenkan (crown), this source (Kotobank) may be useful. --Flora fon Esth (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference link given, hitai-kakushi is only listed for one town on Sado Island -- an exceedingly limited dialectal area, as I think you intended with your comment that this "is the pretty local name". I note too that the town listed, Kawaharada-machi (JA WP page at ja:河原田町), ceased to exist after it was annexed into Sawata-machi in 1954, which in turn was subsumed into Sado City in 2004 -- which leads me to wonder how old this mention of hitai-kakushi might be?

Considering what I've read in other references, and considering also the regular kanji readings, I suspect that shihan as a reading for 紙冠 is a typo, or possibly a rare kan'yōon (customary reading) -- all other references that I have consulted list 紙冠 with readings of kami kaburi, kami kōburi, or shikan (see entry at Kotobank), while the relevant term with reading shihan is 紙半, as also listed on that same page. 紙半 would mean literally "paper half", perhaps in reference to the triangle being half of a square folded diagonally. While missing from Kotobank, my local copy of the Kōjien dictionary includes this term (紙半 read as shihan) with this sense ("triangular piece of white paper or white cloth placed on the forehead for funerals"), although it doesn't include any etymology.

I am insufficiently familiar with the policy here on Wikipedia with regard to redirects to make any recommendations. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AfD page. I wrote a comment for what would we do after deletion of the entry hitaikakushi. Hitaikakushi is not wrong and incorrect word or name. But it is not notable. However, then, what name or word is notable and correct? That triangle piece or accessory for funeral ceremony is pretty notable. Most Japanese peoples may know it.

『葬送習俗事典』 is the book by Kunio Yanagida, possibly written or published in around 1930s. It is the old book. But Yanagida is the authority of these matters. As to shihan, usually 紙冠 cannot be read as shihan. it is read as shikan. Yanagida wrote in his book: シハンは紙冠の訛りではないかと考えられる (shihan may be thought as the corrupted "紙冠, shikan"). Google book ref. In most books of Kankonsōsai (Guide book for ordinary ceremonies), that piece with white triangle may appear. It may be notable like koinobori or tsunokakushi. But the correct name of that piece is not sure. Death and dead body are considered as matters of kegare. So people tends to avoid clearly saying them, that is, kegare matters. And thus the name of that triangle piece may be unsure. (But shikan seems to be more popular than shihan).

After deletion of hitaikakushi, should we create the article addressing that piece or not. And if it is necessary, what article name is adequate. This is what my comment says. (For this kind of discussion, other page is adequate than AfD). --Flora fon Esth (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flora fon Esth: We can say with (some) certainty that hitai-kakushi is historically correct. However, I have not yet seen any reference using this term in a modern context. We have just the one reference, from one location, apparently from before 1954. I cannot support using this term (hitai-kakushi) for this sense (triangular funereal headdress) in any way that implies current usage, until and unless we can find sources that indicate the term is still current.

I do not believe that the subject itself is notable enough to warrant an independent article. I would support including this in some other, larger article, perhaps at Yūrei or List of items traditionally worn in Japan.

Regarding what we should call it, it appears that Japanese-language sources are themselves unsettled on the matter, listing multiple distinct possible names, many of which also have other senses. It is possible that the kegare associations might make this somewhat "taboo"; it is certainly a hyper-specific context. Wherever we ultimately decide to put information about this garment, it might be best to simply list the multiple names by which Japanese speakers refer to it -- with whatever additional detail we can glean (such as if certain names are from specific regions, that kind of thing). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Explicit: Would it be possible for you to either 1) restore the Talk:Hitaikakushi page, or 2) copy the former content of that page to this page? Bracketing it in an "archived discussion" template like the AfD thread above would be fine.

As @Hisouhihisouten noted in the AfD discussion above, the main Hitaikakushi page got mirrored to various other-language Wikipedias, and it would be useful to have the Talk:Hitaikakushi content available for reference when discussing with the other Wikipedia communities about why their mirrored Hitaikakushi content should also be deleted.

In addition, Talk:Hitaikakushi included content details that we might want to copy / move to another page (such as Yūrei or List of items traditionally worn in Japan, as mentioned above), such as a list of the various other valid names for the garment and which resources we were able to find those in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have it saved on my ipad, what should I do with it? Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Perhaps you could copy-paste it below, presumably bracketed by archiving templates such as {{Archive_top}} and {{Archive_bottom}}? (There might be other templates that are more appropriate -- I'm guessing based on a quick browse of Category:Archival_templates.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:55, 3 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. ✗plicit 12:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth Alia[edit]

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

Candidates for political offices are not automatically notable - WP:NPOL - and subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normal priestly stuff, political candidate isn't notable. Even if he wins the election, I don't think the position is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: How on earth would a state governor be non-notable? Aside from common sense, NPOL states that politicians elected to statewide office are notable. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nigerian state governor? Wasn't sure how eligible that was. It's not a US state. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the fact it's a state of Nigeria instead of a state of the US be relevant to NPOL? AusLondonder (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because different political structures with the same name may have different levels of importance? Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm reading this. And from someone who lives in Canada as well. Does an encyclopedia not cover Nigeria as well as the United States? This is not USApedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I honestly did not know Nigeria had states; regardless, if this person wins the election, it'll be notable. Otherwise, we don't have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your initial comments, I actually thought you were trolling but went to your profile to see your account was created since 2003, and you have autopatrolled rights. I don't know if I should admire your honesty, but it just shows how important our role is in ensuring Wikipedia promotes a more globalized and balanced world. At least now you know Nigeria has states lol. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you didn't know then couldn't you have checked in an encyclopedia (I wonder where you can find one of those) before making such a silly comment? Let's all now get back to determining whether the subject is notable, rather than going on about such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable as it stands, if they win the election, they would be. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:NPOL. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get articles just for running as candidates in future elections they have not yet won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a candidacy, and doesn't cite nearly enough sourcing to deem his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the sourcing Cunard identified is sufficient. Star Mississippi 14:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Comité 1973[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 19 didn't have a consensus to endorse or overturn the previous "no consensus" close, but numerous people recommended a new discussion that considers new sources presented during the DRV and the DRV instructions allow a new AFD when there isn't a consensus, so here we are. This is a procedural nomination; I am myself neutral. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but am open to changing to delete if the sources are refuted. The first source in the article was:
- "El Comité 1973 - Detalle de Instituciones - Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México - FLM - CONACULTA". www.elem.mx. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  This is an encyclopedia entry about El Comité 1973. The entry provides three paragraphs of coverage about the magazine. From Google Translate:
  The magazine El Comité 1973 is a Mexican, digital and bimonthly magazine produced since July 30, 2012 by the literary group "El Comité", dedicated to dissemination, criticism and literary creation. Its mission is to spread literary texts and visual works of different creators in order to increase the culture of people around the world. As for the year that is part of the name, 1973, it alludes to the date of the death of the poet Pablo Neruda, which, in some way, tries to be a tribute to this Nobel Prize winner, whom Gabriel García Márquez called: "the greatest 20th century poet in any language”."
  According to a translation of es:Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México, "The Encyclopedia of Literature in Mexico (ELEM) is an encyclopedia on Mexican literature edited by the Fundación de las Letras Mexicanas, supported by the Ministry of Culture and the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature of Mexico."
There is another source in the article that is potentially reliable but that I cannot find online:
- Guzmán Pérez, Mario (October 3, 2017). ""Buena literatura independiente difunde El Comité 1973"" [El Comité 1973 spreads good independent literature]. El Sol de Hidalgo (México). p. Sección Cultura. (in Spanish).
  This article was published by es:El Sol de Hidalgo. From Google Translate: "El Sol de Hidalgo is a local newspaper from the city of Pachuca de Soto, in Mexico. It is one of the newspapers with the highest circulation and sales in the city and in the state, one reason is that its cost is low compared to other newspapers. It is owned and a member of the Mexican Editorial Organization, the largest journalistic company in Mexico."
Based on these two sources, there is a reasonable argument that El Comité 1973 meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I am not familiar with this topic area, so I am particularly open to changing to delete if the sources are refuted.
Cunard (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per Cunard. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, as per rationale provided by Cunard. Chirota (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the information and logic supplied by Mr. Cunard. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hegeler, Bureau County, Illinois[edit]

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

Every topo which shows this point indicates that it is one corner of a complicated rail junction. There's no sign of habitation in either maps or aerials. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There's too many of these to discuss them individually. No newspapers results. Reywas92^Talk 13:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the only newspaper source I could find, and it suggests that this was a railroad junction rather than a settlement. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yet another boilerplate unsourced, unused, unmaintained "list of people on the postage stamps of X". Clearly missing information, incomplete as can be, and absent any references whatsoever. Deprodded because

The list is reliably sourced, and people can easily check the information against the source

despite no actual source being given. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Bangladesh. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flawed nomination. The source, the Scott Catalogue, is given in the references section. Myself, I prefer inline citations but Wikipedia accepts general references. I also prefer full citations (year, volume, edition, publisher, page), but it is extraordinarily rare for Scott to add or remove a design more than a year or two after issue, so any edition after about 2009 could be used to verify a list of designs through 2007. Which exact edition one uses to verify the information really isn't important, certainly not so much so as to justify deleting the article. Indeed, the content could be verified equally well through any similar source, such as Stanley Gibbons catalogue or Michel catalog. As for "unused" and "unmaintained", these are classic arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the content an appropriate topic for a list, though? There's a very strong consensus otherwise by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wish to strike your bogus deletion rationale and pursue a WP:SALAT line of argument instead? I would be happy to discuss that. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa dude, that's like totally bogus, man. Your argument is like, totally tubular, dude. Rock on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about very strong consensus would be more convincing if it involved higher profile lists, such as List of people on the postage stamps of the United States or List of people on the postage stamps of India. If you engage in votestacking by canvassing editors who have agreed with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Oman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Vanuatu, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Haiti, then you may see a greater degree of consensus than actually exists. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrally asking editors who've participated in similar discussions is not the same thing as canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an appropriate topic for a list. We would need multiple sources to pass GNG. Do we really believe in the last 15 years there have been no new people pictured on postage stamps? Why is this more important than List of animals on the postage stamps of Bangladesh or List of buildings on the postage stamps of Bangladesh. At best we might redirect this to Postage stamps and postal history of Bangladesh, although even that name overemphasies the less important matter of stamps over the more important matter of postal operations. There are countries that had postal servicces for over a century without stamps, you do not need stamps to run a postal service, and on the other extreme a few places (like San Marino) mainly have stamps for tourist revenue and not actual postal purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One catalogue listing is not enough to pass GNG, especially for lists that we need to show as a topic are considered by reliable sources. This is especially true since in the case of List of people on the postage stamps of South Korea we were shown that that catalgue has downright jibberis listing as an apparent name what is actually part of a title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like all these lists of people on stamps of xyz, we don't have a need, they are all unmaintained and probably unmaintainable. Jacona (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashbys Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Leftovers from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia; topographic maps and general searching confirm that these are named road junctions, not communities. Fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.

Also included in this nomination are:

Speedy delete Junk that should have been deleted the first time at AFD had people not whined about bundling of a large amount of junk. Reywas92^Talk 05:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of the whining about whining, I agree with you on these articles, they fail GEOLAND, also fail GNG, therefore Delete. Jacona (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betaia Ioana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources on the article are trivial. A google search doesn't turn up anything substantive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naingimea Beiaruru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources on the article are trivial. A google search doesn't turn up anything substantive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played football at an international level. Just because we can’t find anything online does not mean sources do not exist. This is especially true of a country of population 120,000 with no online news site because they presumably publish their sources offline (I’m 99% sure sources do exist offline). 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've searched in search engines other than Google and also found nothing of note. I am not at all convinced by the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's always a concern when the only link on Google that even sparked my interest was one to this AFD discussion. After checking Google, but also a few other sources including the Internet Archive which often finds older sources. Sources may exist, and if one finds them, we can recreate the article. Till then, the subject is not sufficiently notable, nor is the content verifiable and so the article ought to be deleted. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Jewish Congress. Star Mississippi 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Diplomatic Corps[edit]

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

Non notable organisation; the sources only estabilsh that WP:ITEXISTS. Amisom (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World Jewish Congress I agree with Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan. The sources cited are not sufficient for WP:GNG. In order to keep this articles, I think more independent reliable sources are needed. PaulPachad (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any reliable sources or news articles establishing any notable information on the actions of this group. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World Jewish Congress I have evaluated the references. The first reference covers the organization rejoining the World Jewish Congress. The second source is an interview with a member of the organization, but does not cover anything about it. I conducted a Google search and saw some articles (including one not independent of the subject), social media accounts, and insignificant mentions of the group. However, I found these: [17], [18], [19]. Let me know what you think about these sites' abilities to establish the article's notability. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Even nom acknowledges that sources exist. Some are reliable and independent, while others lack depth; this is probably due it being something of an ad-hoc advocacy offshoot of WJC. In addition to what LPS found, I found this, which mentions campus activity, and this trivial mention. WP:SPINOUTs of offshoot organisations are definitely permitted, especially since the World Jewish Congress, at almost 15k words and 200kb, is simply WP:TOOBIG to add on an additional topic like this one, which can be expanded a little further. And while I said "weak" (because we should be mindful of WP:ORGCRIT) I think there is just enough to go on. Havradim leaf a message 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My 'acknowledgingt hat sources exist' is nothing to do with the question of notability. See WP:EDPN. Amisom (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No WP:GNG problem and, as an independent organization and from a long article, the WP:SPINOUT is justified. gidonb (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World Jewish Congress as WP:ATD. This is an organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Ji-hun[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Only a stats reference. Tagged since April 26th with no further development North8000 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would seem to have quite a few hits in Korean using the Korean spelling of his name, can't comment on the quality of the sources though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has played in 76 games in the KBO League in the last two years. A few months ago, even one appearance in this league was considered automatic notability. That's been scrapped (and we're much the better for it!), but it seems extreme to go from one appearance =notable to 76=delete it in the blink of an eye. Jacona (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion the "did it for a living for one day" pointed out the most extreme example but IMO the intent was that merely playing professionally was not sufficient. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Abbott[edit]

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

Zoe Abbott

This article about this financial consultant appears to have been written to praise her rather than to describe her neutrally. The text of the article does not establish how she is notable; based on the article, she could be notable, but she could be a run-of-the-mill investment consultant. A check of the references answers any question about whether this article should be kept. All of the references are either interviews of varying degrees of promotion, or puff pieces. There is no secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	Influencerhustle.com	An interview that appears to be promotional	No	Yes	No
2	Voyagetampa.com	Another promotional interview	No	Yes	No
3	Fox13news.com	A more neutral interview	Not really	Yes	No
4	tricitydaily.com	An article that reads like an advertisement	No	Yes	No
5	globalnewswire.com	Another interview	No	Yes	No
6	Forbesindia.com	A story about the subject that reads like a puff piece	Yes	Yes	No
7	Finance.yahoo.com	An interview that reads like an advertisement	No	Yes	No

If she is notable, then this article should go into a bit bucket before a neutral editor starts a biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Business, and Iowa. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PROMO, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. The globalnewswire.com source is a press release, reprinted at Finance.yahoo.com. Influencerhustle is "a World Wide Magazine that Organizes The very best of all Top Hustlers Truths and highlights their Greatest Successes to inspire future hustlers to trust the process even when times are rough, to be true to themselves and others around them, and to learn to give wisdom on what it takes to make a sturdy well seasoned Hustle" and does not appear to have published editorial policies. While tricitydaily.com claims to clearly separate sponsored content, the vague but glowing bylined post reads like ad copy, and the Fox13 source is her promoting her business with minimal independent content. I got a security warning for VoyageTampa so I have not reviewed it, and the Forbes India article is clearly marked as a paid post. An online search does not turn up secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, so WP:GNG is also not supported. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:PROMO. Globalnewswire and financeYahoo are the press releases. Worldsolarpower (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:PROMO Tatupiplu'^talk 07:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases do not count towards establishing notability.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:PROMO.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paid posts, mostly promotional stuff found, Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was speedy deleted three days ago, recreated by the same, very new, account. Still no trace of notability. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above mentioned comments. Fade258 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raisen District Yoga Sports Association[edit]

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

Local association that governs yoga in a provincial town of 44 thousand people, relying mainly on primary sources. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and India. Mccapra (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest me how i can improve this article Pankaj gurjar11 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check references and this articles of official websites all data is available. Pankaj gurjar11 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, amateur community sports association Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the most clear cut failures of WP:NORG that I have seen in my 13 years on Wikipedia. The only 'coverage' seems to be from their own Wordpress page, which is clearly an unacceptable source. An internet search yields only Wikipedia mirrors. Clear delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeless (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV movie. Current sources in article are unreliable. Couldn't find any reliable sourcing, or even what network it aired on. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 26 May 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?)} 03:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't even recall creating this stub 10 years ago, and don't know how I stumbled upon it. I'm not familiar with what are the notability criteria for TV movies and series and such, nor with the reliability of sites like IMDB, so I'll leave it for others to consider. Note that IMDB says it was a 2008 TV movie (before the series? or same things? not sure). Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not considered reliable, as the content is user submitted. Dread Central and 28 Days Later Analysis do not appear to be reliable sources, as there is little attribution of writers and no evidence of editorial oversight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dread Central is definitely a reliable source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources#Reliable_sources DonaldD23 talk to me 12:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still challenge that, though. There are no editor credits anywhere on the site. What makes it reliable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia consensus has determined that it is a reliable source. Otherwise it wouldn't be listed there.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#List_of_potential_resources states "The following is a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus" and Dread Central is listed. Your opinion does not outweigh consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just my opinion that the site does not have an editor. Got it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not, it is your opinion that the site isn't reliable. Wikipedia consensus says it is. If you disagree, open another discussion regarding the site's reliability. However, my prediction is that you will lose that discussion. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under what "consensus" was it agreed? I found nothing on WP:HORROR or WP:RSN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have an editor-in-chief and managing-editor at least.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: From the "coming soon" tone of the sources, I'm not 100% sure this ever even aired at all. I certainly can't find any proof that it did. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though Dread Central is a RS, the article itself is just a 'coming attraction' piece and not a review. Nothing else was found during a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have sourcing to meet our criteria for adequate sourcing for a production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delted apparently aired 3 episodes on Fearnet.com. Blog/forum posts all I can find. Fails GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kusma is right that this is really a move discussion. I wanted to close it anyway per WP:NOTBURO but decided there really needs to be a move discussion here given the impact on Epsilon numbers (mathematics). Any move discussion held should give consideration to the participation of editors here when determining that consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon number[edit]

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

From internet search, I'm not sure that Vacuum permittivity or Relative permittivity is called the "epsilon number"; almost all results are about Epsilon numbers (mathematics). However, Epsilon 0 would be a valid disambiguation page that would include only Vacuum permittivity and Epsilon numbers (mathematics). If deleted or moved, Epsilon numbers (mathematics) will be moved to the base title. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename disambig page to Epsilon 0 and Move Epsilon numbers (mathematics) to base title. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 04:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename disambig page to Epsilon 0 per above reasonings. Chirota (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful disambiguation page. Suggest to withdraw this AfD and go to WP:RM to change the article titles. —Kusma (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the dab to focus on the actually ambiguous "epsilon zero" and not on the unambiguous "epsilon number", and un-disambiguate Epsilon number (mathematics). This dab is a historical relic; it used to make sense as a dab before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musean hypernumber deleted the other mathematical meaning of "epsilon number" as non-notable fringe terminology for something described in more standard terminology at Hypercomplex number. (The fringe terminology isn't mentioned there, nor should it be, so it would fail WP:DABMENTION to add it back to the dab.) Even when that other article existed, the dab would have probably failed WP:2DABS. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puckerbutt[edit]

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

Duplicates content in Chili pepper#Intensity and additional information only serves as advertisement for a company. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a few passing mentions in GScholar about pepper cultivation and diseases, nothing substantial. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a relatively new term describing the effects of ingesting newly engineered hot chili peppers. Not intended as advertising but rather a description of a medical condition caused by eating very hot pepper varieties. Most of these extremely hot pepper varieties are new and deserve mention. OregonWeed (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, none of the sources mention the subject at all. The article seems to be a WP:ADMASQ. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NOT intended to be an advertisement. I wrote the article content and that was not my intent. The Puckerbutt Pepper Company is a new enterprise that breeds and sells very very HOT chili peppers, and the condition called "puckerbutt" is a fairly recent development caused by eating these peppers. All of the content in the article is sourced, including the term "puckerbutt". Please stop putting your own spin on this as to what was or wasn't my intent. As I said, this whole 3,000,000 scoville unit heat of these new peppers is a new phenomenon and the company making them is notable. It doesn't "fail WP:GNG" as there are several articles written about the company and it's pepper varieties. See Carolina_Reaper, Pepper_X, Hottest_chili_pepper, and Ed Currie. Pretty clear this content meets WP:GNG. OregonWeed (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in addition to my comment above, the term "spicybutt" only exists in this article. It does not appear in any other sources at all, and so it has been WP:MADEUP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I removed "spicybutt" from the article. So your comment is now moot. OregonWeed (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in no way passes WP:GNG, not supported by sources. Clear example of WP:NEO. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. valereee (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G11. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAWNE[edit]

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

Promotional and unsourced BLP. Uses social media followers/users/streamers to assert notability. Blue Riband► 02:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 02:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Kenya relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations, no embassies, no agreements. The article includes factoids such as Georgia supporting Kenya against terrorism and a bunch of Kenyan musicians performing in Georgia. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember when these "X-Y relations" articles were as prominent in AFD as "List of people on the postage stamps of X" is right now. Synthesis of every random time two random countries crossed paths, not notable in its own right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator's rationale. The article is well written and the content is backed by WP:RS but WP:GNG isn't met for the precise article topic. Chirota (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge I agree with the above two editors, but I would hate to see this well-cited, well-written information get lost from Wikipedia. Could we merge some of this content into other relevant pages? It seems rather wasteful to delete it outright, given its quality and non-trivial nature. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is information like " Kenyan musicians were among the international artists to participate in an international music festival" worth merging? LibStar (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it is hilarious, I recognize that's not grounds for keeping it around. That said, I think the other two paragraphs are worth merging. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 07:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure how we can consider such topics as non-notable. There are evidences of bilateral relations, degree of such relationship may be debatable, but based on what the article talks I don't see any reason to delete it. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of bilateral relations, hundreds of these articles have been deleted. Yes there are some relations, but it is questionable whether the relationship is notable and passes GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Per lack of independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of how well the article is written, this cannot overcome its lack of notability. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. G5, but for avoidance of further issues, this also would have been eligible to be deleted on notability guidelines so sockpuppetry is not the sole issue. Star Mississippi 16:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Najafzadeh[edit]

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

Half of the sources are either unreliable or search results on news websites. The other half of those sources are about films or TV series of which this person is one of the staff members (something like "X series by A. Najafzadeh will be released soon"). Looking for sources results in same sources provided in the articles and i guess there is no more sources about this person and/or his works. There is not enough coverage to establish WP:GNG even for films and TV series. Jeeputer (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jeeputer (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person whose name has been mentioned 132 times in ISNA is famous.Mass media coverage; Salam Cinema, Soureh Cinema, Mehr News Agency and many more.--{{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Profile at Salam Cinema or Soureh does not establish notability. results on Mehr News are about a TV series named "Khoshnaam", not the director. routine news like "actor X joined Y series" also do not establish notability of the director. Jeeputer (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jamejamonline and honarmrooz and hamshahrionline mehrnews interview tasnimnews iribnews shahraranews Isn't his name mentioned as a director in the sources I mentioned? Are their interviews available in the links? {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 03:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepBased on WP:Artist: If a person is a creator or has an important collaboration to create an important and well-known work or group work, he is famous. He has made and acted in many films. Like Paytakht TV series, etc., so this person is famous.--2A01:5EC0:B008:F2E8:EC09:277:CB37:A2FD (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as neither keep !vote is based in policy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources don't seem notable, the only hit I get in GBooks is about a Christian that was tortured with the same name as this fellow. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has extensive news coverage in Iranian news agencies and has 132 references in ISNA and Tasnim alone.--{{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 20:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  These 132 search results just mention his name as one of the staff members. He does not even have an important collaboration in any TV series or films. Jeeputer (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  He is a film director. I want to mention the sources. sourehcinema The official website of Iranian cinema and imdb and From Garlic to Onion with the director of "Khoshnam" / Veteran actors are waiting for your call! and Complaints of radio miscalculation and a few outspoken questions and mehrnews In all the sources, his name is mentioned as a director. How do you say he did not play a role? Do you have a personal problem with them that violates the view of neutrality? I mentioned the sources Authentic sources of news references. I hope you are convinced. Thanks. --{{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 03:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @CeSoe: Please avoid personal attacks. i don't even know this person and if i had a personal problem, i would not consider does problems when commenting on this AfD. as i said above, Soureh Cinema, IMDb and search results which just mention a name, can not be used to establish notability. List of staff of a film is not considered as "significant coverage". you have to provide sources covering the director himself, not his works alone and mentions of his name. like sources covering his style of filmmaking or publishing details of his personal life etc. Jeeputer (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @CeSoe Unfortunately none of those sources qualify for WP:GNG. If you want this article to stay up, kindly add sources like news sources that are reliable. I wish you only success. ~~~ PaulPachad (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I answered your question below, thanks {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 20:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Jeeputer that this article should be deleted per WP:G5. Also none of the sources listed seem reliable, and a google news search produces no results. In my opinion this does not pass WP:GNG . I also suspect that the people voting keep have a connection to the author or the subject. PaulPachad (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all the links I provided are for news websites that are also verified.Tasnim News Agency(1)-Iranian Students News Agency (2). Are these sources not verifiable? {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my friend, I'm afraid having a wikipedia article does not make it reliable. The National Enquirer is famously not a reliable source and it has a wikipedia page National Enquirer. There is a whole list here of blacklisted news outlets and they each have wikipedia pages. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Try to use a source from this green list to support your article. All the best! PaulPachad (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend, here (Wikipedia:News sources/Asia#Iran) you can see the list of news websites that are Iranian and trusted, of which I have provided links to all of them. If necessary, I will put new links again؟ {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 00:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is news about him in all these reliable websites, not one or two, but dozens and hundreds of news

1. MehrNews

2. ILNA

3. ISNA

4. IRNA

5. IRIB News. {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 00:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As i mentioned in the Afd for the corresponding Persian article, the connection between the creator (who created the article in at least 4 wikis) and the subject is kind of obvious to me. CeSoe is also blocked as a sock in fawiki (just noticed). Anyways, these are not related to this AfD and i am not familiar with the process of reporting a sock to checkusers on this wiki (it is different in my home wiki). So, i have nothing more to say in this discussion. Jeeputer (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistakenly blocked in the Persian wiki. If I am a sock, has my main account been identified? This is a slander. You have blocked me in the Persian wiki without inspection. I have no problem with the inspection. Wiki Farsi is a place for appreciation of its administrators who block the user without checking, without checking his account and even close the discussion page and do not allow the request to be opened. If I was a sock, my account should have been checked, which it was not. I ask you, Persian manager, to check me. {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment to merits, the process here is at SockPuppet Investigation. Let me know if you need more information. Happy to provide Star Mississippi 22:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can I ask you to check my account to find out that I am innocent and I do not have a replacement account؟ {{user|CeSoe}} ^talk 00:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Thank you. Looks like the account is already blocked.

This article should be deleted per WP:G5. Jeeputer (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as not meeting the notability standard for lists. RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Soviet Union[edit]

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

Long list, but not a source in sight. None of these are verified in any way. Just like the other "list of people on the postage stamps of X", there is no interest in maintaining this topic, nor does there seem to be a reason to maintain this information. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do our policies and guidelines on sourcing really mandate third-party sources in this case? The names of the persons depicted are usually printed directly on the stamps themselves, the same way that the actors in a movie are printed in its onscreen credits, and we don't usually require third-party references for the latter. The argument that "there is no interest in maintaining this topic" is irrelevant, if not for the lack of necessity for third-party references, then for the fact that the set of people on Soviet stamps is no longer expanding. There may be entries missing from the list, but there is only a finite number of them and so the list will eventually become complete, with no need for further maintenance apart from routine housekeeping (reverting vandalism, fixing broken links, etc.). —Psychonaut (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just about every other "list of people on the postage stamps of X" article is up for deletion or prod. There is a massive consensus that these lists are serving no purpose. Lists still needed to be sourced and verifiable, no matter what they're about. Plus, this list has had 13 years, which is plenty of time for it to get "maintenance" that it hasn't gotten. Exactly how much more time do you want before it magically turns into a Featured List overnight? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice multiple redlinked articles on the list. This leads me to ask "do we know the links we have go the roght place"? I recently (as in about an hour ago) went through the Honduras list. One link went to the wrong person, but I was able to find the article on the right person. Another went to a wrong person, but we apparently do not have an article on Vice President Abraham Williams. I did not check all the other blue links to make sure they went to the right people, so we could have other false links. The ones I checked seems more likely to be misplaced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @TendPoundHammer: You state that there is already a "massive consensus" to delete these articles; could you provide evidence of this? It would be helpful for those participating in this discussion to review the arguments that have already been put forth for similar articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: for their contributions to similarly themed AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our polices clearly require multiple reliable, 3rd party secondary sources giving indepth coverage to the topic as a group to have a freestanding list. I think we should just delete, but there is a vague possiblity we could redirect to postage stamps and postal history of the Soiviet Union. I do not see anything demonstrating that this subject as a group has received the secondary coverage which is an absolute prerequistite to having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Orland (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the individuals on the list may be notable themselves, there need to be actual reliable sources that discuss this topic as a group or set for it to pass WP:LISTN, which there is none. Rorshacma (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut ComiCONN[edit]

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

No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Connecticut. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Possible source? [20] - it's thin, and I'm not seeing anything much else that isn't Bleeding Cool, so this is probably a delete. Artw (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Destination America#Former programming. ✗plicit 03:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buying the Beach[edit]

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

Not a notable show. Previously deleted via prod in 2019 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 18 May 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?)} 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Destination America#Former programming (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion to allow editors to merge content to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The sources currently in the article don't quite cut it as far as the GNG is concerned, and my search for significant coverage didn't find much of interest. I agree with Cunard that a redirect to Destination America#Former programming, where the show is already mentioned, seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aankh Michouli[edit]

Ron Halder[edit]

John C. Hyke[edit]

Kalob Martinez[edit]

Alex Sharpe (cybersecurity)[edit]

Bowens Corner, Virginia[edit]

Brandon Buddy[edit]

Jeroen Beker[edit]

Battle of Voznesensk[edit]

World Gourmet Summit[edit]

Passaic Torah Institute[edit]

Math Country[edit]

Short Ribbs[edit]

Read More About It[edit]

Ash Varrez[edit]

Inspiration, Please![edit]

TJ Hudson[edit]

Pete Von Harten[edit]

David Belle Isle[edit]

Infant bathing[edit]

George Floyd mural[edit]

BHDL[edit]

Podi Patharakari[edit]

Jaiswar[edit]

Kim So-jeong[edit]

Ganguly–Durjoy Trophy[edit]

Pynn's Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

Myron Evans II[edit]

American Polarity Therapy Association[edit]

Kasbeel[edit]

Ethan James (clothing)[edit]

Jon David Guerrero[edit]

Paul S. Allen[edit]

Tova Ascher[edit]

Interoperable PDK Libraries[edit]

John Aitken (footballer, born 1897)[edit]

Barun Das (cricketer)[edit]

Subroto Das[edit]

Ferris App[edit]

Xenophobe's Guides[edit]

Mamata Kanojia[edit]

Preston Group[edit]

Jessie Anderson[edit]

You Lie Like a Dog[edit]

K. R. Karimanickam[edit]

Side Show Freaks[edit]

Karan Acharya[edit]

Ella Ronen[edit]

A. Karunakaran (cricketer)[edit]

Hennadiy Perepadenko[edit]

The Investigators (2000 TV series)[edit]

Disorder in the Court (TV series)[edit]

Lori Rom[edit]

List of Yamaha CS-80 users[edit]

The Daily Voice (African-American news website)[edit]

Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee[edit]

U.S. Jones[edit]

Ten Dollar Dinners[edit]

It's a Miracle (TV series)[edit]

Matthew Keong[edit]

A Month of Sundays (2001 film)[edit]

Digital Copyright Act[edit]

Before We Ruled the Earth[edit]

Wimba Sutan Fanosa[edit]

Raaheela Ahmed[edit]

Charles L. Venable[edit]

Dream Pets[edit]

Infernum (role-playing game)[edit]

Blackburn Road, Melbourne[edit]

Tattersall's Sweeps[edit]

The Lott[edit]

Hitaikakushi[edit]

Hyacinth Alia[edit]

El Comité 1973[edit]

Hegeler, Bureau County, Illinois[edit]

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

Ashbys Corner, Virginia[edit]

Betaia Ioana[edit]

Naingimea Beiaruru[edit]

Jewish Diplomatic Corps[edit]