Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 1: Difference between revisions
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat No.4B}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levente Révész}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levente Révész}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman Pendergarst (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman Pendergarst (2nd nomination)}} |
Revision as of 07:33, 1 January 2022
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Flat No.4B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep well-sourced and easily notable. Needs clean up and polishing and not to be deleted. Shahid • Talk2me 10:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below
- [1] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
- [2] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
- [3] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
- [4] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
- [5] is dead
- [6] is a press release
- [7] is just a listing of the movie
- [8] is also dead
- [9] is also dead
WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [10] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence in the article or in searches that this passes GNG or NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Levente Révész (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a young racing driver who has only participated in very minor series and seems to at most be notable only for one event (signing to race in FREC). A WP:BEFORE search returns some WP:ROUTINE coverage of race results, but very little signficant coverage from independent sources. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete – per nominator's rationale, fits into the category of young drivers given an article without doing anything to garner the attention needed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure I understand the nominator's part where WP:ONEEVENT is mentioned for "signing to race in FREC", because that event doesn't even grant him notability (and FRECA isn't the tournament that falls under the criteria 1 of WP:NMOTORSPORT). To no surprise, there's no significant coverage of Levente in secondary sources, and thus fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage. A7V2 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sherman Pendergarst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MMABIO notability critera, he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, his highest ranking by Fight Matrix was #72 in the world. WP:GNG is also failed, majority of his coverage is through routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet any MMA notability criteria and lacks the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. With 11 victories is 30 matches, I have to wonder how he was ever ranked as high as he was. Papaursa (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 08:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). ✗plicit 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Admin note: This closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 12. Sandstein 07:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Everything Will Be OK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this is the first part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) and everything said here can be merged into it HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I Am So Proud of You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this is just the second part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- A no vote to delete/merge from me. This is not 'just' the second part of "It's Such a Beautiful Day". This was an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2008 and received multiple awards and praise as a standalone piece. It was not edited into the feature film version of the longer story ("It's Such a Beautiful Day") until 2012. For that matter, the proposal to delete and merge the page for "Everything Will Be OK", the first film, is also a mistake. "Everything Will Be OK" was a standalone animated short film that was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2007 and won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. These were originally released as individual short films, viewed by audiences for years that way, and should remain listed here as such. Also, my apologies if I'm not using this interface correctly! Ang-pdx (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Sequels can be notable tool. The claim "The film won 27 film festival awards" is worth considering, but I note the "failed verification" tag. Right now the article passes notability based on unverified claims, so the question is, will someone claim said claims are fake or exaggerated? If not, I'd lean towards keeping this while retaining/adding copyediting templates, some of which are already present. This may be the case of a notable topic, poorly referenced - but I didn't bother doing my own BEFORE this time (hence, no vote, just comment). Ping me if more sources are found (or their lack becomes more apparent) if you'd like me to vote one way or another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) The references in the article and results of searches do not support independent notability of this film under NFILM or GNG. The references that are available in independent, reliable sources are not significantly about this film but to the prior film. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Eggishorn, that is simply not true. This article is just in need of more work. This film screened in competition at Sundance, which is notability alone. It was later released on its own, standalone DVD:
https://www.amazon.com/Proud-You-Everything-Will-Chapter/dp/B003JOS9U2/ref=sr_1_7?crid=20MV1HB8QCRYM ...I've added an additional reference, from the filmmaker's own website. This article should stay put. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Trotters, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The old church here is hugely photogenic and is endlessly photographed, in no small part because it stands alone by the side of the road, a short distance from an abandoned gas station which appears to have opened in the mid 1980s, replacing a pair of buildings on the opposite side of the road. Sources imply those buildings included a store at some point, but this is another place where there's no sign anyone actually lived here. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Trotters and its last (and for a while only) resident, Leonard Hall, got quite a bit of newspaper coverage in the late 20th century, much as Monowi, Nebraska does today. There's this Associated Press article from 1981, this article from 1987 in the Bismarck Tribune, this article six years later in the same newspaper, and this article from when the post office closed in 1995. All four articles are fairly substantial, and when put together amount to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage is interesting, though I don't know that I'd call it extensive, as it is more or less the same story repeated at intervals, with some variation due to the passage of time. But more importantly, it's about the post office and the postmaster, and there's precious little about any town except for the assumption that there was one, and some passing mention of the church. It tends to ratify my analysis that the only thing ever here was the store/PO and the church, and that there was never any encompassing settlement. I think the notability claim is a stretch at best, but if it survives, it wouldn't be an article about a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - might not be a "legally recognized populated place", but meets GNG with sources provided above. Spicy (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The article has sources-Thank You-RFD (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG with sources added to article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Doremo (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Unincorporated communities are considered notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is not how discussions have gone of late, and in any case, the bigger issue here is that the evidence is that this was not a "community". It was a post office operating out of a store. We have routinely deleted these. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- "of Trotters, N. D., being old respected settlers of this community" (The Wahpeton Times, May 28, 1916); "Two inland communities, Golva and Trotters" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 4, 1950); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 6, 1952); "John A. Gorrell of the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 27, 1961); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 28, 1961); "settled in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 2, 1981); "in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Jun. 11, 2006) Doremo (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is not how discussions have gone of late, and in any case, the bigger issue here is that the evidence is that this was not a "community". It was a post office operating out of a store. We have routinely deleted these. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Penpals (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, the only feature of this group that meets WP:NMUSIC is the composition of a 1:15 minute long theme song for a 24 year-old anime Berserk (1997 TV series). This act doesn't seem like enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but maybe AFD regulars who review deletion discussions about musical groups can assure me that this accomplishment does make them notable. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment Added a few more references (Japanese language).Hindijux (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable music band fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The added references do not support notability under GNG or NMUSIC any more than the previous ones did. They are to the band's own media or to articles that discuss other bands. They support possible notability for Hayashi Munemasa, who was a member of this band and has apparent RS coverage for two further bands he formed, but notability is not backwards-compatible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Zombie Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous discussion ended in no consensus, however, this film still does not have enough to pass WP:NFILM. Merely being shown at Festivals does not guarantee notability. Hopefully a second discussion will come with a firm result. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm finding coverage for the director, who looks like he is probably notable, but I'm not really finding anything for the film in specific. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I'll grant that I was the nominator the first time, but neither the issues nor the sourcing here have actually changed. An editor removed the maintenance tags in October, without actually addressing the substance of the reasons why they were added in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film being shown here at all, except for a brief glancing mention of the film's existence in an article about its director (which is not enough in and of itself). Simply being shown at film festivals is not a notability freebie in the absence of published reviews of the film by professional film critics in real media, and "notability because awards" is not automatically fulfilled by every award presented by just any old film festival that exists: that attaches only to a narrow elite tier of film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, etc.) whose awards can be shown to garner media coverage, and not to film festivals whose awards have to be cited to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage doesn't exist. That is, an award has to be a notable award (i.e. an award that the media considers important enough to cover as news) in order to make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claims here are cited to primary sources, not media coverage, which means they aren't notability-making awards. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Concur with deletion statements made thus far. If festival awards were to contribute to notability, at least one review would be expected out of the festival to meet GNG. — 2pou (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Baxter Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found nothing that shows this singer is notable. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete but. I thought the same, but the question is whether: "Taylor discovered that his song "Marie Laveau" had become a hit, recorded by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in 1971 and Bobby Bare in 1973. In 1975, over 12 years after it was written, Taylor and his co-writer Shel Silverstein received a BMI Songwriting Award for the song." means that subject passes WP:GNG due to receiving an award. Jdcooper (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I doubt that the "BMI Songrwiting award" is a prominent enough accolade to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 8. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nate Cardozo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: [11] (characterizing him as "prominent")[12],[13], [14], and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: [15] (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments)[16] (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments),[17] (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments, [18] (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO [19]. No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The references are enough to show the importance, and the article could be expanded to show the context. The sentence about his hobby should of course be removed as non-encyclopedic , but that's no reason for deletion of the article DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Coverage in Wired, Ars Technica, and AdWeek is easily enough to demonstrate notability under the usual standards. The above attempted minimization of these sources is not convincing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per DGG's rationale. The content is remarkably skimpy but the references are enough to meet notability guidelines. I am ambivalent about the beer hobby except I note it was a prominently discussed quality of a recent US Supreme Court appointee. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- List of unreleased role-playing video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No per-game sources (the last used citation was taken in 2008) with a large amount of WP:GAMECRUFT. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Confusing title. It made me believe that the list was about video games in development, but it really just refers to vaporware or cancelled games. There does not seem to be a need for this list as there is no clear difference between a game in development hell and one that was soft cancelled.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, if the article is kept (it probably shouldn't be) it needs to be renamed and given inclusion criteria or something. It's a mess as is. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The list is a mix of cancelled, "unknown", and TBD games. It's not useful. Neo-corelight (Talk) 00:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't seem a good way to group them. Category:Cancelled video games shows a massive number of articles exist for canceled games, divided based on what they were going to be released on. Role playing game is not really defined too well, since most games have you play as a character with a history and whatnot. Dream Focus 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Unclear what the subject or scope of this article is supposed to be. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete — They should be moved to the list of canned titles for their respective platforms instead of this... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Letha Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the GNG. All the refs are trivial coverage or name drops along with other porn stars with hugely augmented busts. Wouldn't have even passed the later versions of PORNBIO. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nom couldn’t have put it better. “Huge fake boobs” is not a sufficient rationale on its own to keep. Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we lack enough coverage in the article or elsewhere to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Evdile Koçer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is not enough independent and reliable sources to prove its notability. If we take a look at the sources in the Kurdish Wikipedia article, this one is mostly an interview (non-independent), here is a poem of him, and this one is completely an interview. The only source in the English article is this, and it mentions about his visit to a foundation, which doesn't provide us any notable information to add to the article. Nanahuatl (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
- --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, for failing WP:ANYBIO. For writers, it is not about what they write but what others write about them. This subject does not cross the bar. Ifnord (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan letting the wikiproject know about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- DeleteI have seen the message at the Wikiproject Kurdistan. I have also googled the subject and not much came up except for Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. As to me a Wikipedia article shouldn't be a social media profile. In the current state, delete.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filled with primary sources and dubious claims, this BLP appears heavily edited by either COI or the subject. I invoke WP:TNT, not notability, as basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Questionable notability, a lot of content here, like about the criminal allegations, is far from neutral and some of it, such as the material on the British royal family, has nothing to do with him. And he is called "Lord Sayyid"? It's amazing it's been on Wikipedia for 14 years without being challenged in an AFD. Too bad it was de-PROD'd 12 years ago. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment this is the first AfD of 2022 for me. I think I need to go and lie down. Wow! Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT just blatant POV. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC).
- Delete. The sources are not convincing for a pass of WP:GNG. Even the best of them (#1, the Star detox story) only mentions him in passing. And in any case WP:TNT and WP:PERP also apply. How has such a bad article survived for so long? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think TNT would be quite suitable, since the COI issue is long stale by now, so it doesn't help to have it in the history. There is a risk that some well meaning individual might restore a lot of the stuff on the page currently, if it's left in the history, which would be an issue. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 07:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Blatantly promotional with no real significance shown. Tame (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to TV.com#TV Tome. ✗plicit 04:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- MovieTome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no significant, independent, and reliable sources for this defunct website from the 2000s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to TV.com#TV Tome A lot of words to tell us 'an attempted brand extension that failed'. Also, congratulations on the first deletion nomination of 2022 (per GMT)! 🥳 Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to TV.com#TV Tome per User:Mrschimpf. This will put the information in its most notable context. BD2412 T 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Chester Drescher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject is a deceased animal performer that does not meet notability guidelines. The only notability of the dog is that it had a role on its owner's TV show from the 90s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for failing notability guidelines. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.