Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Simon Ssenkaayi

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not convinced he is sufficiently notable. Even if he were, I think the article would need significantly trimming anyway to remove the fluff like "Ssenkaayi is a dynamic personality and highly-sought-after resource in both corporate and non-corporate initiatives". This is essentially an advert and not appropriate for an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 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. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Ploni (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources with significant coverage. I'm surprised I didn't nominate the article for deletion when I patrolled it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is obviously a start article and needs to be expanded. Prolific authors should be included in Wikipedia and collectively we should move to improve instead of delete. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale isn't that the article is sparse, it's that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion. We aren't looking to have lots of details about relatively unknown people. Largoplazo (talk) 18:19, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Miranda

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A coach to famous people eh? wow, that's vanity spam right there. non-notable. Created by a red-linked user, surprised it's been around since 2016. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An overly promotional article. Not everyone who has a job, even one working for "famous people" is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Military, and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Drum Bonanza

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and California. 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]

I can't found enough independent and reliable coverage of the show. WP:CORPDEPTH: the depth of coverage is not sufficient. In my opinion, any worthwhile show needs a significant amount of reviews and news. But this fact does not apply Big Drum Bonanza. --Mestrossino (talk) 09:24, 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 merge to Eric B. Vogel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armorica (game)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge&redrect to Eric B. Vogel. The article as written fails WP:GNG (we don't have a Wikipedia:Notablity (games), at best, Wikipedia:Notability (products) can offer some futher insight. Is The Dice Tower video review reliable? They are high profile, but not high enough to prevent the article about this show from being merged to the stubby biography of the podcasdter in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dice Tower (2nd nomination)). Unless we can find more high profile reviews or awards (BGG shows nothing), this is not a notable game. At best we can merge the one liner description of the game to the designer, who has a page (although whether he meets WP:NBIO, that's another discussion): Eric B. Vogel --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 24 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]

A number of reviews are listed here: [1]. That said, I'm fine with a merge to the author. Hobit (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while Dice Tower has mostly one face, it's a pretty big organiation at this point. [2]. It's also widely respected in the field. I'd say it is very reliable in its area (board games etc.). Hobit (talk) 10:58, 3 July 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/	Indepedent.	The source is a board game association, but doesn't seem to have editorial policies.	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!")	Self-published blog, dated design, not reliable.	The source covers the subject in detail.	✘ No
https://rivcoach.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/review-armorica-by-vainglorius-games/	It's indepedent probably, but the site's deleted.	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/	The subject is indepedent.	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.	The article discusses the subject in detail.	✔ Yes
http://detafelplakt.skynetblogs.be/archive/2010/07/20/kleine-dingen.html	The subject is indepedent presumably, though it can't be accessed on my laptop.	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	The subject is indepedent.	Self-published, no editorial policies.	Short, but in-depth enough.	✘ No
https://www.dicetower.com/game/67285/armorica	The subject is indepedent.	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.	Long review.	✘ No
http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/bring_gauls_and_romans_together_in_armorica/	The subject is indepedent.	It seems to have about section and an editor, but the author now posts on BGG, which isn't reliable.	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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 9 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]

Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 16 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]

Delete - There are a few Google hits, but no significant coverage. Even the two sources are not in-depth about them. I tried the book notability angle and couldn't find anything. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:05, 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 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

(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]

That Journal of Mormon History article is here[15].Jahaza (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below is a partial source review. If possible, Jahaza, could you provide links for the unlinked sources above? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 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]

I approached this with every intention to dispute suggestions for deletion since AH was "the first" in something but after I went through the sources proffered above by Jahaza I saw they're mostly about, as Jahaza put it, "the early history of the LDS Church in Russia" and not about our subject. There is no defensible independent notability. Let's Redirect this to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia and Merge there any text that can be saved. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 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) 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]

Weak keep with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 15 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]

delete with redirect and improvement. Any possible notoriety I could find is already stated in the referenced section, but doesn't appear significant enough for a separate page. Redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings. Maybe wording and info can be improved in this section.--Dmm1169 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No evidence that there are sources which address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1E and a not very notable 1E at that, based on the limited coverage. There's little sourcing to show that what this missionary did was important or earth-shattering enough to warrant an entire article. The entirety of this is already in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings anyway. An easy delete vote, but I could be talked into making this a redirect to that section. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard LeBlanc (director)

(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]

Delete He's a flight attendant and was scheduled to be on Strombo in 2008, with no further details. I think he owes us lunch for letting him lag around on wiki for so long. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Brunswick. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. Please do not mock BLP subjects in deletion discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some sources to evaluate include [20], [21] and [22] (I don't know what kind of source academia.edu is), [23]. I have not analyzed these thoroughly yet. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be considered along with the also-unreferenced article Cubers. Merging them, redirecting one to the other and adding sources might be the best option. Jacona (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm inclined to agree that this fails both WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:NACTOR, in spite of the minor media attention his film Cubers received when first released. –Ploni (talk) 23:22, 21 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]

Delete Gusfriend (talk) 06:19, 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 Antonija Šola. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anđele

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Croatia. 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]

Redirect to Antonija Šola. This doesn't meet NALBUM Jacona (talk) 20:38, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaloto Feao

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the top scorer for Tonga national football team. Maybe need expand the article but the idea to delete it is ridiculous and Sportsfan 1234 is notorius his unknowledge about football.--186.176.236.160 (talk) 09:17, 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!} 22:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being Tonga national team's top scorer ever and the second most capped Tonga player is a pretty significant achievement. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:53, 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 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

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of them have enough entries to have a list article such as 2014 in Pakistani television. You can merge short articles together. If they have blue links then verification of what year they were created in can be found in their own articles, no need to have it in a list like this. Also please stop nominating list of this nature. We shouldn't have to keep having the same arguments every time for the same exact sort of thing. Dream Focus 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I even pointed out why I opposed a merge: even merged, there's too little verifiable content. The sourcing just isn't there. Further, "lists of this nature" -- you mean like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1928 in American television, which closed as "delete" for literally the same reasons that I brought to this AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they are saved, sometimes they are destroyed. Its all determined by whatever random people show up to argue. Dream Focus 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how AFD is supposed to work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- these topics are themselves notable, even if the articles themselves are incomplete (as Wikipedia always is). Information on these are typically verifiable by taking the sources from the relevant pages that are linked to (or could be linked to), and the information in the articles, where present, goes beyond the relevant categories by providing specific dates, etc. These aren't the same thing as the late 1920s American TV articles -- Pakistani TV is very well established in the 2000s, as opposed to it being a fairly new and speculative medium in the US at the time of that set of articles. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all They are not even empty and have listed notable items. They can be kept. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a "list" can have only one item on it now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge others. 2005 to 2013 should NOT (!!!) have been spun out and need to be merged back into the parent. The WP:SALAT failure claim is unjustified. Elsewhere, TV program lists should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR, however, that does not apply here as some context is provided. No objection to decade articles. This is actually a good idea! gidonb (talk) 00:20, 20 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Albeit a source we can't rely on for meeting WP:GNG, the local lake association website does describe it as a community separate from the resort.[24] ("This next 1 ½ mile of shoreline is the area known as Cold Springs, named for the natural springs found on the grounds.") Certainly there's great overlap in local usage, however.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:44, 16 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]

Delete Neighborhood lacks substantive independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 01:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything helpful. Fails GNG, not a recognized populated place for GEOLAND. Jacona (talk) 20:41, 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 merge to Human–computer interaction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human–computer interaction (security)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 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]

Merge per above. SWinxy (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/o redirect; I agree that this is too short to be its own article (though I definitely think it could be one someday with a lot of work). However, this title is not suitable for a redirect, since it makes it seem that "security" is disambiguating the phrase "Human–computer interaction", which is wrong. (I'd support redirects from stuff like Human–computer interaction security or Security of human–computer interaction, though.) Also, quick FYI for the nominator: if an article has a list of references/further reading/external links but is otherwise unsourced/under-sourced, then the right tag to apply is not {{unreferenced}}, but rather {{no footnotes}}. Duckmather (talk) 23:03, 25 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep and draftify As it makes life easier! ~~I have to agree, also it rather reads like an attack page...~~ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 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]

For me, if another NCORP-qualifying source appears, this topic just about NCORP meets notability and I'd !vote to Keep. Which is why I think Draftify is a better option right now - for that reason and the re-balancing. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The school is receiving notability in the news https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/21/utah-man-flips-off-his. This article is solely about the school. So there are several article about it now. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Farr4h2004. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on draftifying, HighKing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 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!} 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to vote Keep 1keyhole (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm now a Keep on this, as a second NCORP-compliant source has been published and mentioned above by Farr.~~ I'd withdraw and speedy close as the nominator, but can't do so since there has been another delete !voter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the second source is NCORP-compliant but it's marginal. And as noted above there are serious enough issues that I'd prefer to see improvement happen outside of mainspace. I'm changing my !vote to Draftify. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. Not in good shape at this moment. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SLT article appears to satisfied some here that it meet NCORP. The article is about a neighbourhood protesting the school's proximity. My issue with this article is that to establish notability, it must contain in-depth information about the organization from an unaffiliated source (as per WP:SIRS). There really isn't anything in this article that meets the CORPDEPTH criteria. Firefangledfeathers, Farr4h2004 is there a particular part of that article you think meets the criteria? Happy to [[WP:|HEY]] if I'm missing something here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing. I'm thinking the first few paragraphs of the section "Eva Carlston Academy moves in" are significant enough coverage. Do you disagree? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 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 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Zamboanga City

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and Philippines. Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mass media in Zamboanga City, Category:Radio stations in Zamboanga City and Category:Television stations in Zamboanga City. Note that at WP:NOTLIST it states (underline emphasis mine):

“

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

”

– 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]

Keep Valid navigational list, more useful than a category since it contains more information for people to sort through easier. Dream Focus 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At best this can be merged to the main article of the place. GenuineArt (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not the most helpful of nominations, but this is indeed what this all boils down to. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and Dream Focus, already emphasized as a valid navigation list. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:16, 19 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]

Keep. Zamboanga City has 108k+ bytes, merging this to its "Media" section will only make it longer. I suppose the reason why this article exists is that it was WP:SPLIT from that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bolivia. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many links in the Spanish article, most look to be sourced directly from the newspaper. Can someone comment on the reliability of the other sources? Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has provided no valid reason for deletion. Until that is done how can we have a deletion discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 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!} 22:29, 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]

Delete: A non notable news paper, doesn't meet GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 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 no consensus. A Merger discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 03:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idol: The Musical

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Theatre. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A flop musical doesn't mean it isn't notable, otherwise we'd have very few musical theatre articles. Plenty of sources available. Mark E (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite my initial prod2, I found multiple sources including reviews, which I have added to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It played only in previews and closed on its opening night. A couple of reviewers noted that it sucked. Not an encyclopedic topic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the sources can be verified. The Playbill articles are no longer on the website. I couldn't find any sources in Gnews, not surprising for a play that only had one show over a decade ago. We seem to have one, maybe two reviews and a confirmation of it opening and closing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some words could be added to American Idol#Cultural impact? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the introduction? Maybe if this passes AfD, I'll propose a merger. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:23, 11 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]

Merge to American Idol#Cultural impact. This will require discussion w/ the fanboys over there, as the first attempt was immediately reverted. However, as I stated above, the subject of this article is only notable in the context of the larger cultural phenomenon that is American Idol. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:46, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Utah. MB 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MB, why nominate this for deletion and not also, say, 2012 San Diego elections? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was reviewing the WP:New Pages Feed as a Reviewer and found this one. I am not looking at old articles, just the 14,000 new unreviewed articles. MB 02:55, 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^Δxparlez moi 05:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into what article? Kevin McE (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Eventually this should not be a stand alone article, but all the council elections should be covered succinctly somewhere. Deletion is not the way to get there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If you think these are a violation of what Wikipedia is not, perhaps we need a discussion or RFC regarding all the articles in all the subcategories of Category:Local elections in the United States by state or territory, Category:English local elections by year, and any other similar categories applicable to other countries.. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure while I'm really not a fan of stats only articles or articles about routine events, I wonder about systemic bias about levels of government here. This council covers about twice the population of Montenegro, yet I can't imagine anyone arguing that Montenegrin national elections are routine events. (In the US at least) local governments have considerable powers and are actually competitive, whereas rigged elections in countries such as Azerbaijan or Rwanda could be argued to be more routine since the victor is determined ahead of time, yet we still have articles on these elections. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 16 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Utah. MB 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For now, and try to find a way to merge and condense all the information on these elections. Not worth a standalone article, but deletion is not the best answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into what? Kevin McE (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If you think these are a violation of what Wikipedia is not, perhaps we need a discussion or RFC regarding all the articles in all the subcategories of Category:Local elections in the United States by state or territory, Category:English local elections by year, and any other similar categories applicable to other countries. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely what Wikipedia is not. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:25, 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]

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Syria, Russia, and Ukraine. 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]

Delete No indication if those roles were major. desmay (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news/magazines/TC coverage or major roles in big movies. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:39, 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 keep with the understanding that the article needs a serious overhaul. SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotives

(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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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]
- I do think it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE though... -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:38, 9 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]

Keep. Article being in a poor state is not a good rationale for deletion per WP:Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I agree that a full list of all locomotives will obviously be unwieldly, but that is not a valid deletion rationale either. It just means, as several others have pointed out, that this will end up as a WP:List of lists if worked on. That it hasn't been worked on much, I also find surprising, but that too is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:Wikipedia is not finished. SpinningSpark 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a very comprehensive list/very random selection. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe and Pi.1415926535. I doubt someone can keep this list trimmed, yet comprehensive in a long run. Categories serve a better purpose here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:22, 10 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]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Locomotives, and retain the current formatting of only including notable topics in the list. This article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Concerns about the article size ballooning can easily be addressed by the performance of page WP:SPLITS if that occurs. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the list is in a sorry state. WP:IMPERFECT. The list can certainly be improved and the list is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 17 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and Afghanistan. Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found one source about his writing and added it in. It doesn't establish notability, just a brief mention. But I don't think there is a high chance of finding stuff about a Afghan writer who wrote in the 1950s in English sources, so I hope someone with relevant language skills can take a look. CT55555 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources that help prove notability. As CT55555 mentioned it is difficult to find sources because of when the subject published plus his works not being published in English.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need much more than match reports name dropping a person to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koleta Likuculacula

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be ample coverage in the Fijian media, e.g. [28], [29], [30], etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalNomad (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clear from sources found by EternalNomad. Giant Snowman 18:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 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!} 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukaba Ligavola

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-article with no evidence of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lewamanu Moce

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only passing mentions found so does not meet the requirements of GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Olympics. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is youth sports. There is questionable coverage of the Festival. Five years after, it is a sea of red links with names of the kiddos that competed. For many of them, it may just be WP:TOOSOON, but most likely none of them will ever be WP:N, at least not for canoeing. Wikipedia is not a place for parents to put up brag sites about their kids competitions. We could have millions of articles, and it still wouldn't be enough. Jacona (talk) 10:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Simonelli

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and New Jersey. Ploni (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable works. Only one independent EL from a reliable source, and it is not about the subject, but only a review of one of his plays. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of self-published works does not make a person notable. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:02, 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!} 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party (United States) federal candidates in 2010

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Conservatism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find any SIGCOV discussing these candidates as a group Fails WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:SYNTH. House Blaster^talk 18:51, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lopag

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:00, 29 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]

Delete Fails WP:RLN. Never played top professional league. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 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 In a Dream (EP). ✗plicit 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rager Teenager!

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ 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]

Redirect to parent EP, In a Dream. Useful content can be transcluded there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In a Dream (EP). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Not enough coverage aside from the sources presented and analyzezd by TheCartoonEditor. A brief description about the song can do in the EP's article. SBKSPP (talk) 00:02, 2 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} 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stas Zhitsky

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Ploni (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree fails GNG. Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding evidence of notability in English. No inline citations. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Rizk Abdu

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Religion, Christianity, and Egypt. Ploni (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find anything in Arabic to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If the titles in the infobox are anything to go by the man is making almost delusional claims about himself! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matauddin Peerzada

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, Gujarat, and India. Ploni (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone finds RIS in Gujurati. I don’t find any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see what makes him notable. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most references are in Gujarati, the personality may not be notable enough. I couldn't find significant coverage in more reliable newspapers. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Possible self-promotion. Most of the article is sourced from the subject's personal website. NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:57, 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} 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Chan

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when your sourcing is things like a conferences own short blurb on its keynote speaker we are not dealing with sourcing that shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the 5 sources are either non reliable or self published. Kit2013 is not relevant, woodlandonline is promotional, and so the other sources.Jimandjam (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just aren't any independent, secondary sources - fails WP:GNG. The article itself is WP:PROMO. Jacona (talk) 20:46, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No sourcing exists at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite true, the source I mentioned in the nomination [31] IMO is an example of significant coverage...but we need additional examples to justify keeping the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on making up stuff. There is sourcing in the article, the nominator mentioned it in their rationale, yet you insist on saying "no sourcing exists". DonaldD23 talk to me 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on wikistalking me? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that anyone monitoring any delsorts or similar pages has had you thrust into their faces multiple times per day since you started your current spree? Artw (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have been monitoring PROD and AfD pages for several years now. With the amount of articles you have nominated and deleted we are bound to comment on the same ones frequently. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpoundhammer - the sources could be impeached, but anybody can see there are sources that existed at the moment you posted this. Why would you state there was no sourcing, when there is? I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you aren't capable of reading the article and discerning what superscripts and "References" mean. Jacona (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the implication of "no sources beyond the very meager ones already in the article, which do not constitute sigcov on their own" was obvious, but apparently not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered just not exaggerating/lying all the time? This pattern of behavior from you is incredibly annoying, makes discussion pages look a mess with all the explanation/excuses/counter accusations from you, and wastes a bunch of users time. It is ENTIRELY avoidable if you restrict yourself to truthful statements. Artw (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where in this discussion did you say any of that? Another untruth. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing exists at the moment" had the implied "...beyond the very minimal sourcing already in the article, which I do not feel is sufficient." You want me to spell everything out every time? And maybe lay off the personal attacks? And maybe not twist my words and claim that I'm lying? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing exists at the moment" is completely unambiguous, and is completely false, no twisting of words is required to determine that. Your signature states "What did I screw up now?", which invites other editors to tell you, which has been done. As for WP:NPA, your wikistalking accusation above would also qualify. How about you leave all this kerfuffle off this AfD, which deserves a hearing and take it to either WP:ARBCOM,or WP:ANI where you are so well-known? Jacona (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't imply...spell it out every time. This way there is no confusion. And Just pointing out "what you screwed up now". DonaldD23 talk to me 01:06, 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!} 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.M.G. Kibria

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Bangladesh, and England. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency, noting that I have removed a large block of text copied verbatim from [32], but I have not removed any of the original citations. DanCherek (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited sources are: non-independent capsule bios on the websites of his employers, a passing mention in a press release, brief mention in a tabloid-style medical story, and various papers he has written or citations of those papers. The citation counts are unremarkable for the field of medicine, with his most highly cited paper cited just 30 times. Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG, and no evidence that he meets any criteria of WP:PROF. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 23 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]

Strong delete. Nothing in this article indicates notability. This fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF, WP:SCHOLAR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:58, 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. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Mentioned here in a discussion about his film at Cannes about an Israeli agent [33], here [34] and here [35], with a DVD review at Electric Sheep [36] and at Diabolique [37]. Was featured at the Belfast Film Festival in 2016 [ https://belfastfilmfestival.org/assets/uploads/2016/03/bff-2016-programme.pdf]. Discussed in a magazine(?) in 1988: [38] I can only see a preview. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Museums and libraries, and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article basically reads as a resume and does not really show how this person meets actual inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found some sourcing but I don't think it's enough for professional notability and she's not very well cited. It doesn't appear "National Museum Educator of the Yea" is a high enough profile award to convey notability. Star Mississippi 19:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 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. 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...

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Russia. 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]

Comment it's more the fact that the sources are slim at best, English or not. Leaning delete on this one unless someone can find better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 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

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a number of individuals with the same name, but nothing to suggest this one is notable. Mccapra (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Fehér

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hungary. Ploni (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not remotely meet WP:SCHOLAR. Overall, the biography discloses a rather unremarkable early-career researcher. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this CV synopsis. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:52, 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} 19:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Nand

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 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 Cook Islands national football team#Coaches. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Napa

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cook Islands national football team#Coaches, there is some local hits for Alex Napa for Cook Islands, but I haven't seen anything extensive. It's possible he can pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Oti

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in light of NFOOTY not existing anymore, subject seems to fail GNG. My search results do not come up with anything. He is 'listed' on sites like transfermarkt but there is no actual data about his career. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 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 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. TigerShark (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bailey (politician)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not default notable for such, and the coverage is not to the level to justify an article on an unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. Per nom., not notable per WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, so not presently qualified for a standalone article. His prominent standing as his party's nominee in the upcoming statewide election does warrant a redirect, however. Also per nom., no prejudice against the article's re-creation should he win the general election in November. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bailey is twice the nominee of a major political party for statewide office. Only about 2% of the vote kept him from winning in 2018. Is it truly the case that he has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Such would establish general notability, and per the end of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, make him notable as a politician. —ADavidB 04:45, 28 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]

Redirect/Merge to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary for reasons stated by Sal2021, adding more from this article there. —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]

Moderate Keep. Due to him actually winning the Democratic run-off, he's garnered a lot of coverage from local stations and reputable papers, about how he will compete in the finals, plus an Axios article on his views on abortion. A redirect or merge is another alternative, although it does not make the most sense since he has ran for two elections, and a single page can't exactly redirect to two pages at a time, ya know. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that a single page can't be redirected to more than one article. In this case, redirecting to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary would be the most appropriate course of action (if redirect is the result of this discussion) because it is the higher office sought by the subject. That, I believe, is the standard procedure for redirecting politicians who have run for multiple offices. That's why it's the particular target being proposed. FYI and FWIW. Sal2100 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  His background in the previous election should also be brought up in the redirected article if we're going that direction. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:28, 1 July 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]

Delete: While exceptions to WP:POLITICIAN do exist (see Christine O'Donnell), I do not see anything here that is indicative of such notability. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:13, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frederick Rest

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Martial arts, United States of America, and Ohio. Ploni (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability in the article and the search links don't show anything much. The author has not been seen since 2016 and the subsequent edits have just been cleanup. It's not totally spammy but I agree that it seems at least somewhat promotional. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. There's also no indication he's a notable martial artist or author. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 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} 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Zhumagulov

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Kazakhstan. Ploni (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on kk.wiki and this is essentially just a LinkedIn profile. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete non-notable. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:49, 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} 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Russell

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Ploni (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is even remotely close to showing notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to post advertisements about themself to build their personal brand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, subject does not mean Wikipedia notability guidelines. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:51, 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} 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Ramsden

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Australia. Ploni (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable psychologist. Note the lists of books on the page is misleading-- it's not lists of "influential books" by the subject, but rather lists of books that (are claimed to have) influenced Ramsden--the claim of which is all unsourced. Page reads like LinkedIn/CV, which Wikipedia is not. I couldn't find any RSs in database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (wider and deeper than Google. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF. Cabrils (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not indepth about the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, and is more like WP:RESUME. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undoubtedly UPE spam from a sock farm. Create a user and talk page. Leave it for a bit then develop spam in the sandbox. Hijack an existing redirect to try fool new page patrollers. Move to actual place then retarget the resulting redirect back to the original target. This is not accidental behaviour from a well meaning new editor. It is gaming the system from an experienced shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:20, 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 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just not much out there that doesn't class as a primary source of some sort. Intothat darkness 15:20, 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 and salt. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halasinahalli Temple

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Hinduism. Singularity42 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will need significant rewrite if notable. Salt the title to avoid tiresome recreations. Jay (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and I can't find any links to the temple. Assuming it's in a foreign language. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt Halasinahalli appears to be a modern village, apparently largely Catholic but with a small temple nearby. The latter is not the one described, and the link describes yet another temple. The whole thing comes off as some sort of Hindutva fantasy, to be frank. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ting

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity spam article, no sources. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – my search found no reliable-source coverage that was both in-depth and independent. Ting does not appear to meet WP:BASIC/the GNG, and I can't think of any appropriate alternatives to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VIDA (online retailer)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obvious WP:GNG... I find it hard to square Alexandermcnabb claim of "no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks" with these sources [40][41][42][43][44] which are not routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks, were they missed somehow by the nominator? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 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 (t • c) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies as per WP:SNG unless for exceptional reasons it shouldn't (which I don't see here) - arguments based on "only needs to meet GNG so let's ignore SNG and NCORP and SIGCOV and ..." is not the general consensus of the community. FalconK's analysis is spot on, none of the references meet NCORP. And I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:SNG. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 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} 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Tillinghast

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and California. Ploni (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR notability would seem to be the likeliest, but for that we need multiple in-depth published reviews of multiple books, those are usually hard to come by for poetry, and I don't see them here. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable WP:AUTHOR.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not passing WP:NAUTHOR. Orientls (talk) 05:26, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repost of spam undoubtedly from a upe sock. Hijacking an unrelated page and posting at Jason A. Fox even though he doesn't most commonly use the initial. Bad faithed gaming the system. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:33, 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!} 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Carpet

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, lots for rubber carpet underlays. IMDb only has the film's website, which is on compuserve... Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding anything. Artw (talk) 16:34, 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 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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople ,India and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 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_creep^Talk 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]

Keep: Complies with wp:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yogesh, but could you elaborate on this? John Yunshire (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The government post he holds has a state minister rank Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the sources are: lacking in-depth coverage of the subject; press releases; or unreliable. – robertsky (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Based on Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), he is fairly notable. This news coverage makes him notable in the region since The Times of India is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.Eesan1969 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I contributed this article at AfC, but it's accepted by @Félix An:.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin

There are a number of petitions[45], [46] 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[47] and the Nominator[48] 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]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. John Yunshire (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A run-of-the-mill IT worker that you could come across thousands of them on LinkedIn is hardly notable. Tjczzo (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Tjczzo (talk • contribs) 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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[49]. 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_creep^Talk 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 c̄) 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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) ( 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	Just passing mention only	Just passing mention only	Passing mention only	✘ No
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/12/business/singapore-fintech-hub/	Interview	Interview	Interview	✘ No
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/bill-gates-among-star-speakers-at-singapores-biggest-fintech-festival	Iinterview/PR	~ Iinterview/PR	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
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-04/singapore-s-fintech-honcho-has-vision-of-asian-silicon-valley#xj4y7vzkg	~ Interview	~ Interview	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	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	Single word mention	Single word mention	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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland Movie

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No reliable reviews cited or found, nor meets any criteria under NFO. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:31, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince (2022 Tamil film)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nominator, too soon for an article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It seems like a waste to delete a start article for a movie that will open in 4 months. Any way we could draftify the article and do a move protect? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ per WP:ATD-I until it's shown to meet NFILM requirements. May be move protected as Liz pointed out. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since a draft already exists. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The draft that used to be at Draft: Prince (2022 Tamil film) had citations added with tons of references ranging from project launch to the final stages of filming right before the other user moved the previous version of the page to this current article. What my thought is that we recover the older version which had all of these and then replace this article with those contents after the AfD. I would like user Ab207 to comment on this approach. SP013 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SP013: I think you are referring to this version of the draft. Seems that it's more developed than this page, so I restored the draft before it was redirected to this page.

My understanding is that Berntarnelol has created this duplicate page without any sources to circumvent draftification (done first by DaxServer, later by Praxidicae). To fix this issue, GeoffreyT2000 has redirected the original draft to this page, even though that was more developed.

So I think keeping original draft and deleting this duplicate page would be a better option. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the issue, which is that it has been repeatedly created in mainspace and there is no evidence that it currently meets WP:NFILM. So if that changes, then we can discuss but in the mean time, I think the AFD should continue on the basis that we can't predict the future and outside of "x is filming" and "x is in the film" there is no meaningful coverage of the film itself and there isn't guaranteed to be any. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my comment is well within the purview of this AfD to decide the fate of this page. The original draft which was being developed by SP013 was boldly redirected this page, putting it at the risk of deletion. Unlike the article, the draft didn't have to meet any NFILM requirements. If anyone is of the opinion that even the draft shouldn't exist, it can be nominated to WP:MfD. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about deleting the draft, so I'm really not sure what your point is. No one is requiring the current draft to be deleted as a result of this AFD. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Ab207 is trying to say is that after this duplicate page is deleted the draft that was in place should be moved to Prince (2022 film) since it has enough content to meet the WP:NFILM requirements. SP013 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the draft is better, I don't think it meets WP:NFF yet, needs a lot more work before coming to mainspace. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"That doesn't change the issue, which is that it has been repeatedly created in mainspace": This prompted me give a further explanation as I wasn't trying to change the issue. My apologies if there's any misunderstanding but I have seen the all the redirected drafts being deleted as a result of AfD, so I felt the need to clarify that. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't have a notable production [yet], thus failing WP:NFF; which is why I draftified the original version in one of the variants. Either way, the draft Draft:Prince (2022 Tamil film) (ignoring the dab) is almost identical to this article. It could be improved upon, better sourced and then could be moved to mainspace when it attains notability. Draftifying this while we already have another version is just redundant — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFF and DaxServer. A draft for this upcoming film already exists. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON - SUN EYE 1 18:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:09, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Chinga

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

Non-notable musician, fail of WP:GNG/WP:NMUSICIAN nearlyevil 665 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:MUSIC and the article uses puffy language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 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]

Delete Nowhere close to passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proton Dental (talk • contribs) 15:07, 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. ✗plicit 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batya Ungar-Sargon

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any truly indepedent sources giving coverage of this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 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]

Delete: There are a lot of articles by her; however, significantly fewer about her. She does not pass WP:NJOURNALIST and while there might be a path forward for her notability on WP:GNG, I was not able to find one. TartarTorte 19:10, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Zehnasheen (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single blue-linked film in her 'filmography' does not name her as a cast member. Agree with nom: fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG Ab207 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability.Alphaonekannan (talk) 16:10, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pawthereum

(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)

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can make out, this is an undergraduate film project - and did not see wide distribution, make a cultural impact (as reflected by independent, in-depth coverage) or indeed win a major award. All of this, plus the lack of sources, fails WP:GNG and also WP:NFO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits on the film, you get a scattered mention of the "Club scene" in a particular city. Non-notable student film. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:NF, the sources are missing to pass it. It is also not able to pass WP:GNG.Jimandjam (talk) 11:20, 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. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gibson (footballer)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 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 for articles that until recently would have been considered to be notable. That is obviously not uncontroversial. It is also 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) 10:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 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. Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable, un-related sources and UPE, all are problems. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is middle author on a couple of highly-cited, highly-coauthored papers. I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The journal editorship is of a new journal [50], which does not pass WP:NPROF C8. Little other sign of notability, and WP:TNT is relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:PROMO, Lack of WP:RS and WP:GNG thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:31, 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 keep. ✗plicit 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of waterfalls in Iran

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:04, 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 Ten blue links, so a valid list. Dream Focus 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid directory for the entries that have articles, complementing Category:Waterfalls of Iran, provided that all the non-notable entries are removed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good list. Obviously the article needs to have much less editorializing, including removing whatever waterfalls are "most important". As to whether I can find RS... I'm afraid I can't read Farsi. A couple of Google hits to questionable sources like [51] [52]. [53] is an actual news website listing it (friend says it's titled "6 waterfalls and pictures" and looks reasonably reliable). [54] is a book titled "The book of Iranian waterfalls". Easy GNG pass. Ovinus (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Djflem (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, the article provides a nice introduction and guide to the topic. I rather believe the editors/authors are correct in which are tge more important ones but sure, tag with call for sourcing. Having 10 blue links is fine, but none at all are required. The more important items without articles currently should be redlinks, with footnotes to sources, indicating where articles ate needed....--Doncram (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but non-notable waterfalls can be removed from the list. desmay (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article presents a fair content of waterfalls in Iran.--Navid100P (talk) 07:15, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane University in popular culture

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, Lists, and Louisiana. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of trivia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last time I looked, WP wasn't a university yearbook. If it is noteworthy, it's worth adding to Tulane University, with restraint it could be perfectly manageable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being a random collection of trivia, some of this is misplacing things. If you say "this is happebing at HArvard", the pop-culture reference is to Harvard. It is not to some other non-named university you are using to film because it is easier or cheaper to film there than at Harvard. Such things maybe could be mentioned in the article on the film, but we do not need a list of such trivia for a university itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:NOTTVTROPES. Just trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after checking what TV tropes is. This is WP:OR without enough reliable independent sources to write an article. Jontesta (talk) 01:37, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Cates Sullivan

(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"[55], 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"[56], 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[57] are extremely low for a supposedly bestselling American fiction author with many books and awards. Looking for her original name doesn't help[58]. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woeful author self promotion at its worst. Sourcing is awful - Kirkus Reviews, for instance, sells reviews - and I suspect many of these marginal 'awards' would be obtained on a similar basis. Agree with nom about search - and lack of independent reviews, coverage and comment on this self-published author (not in itself a bad thing, just for WP notability purpopses!) all point to an exceptional lack of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of self-promotion. Agree that most awards are non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is irremediably non-neutral. This does not mean that the subject is or is not notable, but this article is a distraction from any effort to see whether she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her books have been reviewed by Kirkus and Publishers Weekly. Kirkus does allow paid reviews, but they're not always positive and I don't know how to tell if hers was paid or organic. It's a weak pass of WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kirkus has two types of reviews with the paid type having the word "Indie" in them, and this is that type. So she only has two book reviews (I searched extensively) and one of them is paid, so she fails WP:AUTHOR. CT55555 (talk) 03:19, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Air Flight 203

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Florida. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a common runway overran as the landing gear and nose collapse caused an engine to explode and a large fire which consumed most of the right wing and writing off the airframe. The incident also just recently occurred so it’s too soon to determine the causes and it’s aftermath. ThePoi (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accident, nothing too notable. No external coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:AIRCRASH. Passenger plane incidents that result in the entire loss of the plane are much rarer than runway excursions and landing gear collapses.--66.76.243.26 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major accident that took place that resulted in the plane catching on fire and it’s belly resting on the ground. Just because no one died, does not mean it’s does not meet the criteria for notability, there is several articles about plane crashes on Wikipedia with zero causalities reported. BigRed606 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only are major aircraft hull losses at major international airports remarkably rare as mentioned above, this incident has been covered extensively by multiple reputable aviation sources and major U.S. news networks. Additional sources reflecting this coverage have been added to the main article. This incident shut down a runway at a major U.S. airport that is not only incredibly busy but also a hub for American Airlines, among the biggest if not the biggest airline in the world. This is quite a unique and notable incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this nomination may have been a litle premature. It does now seem to be getting picked up by multiple reliable sources and more details of the circumstances of the accident are emerging. Passes WP:GNG now. Buttons0603 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a breaking news event of an accident that may be one of the more prominent American aviation accidents of the last few years. I believe nominating it for deletion is uncalled for, especially as the information is still coming in. - Navarre0107 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Don't rush to delete articles. House Blaster^talk 22:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This incident is similar to Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 which also made a runway excursion and caught on fire. If Red Air Flight 203 is being considered to be deleted, why hasn't Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 had a deletion consideration too? GDFilbert (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass GNG. And also suggest change title to RED Air. Air Astana 1388 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 66.76.243.26. Death tolls aren't a measurement of notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The aircraft involved was an MD-80 variant, which is rarely commercial airlines fly it now a days. Could possibly be the last MD-80 accident with a commercial airline. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JulTrio (talk) 00:32, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatwas

(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. Reywas92^Talk 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]

Keep Though some WP:UNDUE summaries need to be reduced. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:24, 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 merge to Cumberland University#Athletics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sports. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This would be more appropriate (with less detail) under Cumberland University#Athletics. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with Cumberland University#Athletics. Doesn't independently pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 23 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]

Delete A very brief mention in the parent institution's article(s) may be appropriate but the subject does not merit its own article, particularly one this detailed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs I Need

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no proof of sustained coverage. Was made by a non-notable company and won an extremely non-notable award. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barrett, A. (2005). Drug companies face the music. Student BMJ, 13 doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/sbmj.0509350a
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
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]

Delete. Do note that I've filled in the references to be more accessible. I feel this does not meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the NYT articles mentions it in 8 of the 16 paragraphs (with the article mainly about viral marketing, not on Drugs I Need); the other one does address the topic directly, but not in an in-depth manner. The BMJ piece is even more surface-level: a regurgitation of the video. And for the award, only one paragraph mentions it. Out of the four sources, they don't amount to much. SWinxy (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Artw (talk) 01:53, 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 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name attracted significant media coverage, all listed in the references, and has been among the most used names from the series, which meets general notability. A stand alone article is justified for both Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name), which has been among the top 1,000 names for American girls over the past decades. Both meet notability requirements. This particular editor seems to be a “deletionist.” I am an “inclusionist” and believe articles that are properly referenced belong on Wikipedia. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this as well as other articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last three sentences have no bearing at all on this AfD, they won't change the outcome. Please don't personalise discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do go to application of policy and when deletion is appropriate. The comments above are not intended as personal, just an observation that there is a difference in philosophy regarding articles of this type. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name, as a name, meets GNG per sources already in the article. When the New York Times covers it, it's a pretty sure bet it merits a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but why split this from Khaleesi (given name)? One article about Given names inspired by Game of Thrones might be enough, and frankly, I am not sure this can be more than a WP:SUBSTUB. A paragraph in Game of Thrones#Cultural influence seems totally sufficient, at no information loss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of editorial discretion? I have no objection to that. As an enforced outcome from AfD? Nope. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Game of Thrones#Cultural influence, or at minimum, merge the two into Given names inspired by Game of Thrones, per my comments above - I am concernd that each name, sparately, does not merit a stand-alone article, and even if merged, the topic is just part of the larger theme, i.e., GoT's in culture. This is why I strongly concur that we do need an article on the cultural influence of Game of Thrones/Game of Thrones in culture where this should probably end up one day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t object to merging it to an article called Given names inspired by Game of Thrones but I do think Cultural influences of Game of Thrones would be too broad. The latter would be better as a category. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Game of Thrones#Names, a new subsection under Game of Thrones#Cultural influence. Personally, and I don't think this is part of style guides in use, I don't think standalone name pages are in order until and if there are notable people who have the name have been identified. There are no notable people so named today for this name. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is already an unwieldy monster of an article, far too long. Subheads don’t really help. I could see Cultural influences of Game of Thrones as a category with separate articles on names, fan conventions, fanfiction, whatever else, etc. I disagree regarding standalone articles on names. I judge notability by widespread usage, media coverage, a sudden increase in use prompted by something like Game of Thrones or a celebrity, etc., as in the case of these two articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:08, 8 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

Keep and oppose redirect/merge per Jclemens. Any discussion of a merge or redirect should happen outside of the AFD process through the normal editorial process.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:CONRED, AfD is an acceptable place to discuss contested redirects as well, no need to have that discussion elsewhere. Fram (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprised to see that it is staying in this form since 2005. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unsourced, unsupported by citations; an essay. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Ferris

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this page should be deleted. We just need to obtain more information about her from reliable sources to make this page better. It'll be a team effort and will be worth the wait once the work is all done. Dipper Dalmatian 08:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added coverage of her career which dates back to stories in 2007. While the older coverage is local (The Cairns Post), as her career has progressed she is on Australian broadcast news, National Indigenous Times, and The Catholic Leader. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears notable. References added have improved the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Nicaragua

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nicaragua. Fram (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria we have for lists. A list like this belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per rationale applying to other lists of this nature. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should conclude that this subject is not notable just because some other similar topics were found not notable. Let's judge each topic on it's individual merits please. A minority of similar lists were also kept because sources supported their notability. I think it is a notable topic, as per the independent, coverage as follows:

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.
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.
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]

I can't access the first 2 at the moment, but the third has all of 2 sentences about people on stamps, in a longer paragraph about Nicaraguan politics and stamps (e.g. stamps showing an incorrect borderline, and a stamp showing a volcano). An interesting addition to an article about the postal history of Nicaragua, but hardly convincing to keep this list. Fram (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one has the most content. The second one is a passing mention. The third one is a sentence or so. Please judge notability base on the sum of all sources. CT55555 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if we can source that these people existed on stamps, there are no sources explaining why cataloging this is noteworthy. Same as all the others. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"All the others"? While most similar AfDs resulted in delete, some were kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Romania

Please assess each article based on its individual merits. CT55555 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the implication of "all the others that were closed as delete" is obvious enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DICTEF, no evidence this meets GNG. If this is a unique type of an artifact, the artcle doesn't make the case for it, sourcing is inadequate and badly formatted. Considering the substub size, poor framing (abou a "word"?) and poor referencng, WP:TNT applies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abracadabra! (video game)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an old game, it's entirely possible we are missing old print sources. However, we can't assume they exist. Mobygames (itself unreliable, but a good source for finding reviews that may be reliable) has zero reviews listed, where many old games have several print magazines generally listed. There's unsurprisingly no hits in WP:VG/S's search engine. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to, presumably, Tutankham#Legacy, where it is mentioned. While I don't see enough coverage for an article in what is present now (I did not search myself for more), I think the commentary we have should be WP:PRESERVEd in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 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]

Comment: Upon doing some further research, I found a couple old print mentions of the game, although both of them are passing. An article in Creative Computing merely says that it's a "two-player maze game", and an article in Analog Computing mentions that it's one of four arcade/action games released by TG Software. If there was an article on TG Software, we could merge it into that, but information on the company also seems to be scarce. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding [59], the Polish website, it's seem decent - as in, they do discuss their review process, they do interviews, they have a video YT channel. At the same time, they are not a traditional magazine, and are "new media". I'd classify them as fanzine, but shrug, potato, potato. Considering WP:VGRS, I think they are not worse from many other sources out there. All that said, WP:GNG requires two sources, so we are one short... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a second source: [60], but it is also in Polish. Griggorio2 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it scrapes by GNG due to the Komputer review Griggorio2 linked, as well as a review in Zong, as seen here. Waxworker (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's a good one, thank you. I will include it in the Reception section. Griggorio2 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? - seeing as I'm the author of the article, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to vote, or if it's even a good practice - if not - please disregard my vote. We managed to find two contemporary sources - this game was really popular in my country back in the day, so I'm frankly somewhat surprised we couldn't find more. Griggorio2 (talk) 05:52, 21 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]

Keep - I am satisfied with the sources found, sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 22 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]

Keep with three independent reviews seems to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This search really results in a haystack! Kudos to those above who have managed to find the needles! The sources that have been found here are sufficient SP:SIGCOV. The topic passes WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 10:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhmatilla Akhmadjonov

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Uzbekistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional profile of a non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at speed. "He is one of the most educated, mature and young specialists in Uzbekistan." Lovely. Fails WP:GNG in spades. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just a crosswiki spam (just deleted it from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source section is a hoax (Dom-2, followers, Fort Boyard). All sources are fake.—Iluvatar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 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. ✗plicit 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Ritter

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete intial plus last name is not really a good point to redirect from. Beyond this the 1904 Olympics were hardly an Olympics at all, basically just an auxiliary to the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair, and not really a top international competition, so assuming that there is any reason to redirect from all the names of the competitors is just plain not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 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]

Delete; oppose redirect. Fails GNG, and the 5 people listed at Ritter (surname)#P (among others) are more likely search targets; redirecting to a sports event would likely cause readers great surprise. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are sports DB's, and we don't even know the first name. Fails every notability guideline. That's just not enough to go on, and unacceptable for redirect. Jacona (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This can be renamed to P. Ritter (gymnast) then P. Ritter can be redirected to the surname. Then the article can be redirected to the US 1904 Olympics page, and the AFD is unnecessary and can be deleted. Is there a reason this has not been done already, other than the opportunity to improve some participants' AFD stats? 82.132.185.171 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent proposition! Jacona (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no value in retaining such an obscure redirect and there is no content or article history worth preserving since all we have just a mirror of the database it was copied from (so fails WP:NOT). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:34, 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!} 06:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. Gauthier

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's artistic individual all-around. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Note that a previous attempt to redirect the article was undone by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that previous blank-and-redirect was done during an AfD, and because a redirect is not suitable here as readers looking for E. Gauthier can reasonably be searching for dozens of other unrelated articles. BilledMammal (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this person. There is no reason to assume someone searching for this letter plus last name combination would want to find this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 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]

Weak Delete The first ref might be reliable but is definitely not significant coverage, the second is both unreliable and insignificant. I could see another profile in the Olympics website about him, but this is not notable nor is it sufficient coverage, and I could not find any evidence of him winning any significant medals to justify the Sports criteria. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; oppose redirect. Fails GNG, and the 3 people listed at Gauthier#People with the surname (and others, e.g. we have articles for an E. Gaultier, 2 people named Gautier, etc.) are more likely search targets; redirecting to a sports event would most likely cause readers great surprise. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also concerns above about how many E. Gauthiers there are in the world. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no coverage outside sports databases, and without even a first name, it's useless to continue, useless for redirect. Jacona (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!} 06:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Defert

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Tennis, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tennis at the 1896 Summer Olympics – Men's singles. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ITF has a profile page for him here, which interestingly notes his nationality as Belgian. I have no Dutch or German knowledge so maybe there are sources there and not just in French, or if anybody can access Belgian newspapers, maybe something can be found there. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria. No reason to supposed someone looking for this initial plus last name combination would even be looking for information on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning D There are maybe 800 people with this surname worldwide, making it far more useful than many of the other "initialed" athletes currently being nominated. Still, identifying who J. Defert is problematic. Interested in followup mentioned by Adamtt9. Jacona (talk) 11:26, 16 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]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, even if he did look Defert in the eye. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought I had already voted delete, but realized I had not. We really don't have enough to go on without a first name. Jacona (talk) 16:08, 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-T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ship: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Ship (2002 film), where there is already a sub-section mentioning the soundtrack album. This is common procedure for movie soundtracks for which there is information about artists and tracklists, but which do not qualify for separate articles due to WP's album notability rules. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Ship (2002 film) per the above reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Ship (2002 film). Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Not notable in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 09:05, 25 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 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]

Strong Delete: provides absolutely nothing of substance to the encyclopedia, and the premise of a feel-good "rags to riches" fantasy isn't justification to keep a glorified LinkedIn profile around. Doesn't even mention the single event they are supposedly famous for. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 07:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, very brief article here regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG - a brief quirky item for the end of a bad news day, perhaps, but not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means we do not cover news events as such, and only things that have long term impact. It also means that we do not have to have an article on every person featured in a filler feel good story meant to fill out a slow news day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:02, 24 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 [ contribs • talk • created media ] 05:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a feel good exercise; either notable or not. No biographical info and basically a bullet point article. I'd support a redirect to Queue area. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also, I highly doubt that this article does anything to actually help the unemployed, especially given that this is an article that averages below 1 pageview per day. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leaving aside the fact that this does not read like an encyclopaedic article, there is no sign that this individual comes close to meeting notability thresholds as others have noted. Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodelle Duverseau

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Haiti. Ploni (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional profile based on some very dubious sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So awful, it promotes an Insta follower' into a 'devotee'. Fails WP:GNG, sourcing as noted above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is spam about a non-notable person. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed all the promo. I also searched to try and find good sources, I found none. CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Novick

(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]
- Has anyone in this discussion ever MET or heard or seen Jeff Novick present? He was (believed to be) the brains behind the Pritikin Clinic in Florida. MaynardClark (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Unfortunately/fortunately, my opinion on his presentation skills do not matter a whit. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:54, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NPROF; appears to be created by WP:COI editor given editing pattern + ownership of image and its use elsewhere. Melcous (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently sourced, fails WP:GNG. COI is a worry. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 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!} 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Panicker

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:NAUTHOR. Goodreads; Facebook; Createspace as sources? Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:TOOSOON, too many self published sources, fails WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, I looked in-depth wasn't able to find notability per WP guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Profile should be kept due to this profile is about renowned writer from Lucknow, India and keeps notability Aksdw (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are not, well, great. YouTube is used as a source too many times. It is generally not acceptable to use YouTube as a source. The sources that aren't YouTube also are not the best. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (see WP:BATHWATER) but I think deletion will encourage another user to create an article on him and do it even better. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 21:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Vlamos

(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 [61]; 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

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South Africa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "...and there is no player list for his team to redirect to". The create one! This is the very kind of 'laizness' I find most frustrating on here where people leave it to others to do stuff, much like the orphan taggers *sighs* StickyWicket (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that easy, you could have just made one instead of spending the time to insult me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could have, you know, be constructive and build an encyclopedia... StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the guidance of WP:NSPORTS2022 now and that makes this sort of easy: fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Western Districts cricketers (unless there's a better name?) in the long term. In the short term, while someone finds the time to create this, an alternative redirect would be simply South Western Districts (cricket team). List of South Western Districts representative cricketers - now created using a red link and the data from the category. It's incomplete but easier for other people to work on if we have something to go on (added UTC: 08:39).

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

(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]

Delete per nom; supplementary searches reveal only coverage derived wholly from press releases. The article was deprodded without comment. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 04:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional; nothing out there about them in the English press at least other than press releases and interviews. Maybe it will be notable someday; not now. FalconK (talk) 08:50, 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efkonindia

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Austria. Ploni (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12: Apparent copyvio of [62]; the same language also appears on other directory websites, such as [63]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:28, 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 23:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Tornyi

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. 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]

Delete per nom. Found generally retreads/forks of source 1 online. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 04:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing non-existent, fails WP:GNG. Search reveals very thin notability gruel and active self promotion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Connecticut. MB 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfield County, Connecticut per nom. Ideally the list of unincorporated communities there would be expanded into a tabular list that would accommodate the encyclopedic information currently in this article, but that isn't an AFD matter. -- Visviva (talk) 03:45, 20 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^Δxparlez 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carguychris (talk) 21:27, 16 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

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 8 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]

Delete, no evidence of notability and secondary schools no longer assumed notable unless demonstrated to be so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and Germany. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3, no content except for a restatement of the topic and empty sections. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No main article for this, nor can I find evidence that it actually exist. Dream Focus 03:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clearly Wp:A1, WP:A3, WP:A11, WP:N. Appears to just be spam for a teenager’s pet project— the only thing searching the author’s name gets is a very badly written TVtropes page, and the creator of both this page and the TVT one has “nowak” in their name just like the author. Dronebogus (talk) 04:57, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Kasparek

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Texas. Joeykai (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 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]

Delete. WP:NBASEBALL does not appear to be met. A majority of the sources given as references are simply related to transactions; of the rest, those that meet WP:RS are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:02, 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!} 03:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emiel Burrow

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources that show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn’t find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:BASIC. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thane Beal

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find sources, but can't find them. Clearly it fails WP:GNG.Jimandjam (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Facebook and Soccerway are present on the page but these are not acceptable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Scarborough shooting

(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]

Delete Shootings happen all the time here in Toronto, this one isn't particularly notable, almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looked like this might have had some traction when it was reported as a mosque shooting, but it happened blocks away from the strip-mall mosque where the victims had attended prayers and was most likely a case of mistaken identity (drug dealers mistaking the victims for rival drug dealers rolling onto their turf) than some kind of hate crime. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable enough event to merit an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, it should be moved to a more descriptive title. In trying to find information about this shooting, I largely came across information about an unrelated shooting in Scarborough in June.^[2] TartarTorte 19:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't indiscriminately keep an article about every single shooting that happens in the world; we need to see long-term significance that would pass the ten year test, not just "this is a thing that happened", before a permanent Wikipedia article about it would become justified. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Baringer-Tahiri

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, the second reference is already good enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second source already arguably meets rule 3 in WP:N. Combining that with [64] and [65], which give him some coverage, that should be enough to keep. EternalNomad (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above . Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:45, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Oregon. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find sufficient secondary coverage to meet WP:NBIO (NBUSINESSPEOPLE goes to a common outcomes page, not a guideline page). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:54, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Cooper

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Sexuality and gender, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity spam. No reliable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Occasionally, vanity spam could be re-written into an appropriate article. I do not consider this subject to be covered by enough reliable independent sources. Does not appear to meet any notability requirements at WP:NACADEMIC. No evidence their work is highly cited. Does not meet WP:BIO either. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not convinced meets WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or even WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI PhD Spring Cooper article is authored by User:Dr.spring. Not notable, anyway, but this appears to be self-authored. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 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.

[1] ttps://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2022/05/24/khaleesi-two-suspects-charged-murder-staunton-girls-disappearance-pressumed-dead-augusta-county/9904766002/

[2] ttps://www.wicz.com/story/45860450/khaleesi-martinez-this-child-model-has-taken-the-internet-by-storm

[3] ttps://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/lil-joffrey-game-thrones-baby-names-n1004541

[4] ttps://globalnews.ca/news/8932717/scarborough-shooting-2/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]