Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vexations (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 1 January 2022 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christo Allegra.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 31 January 02 >

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 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Allegra

Christo Allegra (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 supposedly made some notable work, but there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of said work: phi face, MARCO and Swen of the Wirble. He has worked for some notable companies, but so have millions of other "freelance artists". Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not sure what to make of this article. The subject is employed as a Design Director at Spatialize, which is the first sentence of the article and has a primary source. The second sentence leans on an interview, which really should not be used as a reliable secondary source. After that I get lost. The text doesn't document why this digital artist is notable . "He uses his art to express his beliefs on queer politics, WTC, financial data, visualization, and physicalized narrative" doesn't mean anything. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Browne (racing driver)

Jonathan Browne (racing driver) (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 racing driver who has only competed in very minor series and seems to be notable only for one event (winning the Formula Ford Festival). Most coverage is WP:ROUTINE, with this Autosport article and this Formula Scout article coming the closest to providing significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE search. Two of the Formula Scout articles cited in the article do focus on the subject ("FF1600 star Jonathan Browne to race in Indy Pro 2000 with Turn 3" and "FFord Festival winner Jonathan Browne to join GB3 with Hillspeed"), but both are just fairly routine announcements which both relate back heavily to said FF Festival win. What sourcing there is on this driver would probably be far better used creating articles about the events they have competed in rather than in creating a WP:BLP. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15)

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15) (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 TV series article. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't speak Polish so can't speak to the quality of the sources, but just wanted to flag that the main page for this show links to season-specific pages for most of the series, so if the consensus is that this page isn't notable, presumably all the similar ones could also be deleted or merged into the main page. --CameronVictoria (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate one shouldn't be parochial, but I can't see any point in having an article with the Polish name as its title. Presumably anyone who can understand the article's title can also read the Polish WP's article on the subject, and anyone who cannot, will have no idea what the article is about anyway, which renders it utterly pointless to our English-speaking readers. Given that the natural language of English WP is English, it should at least be moved to an English-titled article (e.g. Your face sounds familiar (Season 15) (Polish TV show)), unless it is commonly known in the English-speaking sphere by its Polish name; and if moving it renders it meaningless, it probably isn't notable. Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each of the previous seasons has its own article, and most of them have only a single reference. So there is no rationale for deleting this one that doesn't apply to all the others. Whether they SHOULD have independent articles, and whether it is appropriate to have a Polish title for them, can be discussed elsewhere, probably at the parent article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should apply all the others. It not acceptable for articles not to have references. The standard to pass Afd is WP:THREE. This article doesn't meet that. It does have one reference. Every part of it should be referenced. It is more than a question of fairness. A lot of these folks don't seem to want to put references in. They would rather copy the content from the source, like as happened here and leave as is. That is unacceptable in 2022. Saying they have a single reference doesn't escape the problem. The article was redirected twice, by different editor's and this editor, who has talk page full red warnings, edit warred to bring it and doesn't communicate. I'll get the rest of them in. scope_creepTalk 11:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss GizzyCatBella's merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because I believe they should be part of this Afd as they are effectively unsourced: 
scope_creepTalk 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)

AfDs for this article:
Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan) (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 party has not got any election success. It fails WP:NORG as the sources do not discuss the org in detail, only coverage is for the launch of the party. They have used the same name as a notable political party in India but that is not enough to make this org notable. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Azeez

Lucy Azeez (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)

BLP of a PR professional, sourced to PR. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these you you believe are reliable sources? Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article she is not a “leading business leader”, she’s a head of PR. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli

Aboli (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. Couldn't find any good sources. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never said it was automatically notable. I didn't even respond keep/delete at this point. However, it offers a clear claim to notability that would negate a speedy criteria. matt91486 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. A7 requires a credible claim, and a broadcast show isn't a claim of notability, it's just a claim of existence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, that's just a different matter of interpretation between us. I believe nationally broadcast programs generally by default have credible claims to notability and should be resolved through the AfD process. A local TV series, I wouldn't have the same baseline credible claim in mind. I think this is especially true for series broadcast outside the US and UK, where reporting on TV series is considerably worse and there are real systemic bias concerns for what is covered in easily accessible online sources. matt91486 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11'd shortly after nomination. (non-admin closure) jp×g 12:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sth Nahiyan

Sth Nahiyan (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)

Some guy's resume. All of the citations are to his own website and there are no search results even resembling reliable sources. I don't think being an entrepreneur, full-stack developer, pianist and singer makes you notable (or else I'd be a BLP subject). jp×g 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nokturn Technology Company Limited

Nokturn Technology Company Limited (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 article is very badly written. Of the four references, not a single one mentions the company's name, or is in any way related to it. It claims to have one hundred users. Wow! I do not find anything from a WP:BEFORE search. Since it has an infobox and references, I expect that a speedy nomination would be contested. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamnaa (TV series)

Kamnaa (TV series) (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 a 'before' test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the main article, redirect for the rest, with the option of merging independently sourced content. This discussion is a mess, and has gone on long enough. There is clear consensus that the spinoff articles aren't worth keeping. Consensus isn't clear on the main article; a standalone might be justifiable, or a merger to the article about the founder, but that decision should be taken on the basis of quantities of coverage in reliable sources, and rather than examining that this AfD has devolved into off-topic argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ameen Educational Society

Al-Ameen Educational Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about a non-notable university and its several articles (listed below) that I had nominated through PROD deletion back in October which resulted in deletion. It seems that they were recreated, but nothing has changed in regards to the quality or information about them. Any sources currently used don't mention the school in detail and are only in passing. None of these articles meet GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing notable can be given to any article nominated at an Afd discussion. But appearance is not a requirment. It's whether or not it actually is with sources that qualify in some form of significant coverage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The articles about the colleges clearly aren't notable. The article about the institution might be, but from what I can the references are all either primary or extremely bias, trivial, PR puff pieces. Especially the ones from The Hindu. Which clearly aren't up to Wikipedia's standards. So the article isn't worth keeping unless someone can find references that are. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: Merge all pages associated with the subject to the primary subject, which I believe is likely Al-Ameen Educational Society. I did see a few reliable sources on the primary subject, not each individual department of it. Add sections in the primary page about the various colleges, if relevant and reliable sources are available. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the author of these articles, I leave it to all users for consideration. If not possible to keep it as separate, it can be merged. DreamSparrow Chat 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be fine with merging the articles as long as the target article does not become a dump for un-referenced material or material that is only sourced to primary references. If someone can pick out the few good lines and references from each article and just merge them though without the other stuff I'm fine with it being used as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still needs to be sufficient established notability for the primary page. There have been countless deletion noms from high-scale American institutions like Princeton that attempted having separate pages for colleges, but there must be reason for a primary page first, then all other extensions merge, if relevant. There might be insufficient reliable sources in this case. Multi7001 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. Which is why I said we should only merge the articles if there are good sources to do it with. Obviously I'm not for merging the articles if what we merge won't at all improve the target. I'd be really surprised if we couldn't find 2 or 3 useable references out of the 8 articles though, but it's possible they just aren't that notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am eager to see if the primary page, Al-Ameen Educational Society, avoids deletion. The focus should be on that page, and after the AfD nom concludes, the extensions/colleges should be merged, if relevant. Thus far, only seen strong sources and coverage for the institution's founder. Multi7001 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main page doesn't have enough to survive with sourcing, etc. The article on the school's founder has better sourcing and the sources used on the school's article's are more about him than anything else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might after the other articles are merged or redirected. There's really no way to tell until then though. I guess that's kind an inherent issue with "mass" nominations like this one. Not to say the articles shouldn't have been nominated this way, but doing so does make it a little harder to suss out the best option for all the articles involved in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated as a mass because I had gotten them deleted after PRODDING them just last year as I stated in my nomination. For some reason, they were restored and all had failed per my original PROD nomination. So much so, the navbox that no longer exists for these articles was deleted because it was all red links. I think that if a prod deleted an article then it had merits to be. And if it were recreated, it was probably due to a deletion review discussion, but I didn't find one and the articles haven't changed in any form whatsoever post-recreation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or maybe not) it's pretty easy to re-create articles that have been deleted through the PROD process without any discussion or anything. At least you were able to get them deleted that way in the first place. Normally it's pretty hard for PRODs of schools to not be removed on sight. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Stop saying it does when you haven't read those links that are used as sources. All of those "sources" don't help the article pass notability. Not a single one of them talks about the school in-depth nor prove any notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case is with the references or lack of them it's perfectly fine to have a merge discussion in an AfD. In fact, it's probably better to have it here where people will actually see and participate in the discussion, instead of on some random talk pages that no one will look at. Let alone participate in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, this Afd may interest you since this is the same keep voter who's only here to go after me over one thing and claim that since I've nominated the article I'm causing a problem. And is making false accusations against me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful with pinging specific people so it doesn't look like WP:CANVASS. If certain people are repeatedly making accusations toward you or causing problems in multiple AfDs that you've nominated the best thing to do is to report them to ANI. Reading over that AfD, it looks like both Venkat TL and Valjean are both bludgeoning, making personal statements, and have WP:COMPETENCE issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to canvass, just to alert the behavior and as to why this editor has voted keep. It's a major concern here as over there and on other discussion venues. Because as I've said and as you have said, their behavior is something I've noticed on Afd's where they vote keep since the article exists and find one or two links and thus they think it's notable. Even after repeated instance of trying to ask them how does it pass GNG, they don't respond to that issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know your not. It's still better to air on the side of caution though. I'm not going to vote in the other AfD, but I did leave a comment about the neutrality of references. Hopefully that helps. People often confuse what works in an article with what works for notability in an AfD, when they aren't really the same. For instance it's usually fine to cite a social media link in an article if it's supported by a better references, but no one can claim a social media shows the topic is notable. A lot of people don't know that though. So I'd give Venkat TL the benefit of the doubt that they just don't know the difference, rather then reading malicious intent into their actions. Not that I'm saying you are, just giving my perspective on your disagreement. If you do enough of these you'll learn eventually that it's mostly pointless trying to discuss things with people. 99% of the time people aren't going to change their vote or admit their wrong just because you lay out a well reasoned argument for why they should and are. It's not confined to just keep voters either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of the weaker variety. A move should be considered per Chess' comments. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpa Productions

AfDs for this article:
Chutzpa Productions (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 was a 2015 keep, however I think it's time to look at this in light of current notability standards. This was not discussed at the time, but is an interview/review. I looked through those on their press site as suggested, and they're interviews mostly with Hecht, so not independent. This may be the exception, but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. I also explored creating an article on Hecht as suggested at the AfD, but I don't think there's the sourcing there either. Thoughts? (Will ping contributors to the AfD in a comment) Star Mississippi 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were included in the last discussion. Now again. It's the article space work that doesn't get done. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sound Cloud
  2. Tehran Times - “Forgotten on Sinjar” centers on the overlooked and almost forgotten genocide of the Yazidi people. It sheds light on a remarkable story of Christians, Muslims and Jews, who came together to save women and children that the world had forgotten.
  3. Izzy Stream Israel TV
  4. Times Will Tell (a podcast by Times of Israel)
  5. Times of Israel article
  6. Critics At Large - following is a quote by Hecht in a review authored by Shlomo Schwartzberg, a film critic and teacher at Ryerson University, Toronto: “Festivals are the lifeline of an independent filmmaker or for that matter any filmmaker, Jewish or not.  Hot Docs is the biggest one. Being in a festival like Hot Docs gets your film noticed. After having two films in it for two years in a row, I can tell you that this alone gives you credibility in the very secluded and often snobbish documentary community. I'm not part of the clique, I do my own thing, and Hot Docs has been amazing in giving me a forum to showcase my work. Indeed it has, as one will discover after some deeper research into his work and the films he has produced. WP:Notability can certainly be elusive in situations like this one. Perhaps my experiences as an NPP reviewer/trainer, and retired TV producer helped guide my search for sources and more information. Based on what I've gleaned, Chutzpa Productions is notable, as is Igal Hecht. If an editor has the time to do the research, the article could be expanded to include a section about Hecht, or perhaps a stand alone BLP is an option worth considering. As a sidebar - I wanted to share this little tidbit about notability as it has proven quite useful in some of my training exercises for the NPP school. Atsme 💬 📧 02:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • and slightly too to @Gidonb as it's similar. So many interviews with Hecht. Do they really establish creative notability? It doesn't seem clear whether they work in a way they don't for the company since he's not independent of it. Star Mississippi 14:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your diligence and for asking questions. I have no doubt that the sources in my list establish notability - see WP:NRV. The few sources I found (in 10 minutes or less & there are more) are indeed "independent of the subject" and are not produced by Chutzpuh or Hecht or affiliated in some way (advertising, press releases, autobiographies, subject's website, etc.). If you get a chance, please read User talk:Atsme#Notability as there are many parallels relative to notability in general.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears the owner of the company is more notable than his actual production company. The only source that convinces me this could have an ounce of GNG is this Times of Israel article. Do we have anymore of this? Even in Hebrew? Relisting because I am not convinced at this point and I don't think other reviewers will be, either, that this subject merits inclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Star they are interviews with him, and they discuss him - if someone/some company is the featured focus of an article, than that is legitimate RS.I wouldn't think that's the same as churnalism, which is basically republishing a press release form the company. As far as I understood, if someone is the feature of an article, then it counts, as longs as its not a replication of a press release? Happy to be corrected of course! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Igal Hecht. While the sources Atsme have provided demonstrate notability, the notable entity isn't this production company, but the filmmaker himself. It would seem like Hecht is effectively synonymous with this company to the point that a find+replace of "Chutzpah Productions" with "Igal Hecht" in addition to a move would result in no practical difference to the article itself. On a more pragmatic basis the article would no longer have to be considered under WP:NORG in that case. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 16:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bilibili original programming

List of Bilibili original programming (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 video hosting site. All references are WP:PRIMARY Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Bilibili original programming" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. 李禾子 (2020-11-28). "花大钱搞自制内容，B站怎么想的？" [Spending a large amount of money to product original content, what is Bilibili thinking] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    2. 初霁 (2020-10-13). "自制内容收视率高 B站就"破圈"成功了？" [Original content has high ratings. Bilibili successfully "broke the circle"?]. BT财经 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Sina Corporation.
    Merge to Bilibili

    I am worried that a merge to Bilibili would be either undue weight or would result in the loss of some of the content.

    General notability guideline

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Draftify Article needs significant cleanup, expansion and additional sources, Bilibili is China-only, and all sources are currently primary. These are obstacles the article has to overcome, that much I agree with the nominator. But, the premise of the AfD is not satisfactory to me. If Bilibili is not a notable video service in any form, Bilibili should be the target? That's a whole can of worms, which is why I'd like to focus on the state of the article. Just how new the article is, is a problem. It was nominated for AfD barely a day after creation - and even if other editors came across, a lack on interest in this subject area and scarcity of English-language sources are barriers to improvement. So, I'd say that a more suitable solution is tagging the article for primary sources/other issues, to flag it to others, but given it's entirely primary at the moment it's understandable if that's not acceptable. That's why I think the best solution would be myself and hopefully others - stepping in and to help improve this article. If participants believe it must be removed from mainspace immediately, moving it to draftspace or userspace is a solution that would work. I've gathered at least 5 reliable (at least as far as I can tell) secondary sources after just a quick search, and believe I can both expand the article, and replace at least some of the existing sources. This source in particular indicates that they have far more original series than the article currently lists, for example. However, given the numbers listed there alone, I also think it's likely that article expansion - if I plan and implement it properly - would substantially increase the size of the article, which could hurt the case to merge (given it's a list, WP:SIZESPLIT is limited at best for this discussion anyway, but I figured I'd address this.) I'll get started on implementing some changes shortly - reducing primary sources below like, 50%, much less 10-20% will be difficult, but I'll focus on expansion first, then replacing- input, thoughts and help expanding the article is welcome! Canadianerk (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIZESPLIT. Since the AfD started, this list has been quite significantly expanded, so much so that a merge would make the Bilibili page far WP:TOOLONG. Cunard above has also shown that there appears to be coverage of these series as a group in Chinese, thus also meeting WP:NLIST. While this uses primary sources too much, this is a problem that can be fixed by cleanup, which deletion is not. Link20XX (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lathan Toland

Lathan Toland (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 of this article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO, and I failed to find any coverage about them on Google. Additionally, the subject of this article has requested deletion of the article (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) in the IRC Help channel. JavaHurricane 08:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat No.4B

Flat No.4B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below
  • [1] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
  • [2] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
  • [3] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
  • [4] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
  • [5] is dead
  • [6] is a press release
  • [7] is just a listing of the movie
  • [8] is also dead
  • [9] is also dead

WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [10] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levente Révész

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

WP:BLP of a young racing driver who has only participated in very minor series and seems to at most be notable only for one event (signing to race in FREC). A WP:BEFORE search returns some WP:ROUTINE coverage of race results, but very little signficant coverage from independent sources. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Pendergarst

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

Fails WP:MMABIO notability critera, he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, his highest ranking by Fight Matrix was #72 in the world. WP:GNG is also failed, majority of his coverage is through routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). ✗plicit 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: This closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 12. Sandstein 07:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Will Be OK

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

this is the first part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) and everything said here can be merged into it HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am So Proud of You

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

this is just the second part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A no vote to delete/merge from me. This is not 'just' the second part of "It's Such a Beautiful Day". This was an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2008 and received multiple awards and praise as a standalone piece. It was not edited into the feature film version of the longer story ("It's Such a Beautiful Day") until 2012. For that matter, the proposal to delete and merge the page for "Everything Will Be OK", the first film, is also a mistake. "Everything Will Be OK" was a standalone animated short film that was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2007 and won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. These were originally released as individual short films, viewed by audiences for years that way, and should remain listed here as such. Also, my apologies if I'm not using this interface correctly! Ang-pdx (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sequels can be notable tool. The claim "The film won 27 film festival awards" is worth considering, but I note the "failed verification" tag. Right now the article passes notability based on unverified claims, so the question is, will someone claim said claims are fake or exaggerated? If not, I'd lean towards keeping this while retaining/adding copyediting templates, some of which are already present. This may be the case of a notable topic, poorly referenced - but I didn't bother doing my own BEFORE this time (hence, no vote, just comment). Ping me if more sources are found (or their lack becomes more apparent) if you'd like me to vote one way or another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) The references in the article and results of searches do not support independent notability of this film under NFILM or GNG. The references that are available in independent, reliable sources are not significantly about this film but to the prior film. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Eggishorn, that is simply not true. This article is just in need of more work. This film screened in competition at Sundance, which is notability alone. It was later released on its own, standalone DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/Proud-You-Everything-Will-Chapter/dp/B003JOS9U2/ref=sr_1_7?crid=20MV1HB8QCRYM ...I've added an additional reference, from the filmmaker's own website. This article should stay put. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trotters, North Dakota

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

The old church here is hugely photogenic and is endlessly photographed, in no small part because it stands alone by the side of the road, a short distance from an abandoned gas station which appears to have opened in the mid 1980s, replacing a pair of buildings on the opposite side of the road. Sources imply those buildings included a store at some point, but this is another place where there's no sign anyone actually lived here. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is interesting, though I don't know that I'd call it extensive, as it is more or less the same story repeated at intervals, with some variation due to the passage of time. But more importantly, it's about the post office and the postmaster, and there's precious little about any town except for the assumption that there was one, and some passing mention of the church. It tends to ratify my analysis that the only thing ever here was the store/PO and the church, and that there was never any encompassing settlement. I think the notability claim is a stretch at best, but if it survives, it wouldn't be an article about a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how discussions have gone of late, and in any case, the bigger issue here is that the evidence is that this was not a "community". It was a post office operating out of a store. We have routinely deleted these. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"of Trotters, N. D., being old respected settlers of this community" (The Wahpeton Times, May 28, 1916); "Two inland communities, Golva and Trotters" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 4, 1950); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 6, 1952); "John A. Gorrell of the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 27, 1961); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 28, 1961); "settled in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 2, 1981); "in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Jun. 11, 2006) Doremo (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penpals (band)

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

As far as I can tell, the only feature of this group that meets WP:NMUSIC is the composition of a 1:15 minute long theme song for a 24 year-old anime Berserk (1997 TV series). This act doesn't seem like enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but maybe AFD regulars who review deletion discussions about musical groups can assure me that this accomplishment does make them notable. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few more references (Japanese language).Hindijux (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The added references do not support notability under GNG or NMUSIC any more than the previous ones did. They are to the band's own media or to articles that discuss other bands. They support possible notability for Hayashi Munemasa, who was a member of this band and has apparent RS coverage for two further bands he formed, but notability is not backwards-compatible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Beach

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

Previous discussion ended in no consensus, however, this film still does not have enough to pass WP:NFILM. Merely being shown at Festivals does not guarantee notability. Hopefully a second discussion will come with a firm result. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm finding coverage for the director, who looks like he is probably notable, but I'm not really finding anything for the film in specific. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll grant that I was the nominator the first time, but neither the issues nor the sourcing here have actually changed. An editor removed the maintenance tags in October, without actually addressing the substance of the reasons why they were added in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film being shown here at all, except for a brief glancing mention of the film's existence in an article about its director (which is not enough in and of itself). Simply being shown at film festivals is not a notability freebie in the absence of published reviews of the film by professional film critics in real media, and "notability because awards" is not automatically fulfilled by every award presented by just any old film festival that exists: that attaches only to a narrow elite tier of film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, etc.) whose awards can be shown to garner media coverage, and not to film festivals whose awards have to be cited to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage doesn't exist. That is, an award has to be a notable award (i.e. an award that the media considers important enough to cover as news) in order to make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claims here are cited to primary sources, not media coverage, which means they aren't notability-making awards. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Concur with deletion statements made thus far. If festival awards were to contribute to notability, at least one review would be expected out of the festival to meet GNG. — 2pou (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Taylor

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

I found nothing that shows this singer is notable. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but. I thought the same, but the question is whether: "Taylor discovered that his song "Marie Laveau" had become a hit, recorded by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in 1971 and Bobby Bare in 1973. In 1975, over 12 years after it was written, Taylor and his co-writer Shel Silverstein received a BMI Songwriting Award for the song." means that subject passes WP:GNG due to receiving an award. Jdcooper (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Cardozo

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

Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: [11] (characterizing him as "prominent")[12],[13], [14], and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: [15] (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments)[16] (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments),[17] (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments, [18] (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO [19]. No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased role-playing video games

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

No per-game sources (the last used citation was taken in 2008) with a large amount of WP:GAMECRUFT. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Weapons

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

Fails the GNG. All the refs are trivial coverage or name drops along with other porn stars with hugely augmented busts. Wouldn't have even passed the later versions of PORNBIO. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evdile Koçer

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

There is not enough independent and reliable sources to prove its notability. If we take a look at the sources in the Kurdish Wikipedia article, this one is mostly an interview (non-independent), here is a poem of him, and this one is completely an interview. The only source in the English article is this, and it mentions about his visit to a foundation, which doesn't provide us any notable information to add to the article. Nanahuatl (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin

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

Filled with primary sources and dubious claims, this BLP appears heavily edited by either COI or the subject. I invoke WP:TNT, not notability, as basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to TV.com#TV Tome. ✗plicit 04:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MovieTome

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

There are no significant, independent, and reliable sources for this defunct website from the 2000s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Drescher

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

The subject is a deceased animal performer that does not meet notability guidelines. The only notability of the dog is that it had a role on its owner's TV show from the 90s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_1&oldid=1063158105"