Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 22: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 100: Line 100:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatwas}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatwas}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araz (supermarket)}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araz (supermarket)}} -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drugs I Need (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drugs I Need (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose}}

Revision as of 12:31, 29 June 2022

Purge server cache

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. But @TeriEmbrey: if you want this in draft, just let me know. Star Mississippi 03:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it to draft. Most authors don't publish more than a few books. Ruggero has had published a lot of titles. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Ruggero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any significant coverage or reviews as per WP:AUTHOR. Appears not to meet WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage; appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Drum Bonanza (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:BEFORE yields no reliable sources and mainly irrelevant news articles when searched in news on Google. I have a feeling there might be some sources out there but I cannot find any. Maybe this should be merged with Thomas Lang. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This event has existed for 10 years and has been written about in every drumming magazine in the world multiple times. The sources which cover it (i.e. Drums & Percussion, Rhythem, Drumhead, Drum! magazine, etc.,) are global publications, and it is typical of these magazines to withhold print copy from online because it devalues content.
This event has existed as a "redirect" to Thomas Lang's page for a decade because he was the host. He has no affiliation with the event other than as a host and a performer. The event deserves its own page. Unsure what you mean by "irrelevant" news articles. The news articles and announcements which exist online after most of the drumming publications folded in the past few years are the ones which remain accessible to cite. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources, articles and image added. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Eric B. Vogel. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable game with only three refs, the first one is potentially reliable, but the editor is also a prominent contributor to BGG (https://boardgamegeek.com/blog/1/boardgamegeek-news), which according to the Wikiproject Board Games is an unreliable blog. The second ref is not independent, and the third one is too unreliable. Upon a search, I could not find any awards or reliable refs covering this, hence listing this at AfD as there are not multiple reliable independent sources. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly more references out there: https://www.dicetower.com/game/67285/armorica
Is there clear criteria for which board games should get articles and which should not?
I feel like having Amorica relevant to understanding Vogel's progress as a game designer working up to his more successful/award winning titles (dresden files and kitara)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/293267/kitara
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/187273/dresden-files-cooperative-card-game Michaeleconomy (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, BGG and The Dice Tower (the latter I also subscribe to) are self-published (please see Wikiproject) and unreliable. IMO an article needs more reliable sources with editorial control. Replying to the other comment, I do not think so, although in my opinion an article should be all right if it has two multiple, reliable, indepedent sources, or won (or is nominated) to a SdJ. While I could concur that this is "relevant to understanding Vogel's progress as a game designer", unless you provide more reliable refs, I am unconvinced that this is notable. Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to loads of YouTube channels on games, namely SUSD (which I am more familiar with) and Watch it Played; I probably subscribed to Dice Tower sometime ago, or came across on BGG but think all of these are well known and review thousands of games in total! But all of these Youtube channels are probably unreliable, much less notable IMO, so I agree with your assessment. VickKiang (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Eric B. Vogel, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is interesting, but below is a source table; at best, there's one source meeting GNG, and two unsures, so merging or deleting are both fine to me.
Source assessment table prepared by User:VickKiang
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rollthedice.nl/ Yes Indepedent. The source is a board game association, but doesn't seem to have editorial policies. Yes The source covers the subject in detail. ? Unknown
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/keirat/txt/A/Armorica.html It's indepedent (?) but sponsored ("Many thanks to Vainglorious Games for sending us a review copy!") No Self-published blog, dated design, not reliable. Yes The source covers the subject in detail. No
https://rivcoach.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/review-armorica-by-vainglorius-games/ Yes It's indepedent probably, but the site's deleted. No Deleted self-published site on Wordpress The article could not be opened (as "rivcoach.wordpress.com is no longer available"). No
https://www.jedisjeux.net/jeux-de-societe/ Yes The subject is indepedent. Yes An association that seems reliable enough, but somehow Google translate doesn't work well, and as I can't read French, I am not sure whether there's an editorial policy. But it's all right and probably reliable. Yes The article discusses the subject in detail. Yes
http://detafelplakt.skynetblogs.be/archive/2010/07/20/kleine-dingen.html Yes The subject is indepedent presumably, though it can't be accessed on my laptop. No Blog, also couldn't be opened on my laptop. Ref couldn't be accessed for me, but it's unreliable as it's a self-published blog. No
http://spotlightongames.com/list/nights/a.html#armorica Yes The subject is indepedent. No Self-published, no editorial policies. Yes Short, but in-depth enough. No
https://www.dicetower.com/game/67285/armorica Yes The subject is indepedent. No YouTube channel turned into webpage, marginally reliable for mundane coverage, including gameplay, release date, publisher..., generally unreliable for subjective reviews, and doesn't contribute to GNG as it's routine. Yes Long review. No
http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/bring_gauls_and_romans_together_in_armorica/ Yes The subject is indepedent. It seems to have about section and an editor, but the author now posts on BGG, which isn't reliable. Yes Fairly long article. ? 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}}.

The other refs, including BGG link and the publisher's link, are clearly unreliable. VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I largely agree with you other than Dice Tower. That it started on YouTube as a one-person show doesn't really matter--it's a non-trivial company at this point, probably the leading English-language board game review site in the world. But it doesn't really matter in this case given we both want the same outcome. Hobit (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but only one editor advocating a Merge and redirect. Other opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment IMO I initially voted for delete, but as of right now I think both deleting and merging are fine. VickKiang (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would note that Piotrus did propose merge to the author as an alternative to deletion, to which Hobit agreed, and now the nominator as well. I have no opinion at the moment, but if it helps to establish a consensus then I would lean merge as well. BOZ (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 14:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are sources ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) whose topic is on the charity, but they're not significant enough imo to indicate notability. SWinxy (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings.. No prejudice against re-expanding to an article if additional sources can be found. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Sweden and Utah. North America1000 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a Master's thesis here[12] that mentions him briefly, but which also refers us to a number of other sources regarding the early history of the LDS Church in Russia: "See Kahlile B. Mehr, “Johan and Alma Lindolf: Early Saints in Russia,” Ensign (July 1981): 23-24; Kahlile B. Mehr, “The 1903 Dedication of Russia for Missionary Work,” Journal of Mormon History 13 (1986-87): 110-123; Kahlile B. Mehr, Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002); Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1997), and E. A. Eliason and Gary Browning, “Crypto-Mormons or Pseudo-Mormons? Latter-day Saints and Russia’s Indigenous New Religious Movements,” Western Folklore 61, no. 2 (2002): 173-207." There's also a Desert News article from 1991 here[13]. Also here in a book from Brigham Young University Press[14].Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The thesis contains one very short footnote sentence about the subject, stating, "August J. Hoglund to Anthon H. Lund, 18 June 1895, Millennial Star 57 (27 June 1895): 414.". This is not significant coverage, and theses and dissertations are questionable as being usable on Wikipedia to qualify notability.
That is incorrect. Page 49 of the thesis discusses August Hoglund and states that the topic of Hoglund's trip to St. Petersburg has been covered elsewhere and provides the footnote I reproduced above. The thesis was later published as an article in The Journal of Mormon History[16]Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deseret News article contains two short sentences about he subject, stating, "In 1895, Elder August Joel Hoglund, a native of Sweden, was sent to St. Petersburg, Russia, where he arrived June 9. He met with the Johan M. Lindelof family and baptized Johan and his wife, Alma, on June 11 in the river Neva." This is not significant coverage, and is essentially routine reporting.
This isn't routine reporting per WP:ROUTINE, which is things like announcements, weddings, community meetings, store openings, etc. it's the opposite actually, it's an article written in 1991 about about a historical event that shows interest in the topic persisting long after its occurrence.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe only provides snippet views, but it doesn't seem that there is significant coverage there. Snippet views will often highlight several name mentions when they are present, but there are only two there.
  • Ensign (LDS magazine) is a primary source that is not usable to establish notability. It was an an official periodical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • I cannot access the Journal of Mormon History article. Does this contain significant coverage, or is this also only a passing mention?
Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel is available here[17] with a page on Hoglund's trip to Russia and his observations there.
To be frank, this is time-wasting quibbling. There's verifiable history here and really no debate about that. Your original deletion argument rested largely on the fact that you couldn't access the source cited in the article and so it could be discounted, not a good argument and on the fact that you couldn't find any other sources beyond one name check in a directory, but it was very easy to turn up articles, papers, and books discussing the man. If you don't think he's notable enough, just redirect it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia, where he's already mentioned. There's really no reason to not make it a redirect as he's consistently mentioned in LDS materials and materials about the LDS Church in Russia (see, e.g. this Vice interview[18]), making his name a plausible redirect to the article where he's mentioned.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out if you google "2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac" the Internet Archive scan is high up in the results, with one sentence on Hoglund.[19]. Obviously that's not enough to make an article out of, but I think it's signifigant for his notability that he shows up in a source like that in the compressed history of the LDS Church in that country, like an early missionary or proto-martyr from the Catholic Church would.--Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Coverage of the subject that is viewable is very scant; there is no significant coverage at all among viewable sources. I also seriously doubt that Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe contains more than just a couple of sentences or so. Just because a subject is verifiable does not mean that they are automatically notable per Wikipedia's standards. However, I am fine with a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia. North America1000 18:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete as has been discussed. I took a look at the Journal of Mormon History reference, and similar to the other sources this individual doesn't get more than a one or two sentence mention. Could definitely be used in the main Russia article, but not notable enough for its own. Rollidan (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main focus of the article is that he was the first person to convert a Russian resident, but his trip took a mere 10 days. Nothing else is said about his work in Sweden. Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The merger tag there is a record of the fact that there has been a suggestion of merging it, and therefore, as per WP:MERGE, it is proper that the putative target be notified, which has happened. If merger is not the likely outcome of the AfD discussion, that need not delay closure. But maybe when it is closed, the closer would remover the notification from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Better would be to delete Cubers as well. Emeraude (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Antonija Šola. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Lots of discussion here about possible article mergers but it was in the realm of hypothetical so any suggestions about the specifics of merging pages should go to another discussion forum to resolve. I don't think an additional relist would influence this outcome as the consensus is, while these articles need work, they should be kept. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2005 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 in Pakistani television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Do you have a proposal as to where they should be merged to, or by what criteria some are merged and some kept? Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, merge/redirect to list of years in Pakistani television and a minimum of 10 shows for SPINOFF. Thanks for asking! gidonb (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Keep For now. Proposal by Gidonb can be discussed outside here. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Human–computer interaction. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • That's a good point that it's an awkward article name. The talk page suggests that usable security would be a better approach to naming an article on this topic, and I agree — "usable security" is the term of art, and it'd be a great article topic if somebody wanted to work on it. But still, reviewing the list at WP:R#KEEP, I believe a redirect would still be helpful to prevent link rot for external sites linking to the article, and because it'd preserve the non-trivial edit history. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. for incubation and potential improvement. Recommend going through AfC to avoid G4 issues if returned to mainspace. Star Mississippi 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I'd have to vote Keep 1keyhole (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Firefangledfeathers, what kills that for me is the "according to its website" at the end of the first para... HighKing++ 10:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I think there's enough other stuff there, even without the line that is attributed to their site. We can glean:
    • When ECA got its license
    • Where the first facility was
    • Expansion to three facilities in the first few years
    • Year of purchase of Olympus Cove facility
    • Protest from Olympus Cove residents
    • Staff responses to the protests
    • Entire history of the court case over the stalking allegation
    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and require the article to be approved through an WP:AFC review per High King. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is strong enough to pass WP:NCORP, but time in development could reach that point eventually as more sources emerge.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sourcing is poor, and has serious WP:NPOV issues. The entire program structure section is sourced with a primary source and a link from a non-profit that tries to prevent abuse in treatment centers. I'm not even sure there's enough here to consider adding some general info to Residential treatment center#Controversy. I Googled the school and don't see any reliable media coverage beyond the piece posted above that discusses the protest held by the neighbor. There are a lot of protests for lots of similar businesses, as well as sober living homes, but that doesn't make the business notable. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Reluctantly. I'm not certain this is notable as I can only find the one source that would go to WP:ORGCRIT, the refinery29 article. It has passing mention elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do to have an article on each institution of this type, though certainly the category of institution is notable. FalconK (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

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

The result was Draftify. Unclear whether six months will help, but no harm in giving Wil540 art the time to work on it. Star Mississippi 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Reid (skateboarder) (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)

Single source in article, tagged for notability since April 2022. The defining line in the article for me is, "His photojournalism career started at The Fader and has led him to document some very important moments in history." - this is not notability and there's none on display here. Fails WP:GNG, we don't even get to WP:ARTIST or WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/revert to draft Hello. I agree in its current condition, the article does not demonstrate notability. I have researched the subject and found enough sources to pass WP:GNG. I plan to work on it in the next week or so. --Wil540 art (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTLIST Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Content in this article consists almost exclusively of links to various related Wikipedia pages. As such, the article serves as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The few entries that are not linked can be removed, or WP:REDLINKS can be added if the topics are notable, which encourages article creation. North America1000 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Potosí (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)

Very short article with only one sentence and a single source. AKK700 11:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A Merger discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 03:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • No opinion on whether to keep or not, but oppose merging. The musical merits a single line mention in the American Idol article irrespective of what happens to this article, but merging some or all of the content (such as the suggested porting over of its introduction) is not acceptable, it would distort its significance to the TV show. Hzh (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a line and a half? And we also need to define a "line." After all, a line next to an infobox or a photo is shorter than a full, unobstructed line. Are we counting cites? What if the cites cause a word or two to go over onto a second line? I'm starting to feel like John Adams in the musical 1776. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It doesn't appear to be a strong consensus, but no one is actually arguing to delete. With no input on the relist, I don't think another will change the consensus. Star Mississippi 03:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Salt Lake County Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

I'm just not sure how to apply WP:EVENTCRIT here; it's not lasting per se, but it's one of two instances in which Democrats have gained seats in the last two decades on this body, and I wouldn't really categorize elections of the governing body of the largest county in a state as routine, given that examples in the guidelines include press conferences and sports matches. There're also all the other elections pages for county and municipal boundaries on here. At the very least, I don't think a delete is clear; maybe merge at the very least. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into what article? Kevin McE (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No objection to a re-nomination for more input if a potential merger can't be sorted editorially. Star Mississippi 01:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Salt Lake County Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Municipal election, routine event with routine local coverage. WP is not Ballotpedia and is not a database of all elections. MB 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last week to see if consensus can emerge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep with the understanding that the article needs a serious overhaul. SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotives (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)

Extremely old and outdated list that duplicates Category:Locomotives . Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Because:
    1. Old and outdated? it can be updated, not a reason to delete. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet.
    2. Duplicating? The guideline WP:NOTDUP says It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a clear case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; no amount of cleanup can make this list useful. "Locomotives" is far, far too broad a category for a complete list to be of any use. A complete list would be absolutely massive: a back-of-the-envelope count suggests something like 2,000 current articles on locomotive classes, which would probably double when including all the non-notable small-batch classes of early steam locomotives. That would be nearly impossible to assemble or maintain to any degree of quality - and would be less useful than the existing category tree under Category:Locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, very large lists of tens of thousands of items exist (eg historic sites, sensibly broken out into sublists) or millions in List of species. Sure have sections or sublists on locomotive classes vs individual famous locomotives. Do these exist already? Then it makes sense to have a world-wide overall introduction/index to the sublists. --Doncram (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of species literally redirects to Category:Lists of species --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Well, it would be wonderful if there were a wonderful written introduction to the topic and links to sublists there (lame reply, sorry). The 90,000 or so US NRHP historic sites are explicitly listed though, from List of RHPs. --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That contains useful statisical information, though. I'm not sure what statistics a list of locomotives could present.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This comment from the article's creator at the first AfD in 2004 says it all, really: Delete. I was the article's creator; its functionality has been fully superseded by categories. It is redundant. Not all lists are replaceable by categories, but this one is. —Morven 00:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) Per NOTDIRECTORY we do not need this list, and trying to fully populate it would be an exercise in futility anyhow. The keep vote is not at all persuasive to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been eighteen years; Morven could have changed their mind. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant policy/guidance is wp:CLN, which explains how categories and lists and navigation templates are complementary. A list can include references and details and photos and can be organized sensibly according to the topics. It can and should include an introduction where most significant list-items are explained. Importantly, it can include redlinks and sources supporting those topics importance, which categories cannot do at all. Generalizing, pretty much if there exists a category then there can be a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments from 2004 are not relevant, that was long before tables were available in wikimedia and before standards and examples of great list-articles were created. I agree the list seems dead; the last talk-page discussion was in 2008. Where are the railroad enthusiasts?
The current list could/should be developed to include section on individual notable locomotives ( eg ones on historic registers ), perhaps organized by nation the province or state. And list locomotive models/classes organized by manufacturer. It should include sortable tables including photos. --Doncram (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s dead then why keep it? There’s very little actual content; why not just WP:TNT this crap and create a series of narrower lists (i.e. steam vs electric vs diesel) with tables? Dronebogus (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An overview/index to sublists is needed. Some would say this us then a "List of lists" or a "List of lists of lists" and delight in that. Calling for wp:TNT is an admission this is a valid topic, and then see wp:TNTTNT (essay to which I contributed) for multiple reasons deletion not appropriate. Doncram (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Category:Locomotives not provide a sufficient overview? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason given for deletion. the rules state that categories and lists can both cover the same thing, that list are better because they allow additional information so more useful at helping people find what they will be interested in reading. Dream Focus 04:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t just call any deletion reason you don’t like (i.e. 99% of them) “invalid”. being old, outdated, and redundant is a valid reason; you’re saying it’s an invalid application. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is actually a policy on valid reasons to delete here WP:DEL-REASON, so I think User:Dream_Focus is approaching the AfD in a very reasonable way. CT55555 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That list of reasons isn't all-inclusive. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone already linked to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. So redundant is not a valid reason. And old or outdated are not valid reasons either, see WP:OUTDATED. Dream Focus 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article listing every locomotive past and present is not practical per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a list of the notable ones, which seems a lot more reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most locomotives I’d think are notable, and in any case that’s a given on WP so the point still stands. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean most classes of locomotives? Google suggests there are over 350,000 individual ones in the world, they are surely not all notable. That seems very unlikely. If every class of locomotive is notable, I don't see a big problem. We have lists of poets, writers, singers, and the world has many of them. If the lists gets overwhelming, it can be split up later by year/name/country etc. CT55555 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't a list of the notable ones, even if "notable" is being defined more narrowly than "is worthy of a Wikipedia article". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that notability is the exact definition of worthy of a wikipedia article, that's how we decide what gets articles, to me they are synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are more appropriate for such a broad topic such as locomotives as a whole, as per nom. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Thee are plenty of encyclopedoas of rail, or books about locomotives (just click the Google Books link above). So I think WP:LISTN is met. This is suprisingly abandoned, unreferenced, etc., but I think encyclopedic (within our scope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs improvement not deletion, but a list of individually notable locomotives (which seems to be what everything other than the New Zealand section lists) is clearly encyclopaedic per others above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of all the individual locomotives that have articles on Wikipedia would be massive. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it became too massive, it could be split. This is not a reason to delete. Wikipedia has lots of long lists and editors are quite capable of dealing with that. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As CT55555 says, splitting lists that get too large is standard editorial practice and almost always entirely uncontroversial. In this case splitting off by country for those countries with large numbers of individually notable locomotives while retaining inline those countries with only a handful will match the way many other lists on Wikipedia are organised. If you think that is a reason for deletion then you've completely misunderstood both the purpose of deletion and the general concept of lists on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: categories not matched by list-articles can be horribly incomplete even re what Wikipedia covers: They omit articles which could/should be in a category, but just aren't. They omit redlinks. They omit items covered in lists within articles, such as a tabulation of locomotives within an article about a railway or a museum. They omit other significant mentions in regular articles, such as a town article mentioning a preserved locomotive in its park.
As an exercise just now, i did some analysis in Draft:List of preserved railroad locomotives in Colorado, identifying 49 items which should be in the system of categories. In fact i do see three in Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Colorado, yay. That's where i started my list from, actually. And there is one more that should be in that category but isn't, though it can be found by drilling down from Category:Locomotives in other ways. Categories omit one NRHP-listed one that is a redlink. But the categories completely miss 44 others that are individually tabulated within museum and railway articles. You cannot get to them.
Could the category system be fixed? Yes, by creating 44 redirects to the table rows, and putting appropriate categories on those redirects. But you cannot fix the categories if you don't have corresponding lists to work from. I !vote above that List of locomotives be kept and developed, and then all the categories can be improved. But assertions that existing categories "duplicate" what sensible explicit lists would include, are naive or just wrong, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not really inclined to create all 44 redirects and obsessively add categories to them; maybe i would for just the isolated ones in town articles or wherever so they will be noticeable, but not for the all those in groups at railway articles, say. But i would sorta "fix" the categories by adding mention, at the categories themselves, about the groups/lists that go towards "completing" them. It takes both to help each other get towards completeness of both. Having the explicit list out there attracts corrections, additions, too, as well as it advertises need to create missing articles. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's four more than the number listed on List of locomotives. And such a list would be impossibly long. It would need to instead be a list of lists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see what u mean: that the manufacturers and railways currently listed at List of locomotives don't include any of these Colorado preserved ones. I'm not sure if drilling through the Baldwin Locomotive Works diesel-only sublists could get to one or two Baldwins in Colorado (which might be steam), or not. But touché, your point is correct: the current categories are likely better than currently indexed lists.
I still wanna see sublists of locomotives by location (for preserved ones that are relatively fixed), and other sublists, all to be indexed from the top. I don't personally like renames of lists to "List of lists of..." format, like i am sure categorizers would refuse to have categories renamed to be "Categories of categories of...". But yes, top-level world-wide lists often have only sublists as members; individual items tend to show up in second or third or fourth levels along with more sublists. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that such lists would duplicate information from the pages on individual railways/museums/etc. , and unless obsessively maintained would quickly become outdated. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every preserved locomotive is individually notable, not every individually notable locomotive is preserved, not every preserved locomotive is preserved in its country of origin (e.g. LNER Class A4 4496 Dwight D Eisenhower) and not every preserved locomotive is preserved at a notable location by a notable organisation; most locomotives in a railway's fleet are not individually notable. This list would be a more comprehensive list of locomotives than that at any individual institution. Those lists, where they exist, would be referenced as sources of more detailed information.
The claim that this will become quickly out of date is both (a) not a reason on its own to delete a list, and (b) also not true - once a locomotive is notable it is always notable, facts like it's type, manufacturer, and country of origin never change and locomotives becoming newly individually notable does not happen very often. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that a list of locomotives by geographical location would quickly become outdated, as locomotives move around. If it was "list of preserved locomotives built for X company" it could work, but then it doesn't seem to make sense to have "list of locomotives" only include links to lists of preserved locomotives. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one plans to limit the world-wide list of locomotives to cover just the preserved ones, or other relatively fixed ones. It is not currently limited that way. But some historic locomotives can be organized by nation where they operated, and some preserved ones in museums or on short tourist runs can be organized by more specific locations. Like for other sometimes moveable "places" on the US NRHP (eg buildings and covered bridges and other structures which do get moved sometimes, or objects such as ships, steamboats, or statues), it is not too hard to update locations occasionally when The General (locomotive) moves from one museum to another, or whatever. And we already deal with some "fuzzy" locations for some NRHP-listed locomotives that move between two terminuses of a line like the Cumbres one. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also there already do exist categories of locomotives organized by location, and I don't see any movement to ban those. Also IMO it is far more likely for Wikipedia to learn of a move, from the public, if they can see an explicit list of locomotives in a given state, say. Then the location-type category for the locomotive will also get updated, too, when the locomotive item is transferred from one state's list to another's. It is far easier to check a list than a category.
Anyhow, this is getting into issues best handled by editors at relevant Talk pages.
I may not respond to much further here. -Doncram (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By present geographical location is not the most sensible grouping for a list like this, however by country of origin (how it's currently organised) is. Regardless, a list needing to be updated every so often is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to split up a list of preserved locomotives in certain countries like the UK or US, though. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the length of the list dictated it then they would be split off per WP:LISTSPLIT. None of the lists of preserved British locomotives confine themselves to individually notable locomotives (e.g. there are only 3 on List of preserved British industrial steam locomotives), but the existence of categories like Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives argues for the creation of an accompanying list and also for the retention of this high level summary list. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many lists are there that limit themselves to only stuff notable enough for a Wiki page while there are similar lists that list everything?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lists limited to only stuff notable enough for a Wikipedia article are 10-a-penny. Many of them also have more detailed lists about narrower sub-topics that have broader inclusion criteria. List of people associated with rail transport is an example I found after about a minute searching, although not perfect as the inclusion criteria are not clear, there are many sublists of people associated with rail transport in specific ways, places and/or times. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a good example when it's also a rickety outdated shambles. An article that fits that definition that's actually maintained, please. It doesn't have to be rail-related. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of ways this could be handled. But I think most of us agree that trying to list every single locomotive class and individual notable locomotive on just a single list is near impossible. I think organizing by manufacturer would work well. See List of EMD locomotives and List of GE locomotives for examples of how long lists on just one manufacturer can get (and these are just classes without noting any notable individual locomotives). Listing them all on one page is impossible. The best solution with this is to turn it into a list of lists. Create an extra list for all of the one-offs like the Ingalls 4-S. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trainsandotherthings, this is an AFD proceeding, and you have not stated your !vote. I count the existing score as 5 !votes for "Delete" (counting the nominator), and 5 to "Keep". Your position, as I interpret it, is that you !vote "Keep". (Also, BTW, i think nominator User:Eldomtom2 should now state their view has changed to "Keep", perhaps as an amendment to the nomination-statement itself.) You do make observations that I interpret like "in a huge list that is split into many pages, the top-level list will probably best consist only of sublists, not any individual items" (i agree), and "so some could say that is a list of lists" (i agree, but note it is still a list), and maybe you want to rename the list-article (I don't agree, and a rename proposal is a different process for a different day). And maybe you have other editorial observations regarding organization, definition of list-item-notability, etc., which are suitable for the list-article's Talk page. For purpose of this AFD process, could you please just state "Keep" or "Delete"? Or not. Either way, i think that this is ready to be closed as "Keep" by a closer focused on the quality of the arguments. Although probably this will not be closed until June 29, after it has been open for 7 days. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think my view has changed to "Keep"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. I agree that this list is duplicated by (or even better addressed by) the category. I also observe that this article has not been seriously maintained at, well, any point in its history really. But in this case, we have an uncomplicated topic ("locomotives", not an "X of Y" type) that as far as I can tell does not present any problems if not kept up-to-the-minute - that is, any information (appropriately) added to it will never go out of date (it's "list of locomotives" not "list of locomotives currently in use"), and a lack of mention here isn't inherently misleading (eg, presumably no one will use this page to conclusively determine "what locomotives have ever existed" or "is x a locomotive"). I don't see the WP:LISTN fail here. There appears to be an editor willing to update and maintain this now, as well. Though I do think this would be more helpful to readers if it had a hatnote directing to Category:Locomotives - not sure what the best wording for that would be so I leave that to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep WP:NOTDUP and WP:DINC, but also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As some have noted, the subject list-article has been developed somewhat, now with some coverage of preserved locomotives by country. Update: I have converted what I was drafting as a list of preserved locomotives in Colorado, into a Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States. This so far includes most locomotives which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I intend to continue developing this, and get it to mainspace; it will be a sublist linked from this main list-article. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list serves its purpose by bringing readers to either a locomotive page, or to a more detailed list where such a page could be found. I am aware of the category duplication issue, but it does not matter because it is not inherently problematic. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the list is focussed so it is no more of a directory than other lists. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I really do not understand why people are so desperate to keep this incoherent, indiscriminate, ill-defined mess. It's not a list of locomotives, except for the parts at the end which are (and if we start listing all preserved locomotives, we're going to need several bigger articles). and the part that is lists of locomotive classes is mixed with a list of diesel locomotive models, and I lost track of whether electric locos are treated at all. And then we have locomotive types (e.g., mallets and Shays). I can see some point to some sort of list of lists article, but this is not it, and the only reason why this isn't one of the largest articles in the system is that nobody is putting a lot of effort into expanding it according to what it says it is. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, expanding the list of preserved locomotives towards covering a high percentage of those worldwide will indeed require splitting out several bigger articles. This is a good place to start from, IMHO. Yes, the mixture of locomotive "classes" within individual locomotives is confusing and can/should be addressed by editing (i.e. gradually move out the classes to a separate List of locomotive classes). Yes, electric locos are locos and are to be included. It is fine to mention all of these at talk page of list-article. I am making some effort to expand coverage to include all preserved individual locomotives. I personally have done all right, IMHO, with that kind of stuff, in developing many world-wide list-articles. Such as List of fire stations, say. --Doncram (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another followup: Well the earlier sections do include links and other info regarding individual locomotives (e.g. the Great Western Railway section explicitly names 3440 City of Truro), and drilling down into some classes gets to mentions of individuals (e.g. NSB Class XXI mentions a preserved example depicted in File:Lok på Setesdalsbanen. Foto T Lunde (8632976429).jpg). But yeah "classes" and "models" may be mixed, and I myself don't yet understand the distinction, so I am not sure if it should be List of locomotive classes and models, or what, that should be split out from the "list of locomotives" if the latter is developed to cover individual locomotives only (Mangoe, perhaps you could comment on this at Talk?). --Doncram (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again no valid rationale for deletion is stated. Some readers like to navigate through categories. I and others much prefer explicit lists, which can provide some introduction, explain scope, show photos and sources, comment on comprehensiveness or lack thereof (which categories completely totally fail at), guide future development by including redlinks, etc. wp:CLNT is explicitly about how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary, and the existence of one is not an argument for deletion of another. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of locomotive classes is certainly within Wikipedia's remit, as essentially every locomotive class is notable. Trying to fit every single class (or is it every single notable locomotive? still unclear what the scope is here) into a single article just isn't really possible. This article should be about either notable individual locomotives, or locomotive classes. Doing both is absurd. The article has become a confused mess because of the unclear scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any list is about "notable" examples (whether meaning Wikipedia-notable which could have a valid separate article, or "list-item-notable"); the word does not need to be included in the title. What's possible or not, what should be done or not, are editing concerns, not an AFD concern. Of course all classes can be part of one list, and of course all individual locomotives can be part of another list, although yes both of those will have to be split for size reasons. Not my fault the contents included classes. I think i did edit the list-article slightly to clarify the current contents include both, but that does not mean I intend for the contents to stay that way. When you drill down into some of those items, sometimes you get to lists of classes, only, sometimes you get to individual locomotives, sometimes you get a mix. Sometimes an item is the sole locomotive built, like a prototype, of planned class, so they are the same. I have taken on developing "preserved locomotives" which are individual locomotives, and I will have to drill down into each of the ambiguous items to find individual locomotives to add. I personally am more interested in individual locomotives, akin to historic sites; could you perhaps be the one to develop a list of classes? Or, this list could be pared to drop the classes without moving them to a separate new list (although I agree that would be obviously notable); this is a matter for editors at the Talk page to decide. --Doncram (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I am finding that the categories in these areas are really poorly organized or maintained, and in the process of trying to develop Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States I am having to spend a lot of time fixing them, adding suitable categories to articles, etc. And, frankly, it would always be impractical if not impossible to check the contents of the categories and maintain/improve them, if there are not corresponding list-articles or sections. Also, it has been pointed out to me that many very short stub articles on individual locomotives have been created, in Draft space or otherwise, and I am creating rows for each one of those locomotives and redirecting the short stubs to the rows, using "id=" row anchors. It is seeming to me hugely helpful for Wikipedia to have proper list-articles developed here, instead of hopelessly unmanageable, awful, inaccurate, and incomplete categories, and zillions of bad stubs. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NWRITER. – Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Leaning towards keep (but I do not know) -- The fact that some one has written an article referring to his contribution suggests to me that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (see reply comment): if anyone is inclined to do more digging, here are the LOC BIBFRAME entries for his two books: [25], [26]. I do not believe that the sources presently in the article establish notability. I have updated the titles to give the transliterated titles and the LOC's translation, and removed the other two entries, since I am not sure they actually exist; one duplicated a title of an earlier book, and the other the publication year, which makes me suspicious. (Additionally, it is extremely suspicious for someone to publish in the 1950s and 60s, and then... 2004.) I would normally assume that any historian with two or more books is notable and, like previous commenters, urge caution against quick delete !votes because of language barrier issues. But in this case I am much more concerned that the language barrier may well have led to an article simply being factually untrue for a decade. For example: can anyone find any information that this BLP is, in fact, a BLP? The most recent evidence we have of his life is the publication of that second book, which may have been as early as 1960. The DNB gives his biographical data as 1925/26-1959/60. (I wouldn't lean too heavily on that data, but it does not inspire confidence.) -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. The AFD version of your computer working as soon as you call someone over to look at it: a full, English-language source. And yes, he's quite dead. Source: [27]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I previously commented, but did not !vote until now). Keep due to being notable, as per the new sources found by Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party (United States) federal candidates in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 03:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lopag (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:RLN and WP:SIGCOV. Never played in Super League for Huddersfield and only has a handful of semi-pro appearances in the lower leagues. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and dePROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to In a Dream (EP). plicit 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rager Teenager! (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)

Had a quick search of news sources and although there is some limited coverage of the song's existence, it doesn't pass WP:NSONGS. Seems like the release largely slipped under the Radar. Viable search term but not a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel there may be enough to keep the article based off of sources. (Table based off of this revision).TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete still. Not enough information or established notability to warrant standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref name Url Subject? Non-trivial? Independent? Can be used as a NSONGS/GNG source?
Rolling Stone 1  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes
The Line of Best Fit 2 ? Maybe  Yes  Yes ? Maybe/ Yes
Billboard single release 3  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes
Midiorama 4  Yes ? Maybe ? Maybe ? Maybe
Billboard album review 5  No  Yes  Yes  No
Youtube link to music video 6  Yes  No  No  No
Pressparty 7  Yes ? Maybe  No  No

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Following deletion discussion on Russian Wikipedia. – Ploni (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. – Ploni (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable enough to warrant an article. – Ploni (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage that I can find. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to BoJack Horseman (season 1). I know tempers can run high in deletion discussions, especially when editors find themselves frequently on opposite sides of article discussions but let's stop with the recycled accusations. If you believe there is serious misconduct occurring, and not just different understandings of content guidelines, please take the discussion to a noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi DanCherek,
Professor Dr SMG Kibria is very well none surgeon in Bangladesh. I have included all trusted news where SMG Kibria was covered. Yes, May be I don't know the perfect way on Wikipedia and I am really sorry for that. Experienced person like you can please help the solution or the best way so that this page can be published globally with all the trusted source. WP-KIBRIA (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't think a 3rd relisting would induce more participation here so I'm closing this AFD as "No consensus". Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Logan (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)

None of the references shown here demonstrate independent in-depth coverage-- the second one appears to be to the subject's own personal website. No evidence of any awards won, no notable credits, lots of evidence he exists and was interviewed once but I don't see a viable notability claim here. A loose necktie (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loose Necktie
Thank you for your concern on this page. I will attempt to answer your notes below.
The second website you mention appears to be the subjects own website is not correct. This is the subjects own website, https://saxonlogan.com/, which has been avoided for obvious reasons.
With regards to notability, he won an Emmy award and received an honorary mention from the Academy in USA. Notability must be viewed from both a local and worldwide context. USA and Europe don't have an exclusive hold over who is notable in film and television. In Africa this man is incredibly notable.
His most active period was prior to the invention of the internet so the vast majority of publicity no longer exists, making finding online external links difficult to source. It should be flagged for lack of appropriate citations, not deleted for notability. Shelly Took (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. The most notable thing I see is ", Fateri stated that 100% of the organization's grant of funds would be provided to the students." supported by ref #3 on the article, where the subject gets a minor mention. I do not see anything that meets "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published" WP:BASIC. The article has had a previous prod and a couple of contested speed's. I looked for but did not find any other significant references that might meet WP:BASIC Jeepday (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Jeepday (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. Positions include president of a notable university and president/CEO of two notable educational companies. Page has been infested by COI editors (with attempted effect of unduly positive WP:NPOV), but it appears neutral to me (I and others did a lot of cleanup over the years). A previous version was speedied, but the current seems substantially different. The two speedy's I see both seem out-of-process because there was already an objected PROD:
    • Cbryant23 {{db-author}}, is author, it's not clear why Jeepday objected that it is "not a G7 request", given that this appears to be the author, but it does fail G7 because it has had substantial substantial editing by others
    • Jeepday {{db-person}}, User:BangJan1999 objected for content reasons
Pinging User:MrX, who filed the PROD in 2013 (others involved in article history were already pinged). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author I believe this meets G& for speedy Cbryant23 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the flaws with the nom with respect to English-language sourcing have been addressed, no sourcing has been identified that meets GNG in Russian either. Star Mississippi 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears not to meet WP:NACADEMIC (see [39]). Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. – Ploni (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Fegley (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)

Actor does not meet WP:NACTOR, let alone WP:BASIC. Need to prove it meets these, not just invoke them. Additionally, three of the four references WP:NOTRS. I would also support converting this to a draft. But it definitely should not be in mainspace as it stands. Amaury17:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Cook Islands national football team#Coaches. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. TigerShark (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bailey (politician) (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 person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and a candidate must demonstrate either that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or a credible reason why his candidacy can be seen as much, much more nationally significant than other people's candidacies such that people would still be looking for information about it a decade from now even if he loses. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all and purely run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, thus not marking him out as more special than everybody else.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing here is already enough to earn him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show campaign coverage, and thus claim that WP:GNG exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL — but if that were how it worked, then NPOL would be entirely unenforceable, because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, a non-winning candidate does not get an article just because run of the mill campaign coverage exists: as I noted in my nomination statement, candidates get articles only if they (a) had another claim of notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much, much more important and special than most other people's candidacies. And no, running twice isn't more notable than running once, and coming close but still losing isn't more notable than losing by a wider margin, either. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How was it established that this state-wide nominee's coverage is only 'run of the mill'? If this is so far an assumption based on the current article status, my comment serves as an invitation for editors to look for and include more significant coverage. The article is only a week old. —ADavidB 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a candidate for statewide office isn't any more "inherently" notable than being a candidate for local office either — candidates for statewide office still always get campaign coverage by definition, and thus what I said before about how nobody would ever have to be measured against our inclusion standard for politicians if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt them from it still applies the same way. Simply put, a candidate only gets to claim notability on the basis of campaign coverage itself if that campaign coverage expands to a volume and geographic range far beyond what would merely be expected to exist, because the test for a non-winning candidate requires him to demonstrate that he's so much more notable than most other candidates that even if he loses he would still pass the people will still be looking for information about his campaign in the year 2032 test anyway.
If a person is running for statewide office, then campaign coverage within the state where he's running for office is merely expected to always exist, and is thus run of the mill — if a candidate in Georgia breaks out to such a degree that he starts getting covered in California and Iowa and Michigan, then he might be getting somewhere, but if he's only getting coverage in Georgia then that coverage is not demonstrating that he's more notable than other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with treating major-party-elected statewide nominees as 'local', but acknowledge that is how things are being done. —ADavidB 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 13:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail general notability guidelines. – Ploni (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable. Likely undisclosed paid content. – Ploni (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Pilgrim (1864) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 13:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG; promotional with clear WP:COI issues. – Ploni (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and salt. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable individual. – Ploni (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete. User:Horse Eye's Back cites the same business journal article twice, some profiles, and WP:TECHCRUNCH as reasons to speedy keep. I would not do that. I didn't turn up much, and what I see is dependent sources or otherwise not the significant independent reliable third-party coverage we'd like to see to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. This is also highly promotional. FalconK (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do appear to have fat fingered the same source in there twice... But remember we only need 3 quality sources for WP:GNG. If GNG is met (it is) then WP:ORGCRIT is irrelevant. None of the articles I highlighted are dependent and neither is the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a somewhat unconventional interpretation of the application of NCORP. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears not to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE. Insufficiently sourced, plus WP:COI issues. Ploni (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Paulmcdonald: CSD G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to be consensus that subject fails WP:GNG. No sources appear to have been provided which properly rebut that consensus, despite significant discussion. TigerShark (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

How a person who serves as advisor on fintech related issues for the National University of Singapore, International Monetary Fund, Mojaloop Foundation and the Indian State Government of Odisha can be considered with a routine (run-of-the-mill coverage of) IT professional?Eesan1969 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 when many of the sources in the article are tangential to him as a person; lacking in depth coverage of him; are press releases; or unreliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky, a few might be press releases but many are reputed international media.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 but not of in depth coverage of him, not of the organisations or the events. – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969: When I looked at the first block of 8 references there was nothing there, nothing that was signifcant, independent and in-depth. Then I did a WP:BEFORE search on the man. It was a similar kind of stuff. We can go through the references if you want at some point. scope_creepTalk 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But when I search under the following categories, still he looks to me notable.
Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL).Eesan1969 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Closing Admin
There are a number of petitions[47], [48] against this subject, that can't influence to judge his notability.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 this would not have been, and should not be a factor anyway in the deletion discussion. – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the AfC acceptance, it is a prediction of whether the article can survive a AfD discussion. It is not a shield from AfD. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this article was accepted on September 4, 2021 only by a neutral editor @Félix An: at AfC.....why in a hurry for deletion?Eesan1969 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to delete the article at its present state. You have one to two weeks to improve the article. As it stands, there are issues, i.e. reference sourcing, which some here feel warrant a deletion. If you can resolve those issues, what we raise here is moot. – robertsky (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't dictate by your own time line of one or two weeks.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks is the general run-time of a discussion on wikipedia, hence two weeks. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide here the source for your statement.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should correct myself, 7 days if a rough consensus has been established within that time. See WP:WHENCLOSE. But I do see discussions stretching to 2 weeks or more as well. – robertsky (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, if this person could have its own Wikipedia article, then so does my IT colleague that I know personally. Most sources in the article are not even focused on the person, lacking significant coverage, but merely a passing mention. 175.116.2.149 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This 'Vote' is the only contribution of this IP Address.Eesan1969 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Above IP Address[49] and the Nominator[50] identify the subject as IT Professional, but he is a Fintech Professional; the lead para of the fintech page will give clear distinction between the two areas. This shows they haven't done enough research but deep stake to delete the page.Eesan1969 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eesan1969 Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry, as evidently noted in the article you have linked. Calling the subject an IT professional is fair. I suggest laying off in casting asperasions of other editors, and assume good faith. It can be construed as making personal attacks on other editors. – robertsky (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a Fintech Professional(not based in Singapore or India or not a nationality of these countries) and given speeches in major cities of Asia. It's incorrect relating merely Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry.
Fintech is the technology and innovation that aims to compete with traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services. Artificial intelligence, Blockchain, Cloud computing, and big Data are regarded as the "ABCD" (four key areas) of FinTech. The Fintech industry is an emerging industry that uses technology to improve activities in finance. The use of smartphones for mobile banking, investing, borrowing services, and cryptocurrency are examples of technologies aiming to make financial services more accessible to the general public......
And Fintech plays an important role when it comes to Singapore, a major financial hub in the world which is currently transforming it towards a fintech hub.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Went through all 23 sources, no significant coverage about Mohanty. Coverage is mainly about MAS, Fintech industry and appointments to various board. While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanothersgwikieditor: Agree with your point, "...While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him." That's why I am not agreeing this AfD.Eesan1969 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tjczzo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and become active after 9 months after this AfD nomination initiated.Eesan1969 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Subject has received coverage in the Financial Times ,Strait times amongst others and mentioned by the IMF here Scrapes through GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say about Financial Times as I am not subscribed to it. As for the Straits Times article it is him as a spokeperson for MAS. The topic is primarily related to MAS and its stance on cryptocurrency. There is no in depth coverage about him. As for the IMF speech, it is a passing mention that he attended the event. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky: I just checked the Financial Times article, and it's mostly quotes from Mohanty. There are three sentences that are not quotes, and all of them describe what he is saying.
    The only details that the article gives about Mohanty are Sopnendu Mohanty, chief fintech officer at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the country’s central bank, questioned [...] and Mohanty was speaking as South Korean prosecutors narrowed in on Singapore-based Terraform Labs, the company behind the collapsed stablecoin terraUSD and its twin token luna. Not significant coverage. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not the topic of these articles as per WP:SIGCOV. It needs to be independent of the subject, and these counts as press releases. John Yunshire (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Especially at current stage. Current article can be replaced by a Resonator-generator page on via Wikidata additions. In addition, in terms of people at MAS, the current MD has no page. Xenmorpha (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current MD doesn't have a page can't be an excuse for, why this subject can't have a page. I really created a user page for him in 2020, but I couldn't find enough details about him, in fact, I met him in person couple of years back.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with a lot to spare. I recommend editors go through the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, complete a few online searches in news sources, and recognize the volume of coverage of hte individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through BEFORE. plenty of low quality press releases, spokesperson, etc. little to none sigcov. – robertsky (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I currently have no particularly strong feelings either way, but I do not have enough WP:TROUTs to distribute for the current state of this AfD. Throwing aspersions of failure to do BEFORE, rushing off to ANI etc. really doesn't help. The main problem is that this sort of career generates large amounts of low-quality sourcing: deliberate press-releases, mirrors of press-releases, material from organisations who are employing him, and those advertising events at which he speaks, all of which cannot be used to write an article about him. Low quality sources don't mean he's not notable, but it's very hard to sift through this lot and find something where someone writes about him independently, and in depth. For those who would keep, the best strategy would be to point out three really good such sources; nothing more is needed, and the honest deleter will happily change their opinion when faced with good sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald:, @Elemimele:, reference to BEFORE and “...three really good such sources...”;
Sopnendu Mohanty appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt in the The Times of India, the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.
Odisha Govt Appoints Fintech Thought Leader Sopnendu Mohanty As Digital And Financial Technology Advisor in the Kalinga TV, an Odia language 24-hour cable and satellite news channel in Odisha, India.
Reference to WP:BEFORE B. Carry out these checks 7. (...search for native-language sources if the subject...), the above news item might have well covered in the Odia language news papers, but couldn’t access by Google search.
And all above makes him notable in India especially in Odisha which has a population of nearly 42 million.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as he just ain't passing the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few comments. (a) As an AfC reviewer we rate based on what we think community consensus is but it is not unusual for something that has been accepted to be sent to AfD which is perfectly acceptable and not an argument for the article to be kept. (b) With FinTech just like with crypto there can be a lot of hype which makes reference analysis important. (c) I note that the MAS Wikipedia page and the linked pages do not appear to mention the FITG or this individual which does not help the keep case. (i.e. if the position is important then it should be mentioned) (d) Perhaps a merge to one of those pages could be an alternative (e) I definitely agree about the need for some serious trouting. (f) Unless you are working off something in WP:BIO or one of the subject related guides then saying/agreeing there is no significant coverage appears to be incompatible with a vote of keep and may indicate that an article is WP:TOOSOON. Gusfriend (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend: I think you have missed some details;
MAS page mention the FITG here and this individual here(under 'Markets & Development' --> 'Fintech & Innovation').
And MAS has created in August 2021 Elevandi to advance FinTech in the digital economy and engage with global FinTech community.... he is the Chairman of Elevandi.
And he is the Co-Chair of Steering Committee at the 'Asian Institute of Digital Finance' which is jointly created by MAS, National University of Singapore(NUS) and National Research Foundation attached to the Prime Minister's Office, Singapore.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was talking about the Wikipedia pages not their web sites. I have adjusted my comment to clarify. Gusfriend (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with major reservations: Mohanty apparently conceptualised and organised the Singapore FinTech Festival - the world's largest FinTech festival and a global platform for the FinTech community[51]. That is a big deal, worth recognising. My major reservations are that of the 23 sources (mostly media releases of uncertain reliability), just two have anything interesting to say about him. User:Eesan1969, you refer to sources in books and scholar but cite none of these. There is an interview with the subject here, yet this is not cited. Sandbh (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary and don't prove notability and organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal. That is crux of it, there is no real secondary sourcing on this article. scope_creepTalk 08:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks for advise citing the books. Regarding Singapore FinTech Festival, I have mentioned at ANI.Eesan1969 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Specific examples of in-depth coverage of the actual person in independent (i.e. not interviews) reliable sources have not been provided by editors here, and I cannot find them either. Vague waves at GNG, pointing at interviews (e.g. the PGurus article), and pointing at articles that do not discuss the person substantially (e.g. the Straits Times article and (borderline) the Financial Times article) are insufficient. This does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor any of the specialized guidelines. — MarkH21talk 05:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The only sources we have that address the subject "directly and in detail" are all interviews. As such, they lack independence. The non-interview coverage we have is all passing mentions and not in-depth. As such, we have zero evidence of coverage which is both independent and in-depth as required by our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - sources 2, 5 and 19 appear to be the same content written by the same two authors and syndicated. #19 doesn't include the authors' names, but does mention Bloomberg as the source. So that reduces the coverage somewhat. I looked at the other sources, but as pointed out above, they are mostly about MAS activity that Mohanty is involved in. There's little biographical info otherwise that would suggest a keep. It's weak delete and not full delete because his position as Chief Fintech officer appears to be significant, as evidenced by his being an in-demand speaker at events, but without more than canned bio notes and info about MAS, but it's not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. No reason some of his significant accomplishments/info couldn't be added to Singapore FinTech Festival or to Monetary Authority of Singapore, as part of those organizations' histories. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the previous delete voters about reliable coverage being limited to quotes and lacking depth. I'm unable to see why organizing a fintech festival - which appears to have been part of his job - makes one notable. Hemantha (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Merge with Singapore FinTech Festival which he apparently organized and for which he's discussed. No case for separate notability. Star Mississippi 23:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have tried but all I find is the below
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/mas-appoints-ex-citi-banker-to-head-new-fintech-innovation-group-from-aug Yes Just passing mention only Yes Just passing mention only No Passing mention only No
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/12/business/singapore-fintech-hub/ Yes Interview Yes Interview No Interview No
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/bill-gates-among-star-speakers-at-singapores-biggest-fintech-festival Iinterview/PR ~ Iinterview/PR No Iinterview/PR No
https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/08/31/finance/227354/mas-cfo-guest-speaker-asia-fintech-night Invalid/fake ref? Invalid/Fale ref? No No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-04/singapore-s-fintech-honcho-has-vision-of-asian-silicon-valley#xj4y7vzkg ~ Interview ~ Interview No Interview only No
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond Single word mention Single word mention Yes Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond Single word mention Single word mention Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/ant-unveils-singapore-digital-bank-in-overseas-expansion-push?srnd=economics-vp ~ Single word mention ~ Single word mention ~ Single word mention ~ Partial
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/06/02/sp060222-gopinath-opening-remarks-at-india-digital-payment-system-and-beyond Single word mention Single word mention Single word mention ? Unknown
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ywang/2022/06/06/billionaire-jack-mas-ant-group-launches-digital-bank-in-singapore/?sh=43fa427e2f8d Yes Single word mention Yes Single word mention No Single word mention No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a short film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFO. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead must show some evidence of significance (notable film awards, critical analysis by professional film critics in real media, etc.) -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the sourcing isn't getting it over WP:GNG: one footnote is the film's own distributor, one is a deadlinked Q&A interview with the filmmakers from an unreliable blog and one is a review in a minor film magazine, meaning that two of the three sources are not support for notability at all, and the third is a start but does not get to the finish line all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this short film from having to have more than just one hit of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 13:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that sourcing isn't sufficient for a company Star Mississippi 22:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otrium (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:NCORP. Routine startup coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User eyeballed the article instead of analyzing sources per WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what the user did. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the results ;-) gidonb (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and the results is a delete vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of WP:BEFORE, always check to make sure a large chunk of properly sourced info wasn't removed before the nomination was made. You may be voting on a weakened version intended to support the nomination. I restored the info about the business model, renamed simply as business. It's an entire section with nothing about funding. After rereading and trying to see things in the eyes of the nom, I rewrote the business section so nobody could claim it's a manual. Future participants and closer, please review with this new info in mind. The multiple independent sources that are there demonstrate that the organization has received significant independent media coverage, meeting the critical requirements of WP:NCORP. I'll point out that the media reports that the organization has 3 million customers, which clearly makes it notable. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per [52][53][54][55][56]. Nomination is a WP:BEFORE failure. Removal of information was improper. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to these five WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV sources, I will introduce a sixth [57]. All six articles were written by fine journalists. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is virtual SPA. scope_creepTalk 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An overnight conspiracy with a virtual WP:SPA turning up, particularly since it doesn't meet NCORP. scope_creepTalk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the removed material and its citations don't really meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. It's just routine business stuff, not the impact I describe in WP:SERIESA. User:Technotalk's argument about the number of customers is irrelevant for notability; we need some kind of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. And it's all like: won this award; raised that amount of money; profiled in Forbes again; is in business. FalconK (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a handsome article. I've not seen it before but I will need to start using it now. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserted comment - I went to your essay and there's a section about significant coverage that says it should "contextualize the impact the company had on the history of its field of industry, its community, or society". Wouldn't having 3 million subscribers suggest that there's an impact on society, just like you wrote you'd like to see? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You start to see how banal these refs are and its more of the same. Routine annoucements, startup news. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just said a lot and really nothing. Notability is judged by sources, NOT by references. I provided 5 sources, all in independent, nationwide media. All but one proudly signed by journalists. The fifth is sourced from the Dutch independent prime press agency. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Thanks for finding those sources. Unfortunately the Dutch seem to be following our lead with paywalls. Hopefully someone will add more info from them. There's also significant non-financial related coverage in this Forbes article. The writer lists 20 years of retail journalism experience on her bio but I've seen others question the "Forbes contributor" (senior contributor in this case) byline and use that in their deletion arguments, so I left it out. But once this is kept, I can use that coverage to improve the article. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I managed to read all with my free subscription of Het Financieele Dagblad and Google's own paywall workaround ;-) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I managed to miss the references at the top. Looking at each of one of them.
  • European Off-Price Designer Marketplace Otrium Launches In U.S. Low quality Forbes ref. Routine annoucement of company launching in the US.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Standard notices from a press-release. of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance The 120million Series funding press-release.
  • Paywalled. Unable to read it.
  • Paywalled A March 2018 article, when they got a 750k funding round, so probably a press-release.
  • Paywalled Growth of designer outlet webshop Otrium positive for XL Business Park in Almelo
  • Paywalled. The url states. 120-miljoen-dollar-op. Press-release.
  • Paywalled. The url states. 7million raised. Press-release.

Assuming AGF and taking the 3 press-releases as typical of the five, they are extremely poor references that fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. IThey are all from company news, PR. This whole article is native advertising, for a shop. As cool as its a shop, its completly typical coverage of a startup. The article fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nom has made several statements that show WP:BEFORE was not done, and that this is a bad faith nomination. Since he says he's a new page patroller, I'm also concerned about his ability to understand what he's reading, or at least the haste with which he's reviewing and nominating articles. He writes above that this article is about a furniture store, and describes the furniture as "cool" and the company as a "shop", but it's a multinational online clothing retailer. I can only assume he saw a picture of their office in one of the Dutch articles and didn't do a translation. He claims to have read the Forbes article but brushes it off as a repurposed press release. Anyone can click on that link and see that's not true. I posted a link to the Forbes writer's bio above. He mentions WP:SPA, which I don't see. He even calls a personal essay an article above, when it's clearly marked as an essay. Finally, as I also pointed out above, he deleted a big chunk of info with sources, since trimmed and restored, before nominating this for deletion, instead of letting the nomination play out. TechnoTalk (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: If you keep making personal attacks like this WP:NPA, I will need to make a report at WP:ANI and cut out the bludgeoning per WP:BLUDGEONing. It is deeply uncool. scope_creepTalk 18:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: None of what I posted is a personal attack. I'm simply repeating what you said and did, and explaining why it makes me question your ability to fairly monitor and review articles. You on the other hand accused me of being a paid editor once this started to go the wrong way, and said you're going to go after my other articles, so that's grounds for me to take you to ANI. Feel free to save me the trouble of opening a case, and watch for WP:BOOMERANG once your previous block for similar targeting and harassment is brought up. You'll also get another one-way IBAN. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I routinely received the same threats from the same user. Maybe his way to cover up WP:BEFORE failures? He does seem to try to jam through his plentiful, poorly researched nominations. I don't care, I look at the data, not at the people. If nominator one day comes up with a nomination that does make sense, I would support it. It's the best strategy for sanity at Wikipedia. Keep focus on the data at all times. gidonb (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As an aside, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • NCORP and WP:SIRS make clear that we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS says *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. The takeaway here is that the quantity of coverage is irrelevant - what we require are 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".
  • Some editors don't fully look at the definition of "Independent content". It says that 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. Articles that are essentially copies of a basic company description, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc and without some other in-depth content, fail ORGIND.
  • Several sources were included by an editor above, claiming that those sources meet GNG and NCORP. I disagree and there's not much point in berating/accusing the nom for not carrying out BEFORE and then producing regurgitated announcements and press releases with claims that they meet GNG and NCORP. All of the sources fail as follows:
  • This from fd.nl headlines with "Dutch online clothing outlet Otrium raises million in investment" regurgitates the company's announcement of the same day. Just like the other articles covering the news of their new investment like this is WWD and this in TechCrunch. None of these articles contain any "Independent Content" and fail ORGIND
  • This next from fdl.com is a "puff piece" based *entirely* on an interview with the founders. It contains much of the usual format we're used to seeing with puff pieces (Background, Problem, Initial Idea! and solution, investment, problems overcome, vague future-looking statement) and also has the obligatory "cool" photo of the founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
  • This in ad.ml (and also carried by a couple of other publications) cannot be viewed without a subscription but from the summary I can see, I cannot find any reasons to believe it might contain in-depth "Independent Content". The article appears to be focused on the topic company's logistics within Europe which is handled by "Bleckmann Fashion & Lifestyle Logistics" and says that the popularity of the brand has been positive for the area (Twente/Almelo). It goes on to interview Bleckmann's Commercial Director (who is a supplier and not unaffiliated to the company). I'm not seeing sufficient CORPDEPTH nor "Independent Content". If someone else has access to the rest of the article and finds something, let me know.
  • This from rd.nl deals with the same topic as the first two sources above - the raising of 120m. This article refers directly to the announcement in the Financial Times but it is significantly shorter. There's nothing in the rd.nl article that isn't contained in the longer ft.com article which in turn is based on a valuation provided by an "unknown source" (so not RS) and quotes from the company. It has no "Independent Content" by way of analysis/opinion/etc and fails ORGIND.
  • This from nu.nl says in the first sentence "the company announced on Thursday". It's about the company raising €7m in 2019 and contains a summary of the Press Release from the investment company on the same day. Fails ORGIND
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, or come close. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a fundamental disagreement over whether or not there are adequate reliable sources to prove notability. It would be nice to see fewer comments on contributors and some consensus on the sources or this could go "No consensus". Also, it is unwise to remove large well-sourced sections of an article before it is nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll get on my soapbox here and defend the sourcing, as requested above. A recurring argument with this nomination and other AfD nominations of company articles is that funding announcements don't make a company notable. But when we see a funding announcement, particularly one that values a company as a tech unicorn, doesn't that tell us that an experienced investment company or investor has carefully studied a company's business model and has faith in their management team? They have access to private information that we as editors do not have. Significant repeated funding rounds tell us that someone has done the background checking for us. Until there's consensus at Wikipedia that I'm mistaken, these sources all help with determining notability. Also, the funding announcement is often the first time the media hears of the company, and it then spurs them to do additional coverage of the company. That's why there's more info in the article than just funding. It's just being ignored. If it's because the source is paywalled, I'll be happy to send it to any reviewer. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our guidelines should be viewed as the encapsulation and solidification of consensus over many years and by many editors. While we also acknowledge consensus can change and even Ignore all Rules, there has to be some justifiable reason, perhaps even an extraordinary one. There's nothing you've said above that hasn't already been considered in likely hundreds of other AfDs - and yet NCORP still hasn't decided that funding announcements can be used to establish notability. NCORP also requires in-depth (CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" (ORGIND) and funding announcements that simply regurgitate the same announcement is churnalism. I've provided a fairly detailed breakdown of the sources and reasoning for why they fail NCORP. If you're going to convince the community that there are special reasons for keeping an article on this topic company, it will be more convincing to refer to reasons contains within our guidelines and sources where you can argue and point to that meet NCORP. HighKing++ 20:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your notability challenge has focused on funding news, and I defended it, but there's more info than just funding info here, and it's all properly sourced with reliable independent sources. Clearly meets WP:NCORP. And anyone who does a WP:BEFORE can find more info, in multiple languages. And I'll keep an eye out for more sources with a Google alert, ensuring this will keep getting even better. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: You're raising a very important point! Recently, I wrote on this very issue in this failed attempt to delete the article of Ahmed Salman, a professional Arab-Israeli footballer, who plays for Hapoel Jerusalem: The mixed herring and salami approach, this article is about this and this about that, is an old AfD strategy and is quite boring. For example: this article is not about the company, it's only about who leads it, who invests in it, what they produce, and how much they make. Not recommended because it pointlessly prolongs discussions where Wikipedians could be working in the article space. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add here that the guidelines are very, very clear on this, and nearly everyone seems to agree (and has for a while): investment does not establish notability. The results of the consensus are documented at WP:FUNDED et seq., and you can see them even here. The private information that some investor might have indicating the company is the next world-changing unicorn is completely irrelevant to us here, because there's no deadline (so we can write the article when it actually does change the world), and we're writing an encyclopedia with reference mostly to citable secondary sources (said confidential information is neither citable, nor secondary). Once the press starts reporting on the company beyond interviewing the founders, cataloguing funding rounds, and reprinting press releases, we can have an article. For nearly all companies, that never happens. FalconK (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH per scope creep's source analysis. Per precedent in the application of that policy at AFD, funding announcements are not considered RS towards proving the notability of corporations. Perhaps this should change, but that would require an RFC. As such, lacks enough significant independent sources of the company itself to pass WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoTalk I don't need to share differences because it's actually in our written policies at WP:FUNDED under "examples of trivial coverage" in the section "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" where it lists "capital transaction, such as raised capital" as trivial. In other words, it's an official guideline adopted through broad community input of how to view these kinds of sources. It's policy. If you want to change the policy you will need an RFC consensus to overturn it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Gotcha. Thanks for sharing. I think that the guideline as interpreted is overly broad, for the reasons I mentioned above. Unicorn funding is major news. It dominates business coverage. If all I had was routine funding, I'd not write an article about the company. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoTalk I can sympathize with this perspective, and as I said above this might be a policy worth revisiting at an RFC. However, we have to follow notability guidelines as written not as we wish they would be.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage that fails WP:NCORP which is more stringent than WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BLUDGEON. No need to repeat yourself for the nth time especially with a position that has been thoroughly dismissed by previous editors. Slywriter (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, and it's borderline with WP:GNG but I would say the absolutely routine nature and scope of the references does not show notability for even WP:GNG. I am in complete agreement with Scope Creep's analysis of the sources in his comment above. I have read through this AfD discussion to see if there were any points made that would influence the notability of the subject, but I personally find the arguments defending the article's sourcing to be unconvincing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NCORP. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recent additions to the article, e.g. the advertorial Elite Traveler [58], the similarly-promotional Forbes profile [59], and the obviously promotional I amsterdam [60] ("As the official foreign direct investment agency of the Amsterdam Area, we can help you set up, succeed and expand your business here.") appear to further support deletion per the WP:NOTPROMO policy as reflected in the WP:NCORP guidelines. WP:NCORP notability does not otherwise appear adequately supported by independent and in-depth coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scope's excellent source analysis, which was obvious just looking at the sources but good job on making it easier for everyone to discern! PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 13:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • OPPOSE As original creator of the article, I oppose its proposed deletion. He played 78 games in the Football League. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles on far less notable players. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heshs Umpire: As a content creator myself, I know that the deletion process can be frustrating. However, the fact that there are hundreds and possibly even thousands of articles "on far less notable players" is not a reason to keep. See WP:OSE. For this to be kept, we need to see examples of WP:SIGCOV discussing Gibson in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the sourcing to show a pass of GNG. That there are thousands of other articles that need to be deleted is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - given the level he played at, I am confident there will be offline sources out there. The page should be draftified so it can be improved. GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have cleaned up and expanded the article, have left some ref idea links on the talk page. There are quite a few sources out there. He also seems to have played youth football for Scotland according to the link I left on the talk page. JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project. @GiantSnowman: I don't know if you want to review the bit of work I done, if you're interested in changing your vote at all. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    good work on this, but unfortunately I don't think it's enough to show GNG is met. GiantSnowman 06:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Of the sources in the article, one is a blog and thus not reliable, while the rest are passing mentions, with the longest being For the record, North End’s last game on grass was a 2-2 draw against Exeter with Simon Gibson being the last PNE player to score on grass at Deepdale. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where's the GNG coverage? Or even just the required piece of SIGCOV to meet SPORTCRIT? Or even independent coverage outside of stats? And Govvy's !vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as it doesn't address the critical lack of GNG sourcing...:rolls eyes:. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if actual WP:SIGCOV is brought forward from reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. plicit 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. North America1000 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. North America1000 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:N. Has won many awards, none of them notable. Has written many books, none of them notable. Looking for sources gives me in GNews one press release, and one lengthy interview with "Total Prestige Magazine"[66], which is a shady publication which seems to have a habit of giving excessively praiseful attention to otherwise completely unknown people. E.g. the cover of the issue before the Sullivan issue was for "Trevor Perkin", CEO of "HDM Coatings". Complete lack of all notability or "prestige"[67], not the kind of CEO any actual, real luxury magazine would put on their cover or give a lengthy interview. This has all the hallmarks of a paid for publication to give people exposure and fake notability, not a genuine reliable source giving voluntary attention to a notable person.

The 79 Google hits for Ayn Cates Sullivan[68] are extremely low for a supposedly bestselling American fiction author with many books and awards. Looking for her original name doesn't help[69]. She is a self-published author who has won some very minor awards (niche awards from organisations which give out many dozens of similar awards), which have not gotten any attention in the press. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Air Flight 203 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was merge to Cumberland University#Athletics. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-TICE CUBE) 09:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Rose (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)

Demi Rose's appearances in eye-popping red lingerie apart, there's nothing here to get us over WP:GNG - certainly no independent, in-depth coverage or any role other than as a model that would possibly confer notability. As a model, there's no coverage beyond images, a couple of interviews and incidental mentions in coverage about others. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty lady in photographs, nothing else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of the articles are about how she looks in a bikini or something similar, no stories about her life in reliable sources. The BBC article as down below is one step towards wiki notability, I'd suggest we could revisit this later when she has more quality "hits" in media we can use for sourcing. Either delete or draftify, she's not quite at the notability bar yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deep coverage on BBC[70]. As a side note, she has 20M followers on Instagram. It's impossible to have such a huge fan base and not be notable for a Wikipedia article at the same time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her follower count could very well be boosted by bots and clickbait farms, it's the number of active users that tells the story. It's about the same as spotify stream numbers. There are videos and stories of stream farms, where it's literally a wall of ipods on rack shelving, all streaming the same song at the same time. People pay others to boost their numbers for them, it's not terribly honest. But it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although BBC coverage is reasonable as 4nnl12 notes, that article seems to be quite the outlier. Nothing in WaPo, NYT, Slate, Variety, etc.—simply not commensurate with her popularity measured in followers. If more sources crop up discussing her in a nontrivial manner—actual consequence on, say, the modeling industry, on fans, on other notable celebrities—then yeah. Ovinus (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Keep per source found below; my research was apparently inadequate. Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more reliable sources. I can put more time into finding them, but this one from news.com.au, an award-winning online newspaper in Australia, should be enough, I think. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the article, though? Its title ("Demi Rose shocks in racy Dolls Kills green bikini") is representative of its contents: meaningless commentary on some photos. Award-winning indeed.... Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I understand that you folks on enwiki don't like "racy" articles on British tabloids.
    I found some content on Metro (British newspaper) and People (magazine) which do not have "racy" things in their titles. But please note that she is not a rocket scientist either, so it's not logical to expect these article revolve around deep issues:
    Are these acceptable on your part? If yes, then maybe I can find more. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Metro.UK is not reliable per WP:METRO. Dating a celebrity does not confer notability. So no, these sources don't contribute to notability. And with regards to "expect these article revolve around deep issues": Of course, we're not expecting that. It just needs to be significant coverage, and it's easy to cover a celebrity beyond Instagram photos. For example, any decent interview would likely discuss a celebrity's life, intentions, interests, opinions on the industry... something we can actually use. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most people (including the nominator) are getting misled by the spicy titles of the sources, but the cited sources do significantly cover different aspects of her life and career. For example the following sources (along with many others) talk about her life in a nontrivial manner:
  1. Instagram model Demi Rose on why she joined OnlyFans
  2. Distraught Birmingham model Demi Rose Mawby loses both parents in space of a year
  3. Here's How Demi Rose Mawby Is Making Her Mark On The Modeling World

Also note that "hot images" are essential part of her work as a social media model, just like "songs" are part of a singer's career or "books" of an author's. Insight 3 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's almost at the notability bar. I had to wait to create the Shannon Singh article until we had decent enough sources to use; this lady is about the same idea as Singh. She's almost notable for our sources. One more interview like the BBC one and she'd be good enough for an article here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Oaktree b; once she receives another good interview, there's an article to be written. I"m not being misled by the sources' titles; I'm being led by the sources' content! The BBC source is good and ought to be used. The Things and Birmingham Mail look questionable in terms of quality, but what do they say, anyway? The second one is a fawning article over her difficult backstory and (perhaps the only part deserving mention here) that she got a lot of followers without contracts. The first one is broken for me, unfortunately, but the usage of the word "Distraught" in the title is a bit worrying. It's about reliability, not me/others being puritanical. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then both of you should change your votes because here is that interview you requested :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find; thanks! Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even then your article Shannon Singh is tagged for notability issues! Insight 3 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was interviewed in Glamour UK, in the BBC and the Guardian used her story as an example of women of colour not getting enough airtime. I figured it had enough good sources; problem is articles get chopped up once I publish them, so they don't always retain their quality. It's not been brought to AfD yet, so that's good. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and appreciate your efforts, but she still doesn't get past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider new sources found since the AFD was opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is no one arguing that the material should be deleted, but neither is there a clear cut preference for keep or merge. This has run for nearly 3 weeks and I don't see an additional week here coming to a conclusion on any of the identified possible merger targets, and suggest this continuing at the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

References

@Fram, I am not seeing anything in that policy link that discusses merges or redirects. Did you mean to link something else?4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see C4 now which is above where CONRED appears on my screen. I would point out that the policy says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own" as a proviso. This topic is important enough to merit an article on its own as sources pass WP:SIGCOV per JClemens cogent argument. Therefore a merge/redirect discussion for purely editorial reasons (because SIGCOV is met) shouldn't happen at this venue per CONRED. It's not AFDs role to have merge or redirect discussions outside of an WP:ATD situation.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment. I agree that a discussion about a redirect would have been far better at the talk pages of one or both of these articles instead of at AfD. I would likely start the article Given names inspired by Game of Thrones myself and ask for help in merging these articles to it as soon as this discussion is closed. The topic is broad enough to encompass over a dozen other names, all of which increased in use after the show. It should not be lumped in with other articles since the topic is distinct. I’m also not sure what good relisting it for a second week is likely to do. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the reference at the Khaleesi article that is used to justify the existence of the article beyond WP:ONEEVENT, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/popularity_increase.html, and it doesn't show the absolute numbers, only relative ones, so it's hard to judge. The nearby entries in the same list are Adley which is a standalone article (a stub), Journey (given name) which is a standalone article (slightly larger stub), Elianna which is a redirect to a cognate and it's only mentioned in a list once, Ruth (given name) a standalone article for a comparably much older name, Shay which is a section in the disambiguation page list, and Ellis (given name) which actually says it's a masculine given name. So I don't think there's any particular reason not to proceed with the merge and redirect this there. If there's actual WP:POTENTIAL, it can easily be split back out later, when relevant encyclopedic information comes up. I'd say a single notable bearer would be a nice threshold (cf. WP:NNAME). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Again, I think an article or list or whatever on Given names inspired by Game of Thrones would make more sense than merging it to the article on the character or the show. This is the reference with an explicit breakdown of the Game of Thrones names and numbers: [1] Arya and Khaleesi are the most used but some of the others that were noted were Lyanna, Daenerys, Yara, Tyrion, Brienne, Jory, Sansa, Nymeria, Theon, etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source doesn't necessarily attest to long-term significance of the concept as it appears to have been written at the height of the show's popularity in 2019. Did this trend have longevity? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name Khaleesi is said to have risen in use last year by the Social Security Administration, which was remarked upon by media sources. According to the U.S. statistics, which give numbers for each name used more than five times, most of these names are all still in use but some declined after the show ended. The books are still widely read and the series has yet to be completed, so who knows? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, tagged for notability, no change in notability since. No significant coverage, no evidence of multiple/significant roles or any musical significance. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Busan Asian Contents Awards is not a blue-linked award. First source 'The Cloud' is an interview. The second is an interview about her makeup routine. Third Kapook! is indeed a piece about her beauty and career - and fourth Sanook is a word-for-word carbon copy of Kappok! - a photo feature which sounds very much like it was derived from the same press handout. Starlet to watch? Maybe. GNG pass? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of news coverage from Google News [86]. Sanook is word-for-word copy of Kapook? Even Google Translate should show different content. It's like saying an article in Wikipedia is carbon copy of the corresponding Brittanica one. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has multiple significant roles in notable productions as per WP:NACTOR. Some of the references are better than others but there is enough for a keep, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion may be useful to reach consensus. Suggest review of the sources provided, which do not seem sufficient for notability, being lightweight celebrity/beauty articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regarding potential sources, the The Cloud interview is the most in-depth among those linked above. While it is an interview, it does provide a substantial introduction (seven short paragraphs) and many background statements presented in the interviewer's voice, which should count as a secondary source. The The Standard makeup interview has a very brief introduction that isn't in-depth. The Kapook and Sanook pieces are their usual celebrity profile pieces. The Kapook one is more detailed and in-depth, covering all of her personal and work life, while the Sanook one has a short list and a paragraph covering the basic biographical details and some tidbits of her personal life. Both come with the usual caveat of Thai celebrity columns: they don't score the best in the reliability department, and often rely on information already present on the web. On the whole, though, considering these together with general news coverage, I do think there's enough to satisfy the notability guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Nicaragua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Also same issues as most of these lists, many of them already deleted. Incomplete, largely abandoned since 2007, not of interest to readers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Discussion about individuals on Nicaraguan postage stamps here: Child, Jack. “The Politics and Semiotics of the Smallest Icons of Popular Culture: Latin American Postage Stamps.” Latin American Research Review, vol. 40, no. 1, 2005, pp. 108–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555367. Accessed 22 Jun. 2022.
  2. Brief mention of three Nicaraguan stamp collectors appearing on stamps here: GRIFFENHAGEN, G. Stamp Collectors on Stamps: Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 198, n. 26, p. 16–17, 2006. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=21597548&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 22 jun. 2022.
  3. Talks about Karl Marx, George Washington and Pope John Paul II on Nicaraguan postage stamps: Altman, Page Dennis. "Looking at Stamps." Border/Lines 13 (1988) (available in full via Google Scholar) CT55555 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the topic of people on postage stamps receives some coverage just means that a general discussion of it can be found in Postage stamps and postal history of Nicaragua (which is at present a shockinly insufficinet article, and really needs additions and expansion). To justify this article we would in my view need to have at least one if not multiple reliable sources that feel a need to include the whole of this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NLIST appears to be at odds with your view: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability CT55555 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but the "general topic" needs to be documented, not some minor subset like stamp collectors. Fram (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I consider that the "general topic" is people on Nicaraguan stamps. I've provided sources about royalty and their family, about Marx, G Washington and a pope and about people who collect stamps. They are people, they are on Nicaraguan postage stamps. I think that is exactly what the subject is.
          I think it's normal for subjects to be covered in part by multiple sources. The article on Spain is probably based on various books, some about history, some about culture, some about food, there might not be one book that covers everything about Spain. A list about big tornadoes in Mexico would be made from sources that cover different tornadoes, maybe a book about 1990s tornadoes, a news report about a recent one, there won't be one all encompassing source. I think I'm in normal territory for lists notability here. CT55555 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Daranios: The comparisons of Abracadabra! to Tutankham seem to be original research. There are no sources for it on either page, and I can't seem to find any sources that compare the two either. I would be hesitant to merge based on that. benǝʇᴉɯ 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my !vote, as below now two reviews have been found, fullfilling the minimum requirement of WP:GNG, which are supplemented by other sources. Also voids the problem of where to merge. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Griggorio2: Your argument-based opinion/!vote is very welcome. The fact that you are the author does not hinder that in any way. Rather, an author might have valuable input as they know how they went about the creation, how extensive their search for sources was in the first place, etc. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rakhmatilla Akhmadjonov

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Ghost Ship (2002 film). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-TICE CUBE) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Ghost Ship (2002 film), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No penalty for creating a redirect from this page to another article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I am 100% certain in my original conclusion. Absolutely does not meet criteria for notability, as he is famous for a single thing (violating WP:BLP1E), plus, I don't want to put too fine a point on this, the article is completely valueless. There's just not enough information on this random dude to justify making a page.
Also, please don't try to imply that this tabloid-style article is somehow "inspiring for the unemployed", it's insulting to those suffering through economic hardship, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the cycle of poverty.
DeVosMax [ contribstalkcreated media ] 05:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Blatantly promotional. – Ploni (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Greece. Ploni (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF#C1, with only one publication having three-digit citation counts in a high-citation discipline [89]; pure mathematics is low-citation, but his publications appear to be on social networks, bioinformatics, and machine learning, all of which are high-citation. The long list of awards is remarkable only for the lack of significance of any of them. He appears to have published a lot, but that is not a notability criterion (nor should it be). Maybe something else will turn up to pass a different notability criterion, but I am not hopeful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Edit conflict) Citations look short of WP:NPROF even considered in the low citation field of Mathematics (and the subject here borders on some slightly higher citation fields). No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Turkmenistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete massively refbombed but essentially a ROTM journalist of no particular distinction. The sources don’t look reliable and independent to me and some at least seem to be regurgitating the subject’s own PR. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s unclear what elevates him above the many other journalists in the profession. Of the sources, 1) quoted; 2) name drop; 3) name drop, 4) interview: 5) his Fotoqraflar website; 6) quoted; 7) interview: 8) launch of a news portal; 9) speaking about the launch of a news portal; 10) speaking about the launch of a news portal; 11) name drop; 12) a report that journalists (inc. him) were attacked; 13) ditto; and so it goes on. None of this is in-depth, independent, reliable coverage of the man so to meet WP:BASIC and I find none. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of WP:CORP notability; sources appear to be nothing but press releases. Borderline G11. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per G11 and G12. (non-admin closure)LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No significant independent coverage, as per WP:ORGCRIT. – Ploni (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Danbury. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it so that it's mentioned, solving to Mangoe's concern. Star Mississippi 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Redirect to Danbury per nom. Redirecting to counties doesn't make sense because the division is too large, relatively speaking (nearly one million residents); also, counties in Connecticut and New England in general hold practically no relevant political power of responsibilities. All of that is delegated to the town level; Danbury is such a town. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's no point in the redirect since the Danbury article doesn't talk about all these non-notable neighborhoods. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 23:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason for this to be separate from main Air India article. See WP:PRODUCT. "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 07:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This probably qualifies for speedy deletion under several criteria, but A11 (made up by the creator of the article) is the most obvious. JBW (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of O Walzer Fuer Die Luftwaffe Characters

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. North America1000 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to have made a scholarly impact substantial enough to warrant an article. The article is also mostly written by the subject herself (User:Dr.spring). – Ploni (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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