Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 05	June 07 >

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 04:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Keeley

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

Lacks notability; finished third on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable relity show participant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete participating in a reality show doesn't mean automatic notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 9 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 Harlem#Culture. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it. Star Mississippi 03:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Night Market

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

Seasonal monthly event that has only local coverage. Does not appear to be notable. Paid creation. valereee (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. valereee (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harlem#Culture. Easy. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:32, 6 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!} 23:46, 6 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. Sourcing has been identified Star Mississippi 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred (Heroes)

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

Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. At best, redirect to List of Heroes episodes. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 reviews cited in the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the season. More than basic routine reviews need to exist for an episode to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another review at Slant Magazine [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 03:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – With three in-depth reviews from independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage, the topic passes WP:GNG:

1 – 10 paragraphs
2 – 14 paragraphs (the 5 in the "Stray observations" section are shorter, but the rest are not)
3 – 6 paragraphs

These are not basic routine, fleeting reviews; they are quite extensive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, unnecessary extension of the list. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – based on citations provided by North America. Lovewiki106 (talk) 20:33, 12 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 Winkie Country#Locations and inhabitants. ✗plicit 10:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oogaboo

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

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. WP:PROD and WP:REDIRECT were reverted without consideration for Wikipedia policies or good faith efforts to improve the article. Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tik-Tok of Oz, the first Oz book it appeared in, and the only one of the Baum books in which is played any kind of significant role. There is absolutely no justification for this to be an independent article, as there are no sources that shows that kind of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Winkie Country in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winkie Country#Locations and inhabitants. Goustien (talk) 13:21, 4 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!} 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per all. Topic doesn't have enough reliable independent sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY but there is a consensus to preserve some of the primary material. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Winkie Country or Tik-Tok of Oz. I found no evidence to suggest that Oogaboo merits its own article, and there is no referenced content to merge. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No reference, no notability, no content to merge (due to lack of said refs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana (reenactment)

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

Unnotable, a quick google search finds nothing and all sources currently cited in the article aren’t used for information about the group, most even seem to predate it MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the sources are about the actual Roman Empire, not the modern-day reenactors, which is taking the notability by association argument to extremes. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would appear to be a promotional article using other references to establish the article. There isn't even a Dutch wiki article, leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas with The Judds and Alabama

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

Previously G7'd by myself in 2008, then endorsed at DRV. The revised version fixes none of the previous incarnation's problems. The sources are a completely blank AllMusic listing, the album's liner notes, Discogs (which is user-generated and not reliable), and the chart positions. I found no results besides the chart positions on World Radio History, an archive of music magazines. Newspapers.com yielded the album title solely in "new releases" columns, and ProQuest turned up nothing of note. All of the content was previously released by these acts on other albums, so it's clear this was just a budget-line compilation with no intent of being a long-term product. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 05:49, 5 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!} 23:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:XY. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:28, 7 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. Star Mississippi 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary (upcoming film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an upcoming film, not yet sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFO.
As always, Wikipedia does not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film project that enters the production pipeline -- we permit that for exceptionally high profile projects (Star Wars, Marvel, etc.) that get a lot of coverage during the production process, but for most films we need to wait until they've been released for the purposes of having critical attention and/or notable awards.
But the sourcing here consists of one casting announcement, one Q&A interview with the star in which he briefly namechecks this film's existence without saying anything substantive or notability-building about it except that it exists, and one primary source PDF "rumour list" of projects in the pipeline which is not a notability-supporting source at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it actually gets released and can start showing proper film reviews, but neither the substance nor the sourcing on offer here are already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it needs an update, rather than a delete. Here's some reviews:

Keep – According to some sources, the film has already commenced and finished principal photography, so it meets WP:NFF. This article from August 27, 2020, which provides significant coverage, states that "Solitary releases August 31st". However, this apparently did not come into fruition, as this source from December 3, 2020 states that the film "is currently in post production." This article also provides significant coverage, in my opinion. This source provides a few paragraphs of non-interview coverage, and may not constitute significant coverage. Still, with two in-depth, independent reliable sources, the film meets the minimum requirements of WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found proving it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 04:42, 12 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. on whether sourcing is sufficient, and I don't think a 3rd relist will bring additional insight. Star Mississippi 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axis of Evil (film)

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, and the only source cited is a glancing namecheck of it in an article that provides a broad overview of the lineup of one film festival that it screened at -- but films aren't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead require evidence of awards and/or analytical attention from film critics. But all I can find for coverage is more very brief namechecks such as this and this, providing more cursory confirmation that it exists as a short film but not really bolstering notability by having more than 50 words to say about it.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, France, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some bits and pieces review-wise for this. Reviews for short films aren't always the longest, especially if the film itself is pretty short. It does seem to have gotten attention when it released. It's also held in the collections of the Cinémathèque québécoise. It could probably pass on that angle, but I think that combined with the shorter reviews could justify a keep. To be honest though, it would probably be better to have an article on the creator and have this mentioned there along with his other films. There seems to be enough coverage to justify one. It's one of those moments I wish I was still with Wiki Ed since this would have definitely been an article that would've been up the alley of several classes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a French language article at fr:Pascal_Lièvre, if anyone is interested. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Honestly I am not sure if it deserves to be kept or deleted. I recognize the sources but the notability of it is not there. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:33, 13 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. Keep votes persuasively argue that WP:MUSICBIO is met and reading it over, I see nothing in the list that indicates that sources are worth less because they cover the early part of an artist's career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yucco Miller

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

Obscure sax player. Fail WP:NMUSIC. Some social media coverage but main article coverage is early stage PR. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Oricon shows all her CD releases charted, so she passes WP:NMUSIC, even if her charting is a bit low IMO. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prose could use improvement but if the claims about "featured in many media" &c are factual, I see no reason to be deleting this. Sadly I don't know Japanese, so I can't confirm. --Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 12:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That reference is absolute rank nonsense and can't be used to establish notability. They might as well be invisible they are so obscure. There is no secondary coverage and the fact they charted doesn't prove the individual is notable. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for that. There is no streaming coverage. She has about 200k followers on Youtube, but that is also well below the accepted standard on WP. It is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON scope_creep^Talk 23:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objection to Oricon charts. Oricon is listed as one of the two recommended charts for Japan at the WP:CHART guideline, along with Billboard, and for example, her third album also charted on Billboard. Dekimasuよ! 03:42, 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!} 23:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. There are a variety of independent sources available, she did win a fairly well-known jazz award in Japan, and this article in a major newspaper is a bit fluffy but it still seems to be the kind of thing that fulfills WP:GNG. She also passes WP:MUSICBIO as written (1, 2, 5). Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short interview making it primary. A very short 2 paragraph interview. That is the core of it. There is no coverage. Its all indicative of somebody very early in the career, who is currently non-notable as nobody is discussing her with the odd bit of minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of Japan's four major national newspapers, 3 million copies daily, choosing to run a 5-paragraph story specifically on her. There are also stories about her in two of the other national newspapers in the last year, Asahi here, Yomiuri here. There could be older articles or an article in the Mainichi as well, but I don't think that is necessary for deciding that the article should be kept. Dekimasuよ! 04:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again , they are indicative of very early career work. The first one is an interview and is quite long, and 2nd one is about her time busking. It talks about her time in high-school. Again it looks like another interview. I'm not seeing the international WP:SECONDARY coverage that would would automically make the lady notable. All I see, seems to be early career which matches WP:TOOSOON. The number of streamers she has 200k is well below the accepted consensus for a notable Youtube star. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of her before this nomination, but the goalposts are moving too far here. Media attention does not need to be international to be relevant, national charts in Japan are not deprecated, and no one has implied she is notable for being on YouTube. She has multiple album releases from a major label, independent coverage in national newspapers, has won at least one national award in her genre, and has charted nationally multiple times. Thus while the nomination says she fails WP:NMUSIC, she actually passes it. Switching to keep. Dekimasuよ! 15:29, 12 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!} 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilalio Leakona

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 6 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) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:34, 13 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!} 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niuvalu Fifita

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:16, 6 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) 23:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article that does not have adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:35, 13 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. The possibility of renaming this article can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Orbán Government

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. The title names the entire government of Hungary under the name of one individual and doubtless overlaps with other articles. The entire aticle consists of one sentence and the only reference covers his cabinet appointments. So no reference acknowledges the title of the article. No indication of wp:notability under this title or concept. of course, the overall governance of Hungary is wp:notable and doubtless already covered elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the current government of Hungary following the Fourth Orbán Government. Nontrivial content other than the cabinet members will almost certainly be added in the future. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not !voting, I'm just going to point to the fact that this style of article is a common practice, as can be seen at Category:Current governments. Should one go, the rest (or most) should follow. Curbon7 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The article's name confused me" and "this is a stub!" are not valid reasons to delete an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :The title names the entire government of Hungary under the name of one individual.

Dear North8000, your first concerns are absolutely meaningless, why I am saying that is because EVERY SINGLE GOVERNEMENT IS UNDER THE NAME OF ONE INDIVIDUAL.

No matter the country. for example the JOHNSON MINISTRY is named after BORIS JOHNSON. Smoothcheeks (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator's confusion is because he is American. On this page (and other cabinet pages like Rama III Government) "government" is used to refer to just the cabinet/executive, while in America "government" is much more commonly understood to have a broader definition and the narrow definition is not commonly understood. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a translation issue. In US English, "government" refers to the entire government. Might the English word for the scope of this article be "administration" e.g "Orbán administrayion" ? North8000 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue on whether cabinet articles should have the word "government" in their names is outside the scope of AFD anyhow. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs to have a distinct topic defined by it's title. At least in US English, "government" means the entire government which would be a duplication of other articles but is not the scope of the article. Could it be that in British English that "government" means "cabinet"? North8000 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does in British English. Generally, I would understand "government" to mean "cabinet" in a case like this. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we should follow Status quo on this as there's other pages named similarly to that. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted it is common practice for this style of title based on the leaders (eg. Prime Ministers Name) and is a list on a notable subject (members of the cabinet) Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. It is common (and more importantly, encyclopedic) to have individual articles on each government cabinet in between each election, even if the prime minister is the same. While it may not be the case right now in Hungary, government coalitions (and the specific parties in each coalition), and their agendas, can frequently change. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Template:EU governments -- it is common to refer to European cabinets as "governments." --1990'sguy (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree that articles on national cabinets should exist. I guess it's just a British English (vs. US English) thing to call the cabinet the government."Government" in US English means something different North8000 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naturally. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps change the name to Fifth Orban Ministry as is the case with British articles (eg.second May Ministry) to avoid confusion or fifth Orban cabinet but as stated before do not delete. Looking at the list of current governments it is clear that this style of name is an anomaly with most either using ministry or cabinet. Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When deciding what to name articles like this, we need to follow the sources. I haven't looked into what term(s) the WP:RSs generally use to describe the various governments/cabinets of Hungary, but I wouldn't be surprised if different countries have their own terms. Also, if we rename this article, we would need to do likewise for every article linked at Template:Hungarian Governments since 1990. Lastly, as I noted above, this style of naming is not unusual when compared to other European governments/cabinets. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:04, 11 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, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makatuʻu Moeaki

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 6 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) 22:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the significant coverage needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 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 Pushpa: The Rise#Sequel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpa 2: The Rule

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

Film fails the WP:NFF and it has been restored many times even after failing this and there is a draft in place already SP013 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Pushpa: The Rise#Sequel, as it doesn't meet NFF yet. Pre-maturely created page when a draft is already being worked on. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:19, 7 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar

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

Part of a large collection of complete discographies of various Indian pop stars.

Per WP:NLIST, coverage as a set by independent sources is required. On its own, this falls afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Historically, nominations of this sort of article have attracted keep votes premised on "but what about this other similar non-notable list of songs from this other artist". This argument runs into WP:WHATABOUTX, but if anyone links any I will happily nominate them for deletion. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From a quick look at the references and search hits, I am unable to locate any source that discusses the aggregate work and thus I cannot see how an article about the topic can be free of WP:OR. Hemantha (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; a textbook example of a "summary-only descriptions of works." which like other similar articles does not appear to have proper sources to meet WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legitimate list of songs recorded by a singer; more sources are needed but this doesn't undermine its notability. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is irrelevant here, and if it was, it would mean that no list of songs and films by a an artist could ever merit a WP article (and no, this isn't WP:WHATABOUTX but a general note about the extent of inclusion on WP). And I see that directory has a clear definition which just doesn't apply for this page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Individual editors deciding that widely followed policy is "irrelevant" are of course very much in the wrong, since one cannot simply decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply. Those interested in a thorough rebuttal of the above, including a rebuke of the hyperbolic claim that if INDISCRIMINATE is relevant "no list of songs and films by a an artist could ever merit a WP article" (with a similar example), will want a look at this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coming here from WP:ICTF, Discography of a notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged. There is no question of deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discographies/recordings of notable musicians are encyclopedic as they are routinely published in academic reference works on musicians. The nominator's rationale that a discography is somehow excluded from encyclopedic coverage under policy at WP:NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. We include a list of novels written by novelists, a list of works by composers, a filmography of actors etc. A discography is a record of the creative output of musicians in the same way that a list of works is a record of the creative output by composers. Further, it's a reasonable content fork of the main article. This was a badly argued deletion rationale, with a potentially negative impact on wikipedia's coverage of creative professionals across the encyclopedia. 4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 indeed. You have put into words everything I was thinking. In addition I came to know from a related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal that some damage has already been effected by couple of poorly attended AfDs last week. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik Venkat TL (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL@4meter4: I asked the closing admin of the Armaan Malik list to reconsider her stand and the AfD is restored now and open for another discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no other topic where we accept statistics-databases or their encyclopedic-coverage-free-and-source-free equivalents, even if the subject they cover might be notable independently of the statistics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note another related ongoing AfD of notable Indian singers Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. - Venkat TL (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the same reasons as in the other related AFDs. In addition, list inclusion criteria and sourcing are matters that can be handled just fine through the wiki process, and have nothing to do with deletion. The nom cites WP:NLIST, the pertinent part of which currently says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (my emphasis). So to begin with, this particular provision is not a basis for deletion (rather, it spells out one particular circumstance that calls for non-deletion). In any event, the claim that this singer's songs, as a group, have not been covered in independent reliable sources is an extraordinary claim that would probably call for the deletion of the singer's article as well, if it were true. But judging by the sources cited there, it seems clearly to be false. -- Visviva (talk) 16:50, 16 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girls' Generation concert tours

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

WP:NLIST says Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. As a topic, the tours of Girls' Generation has not received WP:SIGCOV ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Korea. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list, linking to articles about her individual concern tours. Dream Focus 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus:, have you read WP:NLIST? The topic of the group of items a.k.a tours by the artist needs to have received coverage as a topic. That means that tours by the artist need to be mentioned in reliable sources as a whole, not just summation of individual concerts amalgamated together. Also lists aren't for navigation, categories are. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the second paragraph or just the first? There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I've been participating in AFDs for lists for many years now, things like this are kept over 90% of the time. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOUT from the main Girls' Generation article. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "should almost certainly be divided". The main article presently consists of 179 kb of data. Despite this, merging back to the article would be a much better alternative compared to deletion, because the content of the list serves to improve the overall coverage of the band on Wikipedia. Outright deletion would simply make the encyclopedia less comprehensive and informative about the band. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:17, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours

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

Per WP:NLIST it says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" This article does not discuss Aguilera as a touring artist and is instead simply a summation or summary of her tours with content copied from other articles. It is not notable because as a topic it has not received WP:SIGCOV as a group of tours. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list, linking to articles about her individual concern tours. Dream Focus 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources covering the information, and its too much to fit in the main article, so a spin off article is justified. Category:Lists of concert tours shows a lot of these exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taylor Swift live performances ended with 9 people saying Keep, so it was kept. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charli XCX live performances (2nd nomination) was kept, and that was also in 2021. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beatles concerts and others have been kept in the past. Dream Focus 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Each article should be judged as its own standards. WP:NLIST clearly says the subject should receive coverage as a group/list of items. If it was about navigation, there is already a category (which is primarily what categories are for), there is also a valid list at Christina_Aguilera#Tours_and_residencies which provides navigation and swift viewing of the articles. The navigation box at each concert page allows them to be easily navigated. The Beatles have significantly more tour dates and concerts, one of Xtina's is about to be hammered because it's not even a legit tour. Average page views aren't supposed to be used as comparators or indicators of notability but you're not even comparing like for like. Since you're interested in comparisons, average page views for this article sit at 27/day versus 220/day for Taylor Swift Performances, 150/day for the Beatles, and 7/day for Charlie XCX. Given the low number of page views compared to each of these artists pages and the lack of coverage as a group/list of topics, its more likely that loopholes in WP:NLIST are used by fans of said artists to create the articles in a fancrufty way. Its interesting that when you were challenged on navigation, and the pre-existence of the information elsewhere, and guidance at WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, you fell back on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:VOTE - the number of people wanting to keep such articles does not add weight to a deletion discussion. It does depend on the justification given. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: have you read WP:NLIST? The topic of the group of items a.k.a tours by the artist needs to have received coverage as a topic. That means that tours by the artist need to be mentioned in reliable sources as a whole, not just summation of individual concerts amalgamated together. Also lists aren't for navigation, categories are. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the second paragraph or just the first? There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I've been participating in AFDs for lists for many years now, things like this are kept over 90% of the time. Dream Focus 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three points: 1) your opening comment does not assume good faith, it comes across as snarky. 2) Its not not a complex, or cross-categorization ist. 3) As the user below pointed out, there's already a tours and residency list for XTina. Furthermore WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument for why stuff exists. There are plenty of examples where experienced users have been wrongly applying and implementing policies or haven't been aware that consensus changes over time. WP:SALAT says "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article" - there aren't enough entries to warrant a list, especially not when there's already another residency and tour page. Everyone who argues to keep lists of tours never addresses the fact that they serve as a summary of each individual tour and navigation is primarily served by categories. Secondary navigation is provided by the list on the artist's own page. This is, once again, duplication or tripplication. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christina_Aguilera#Tours_and_residencies. Independent sources do not establish that WP:NLIST is met. Navigation is better achieved through use of a category. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOUT from the main article. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "should almost certainly be divided". The main Christina Aguilera article presently consists of over 219 kb of data. Despite this, merging back to the article would be a much better alternative compared to deletion, because the content of the list serves to improve coverage of the subject on Wikipedia. Outright deletion would make the encyclopedia less comprehensive and informative about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Size and split are not under contention here. It's more that there isn't coverage of a group topic and this article is basically a summary/synthesis of the individual tour pages. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seven major tours and a successful Vegas residency are enough to keep the article. There's valid information and there are reliable sources provided. It's all perfectly valid, there's notability, there are more than enough sources and links provided. There's absolutely no need to delete the article. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 22:53, 9 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sosefina Fuamoli

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Two refs from first block of 13 are primary interviews. The rest is passing mentions. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think, for the following reasons:

As the Editor in Chief of AU Review I think we can say that she meets criterion 1 or 3 (played major role in creating well-known work) of WP:NEDITOR. I acknowledge that is not clear, and open to debate.
As a winner of a National Live Music Award she has a clear pass at WP:ANYBIO CT55555 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my search online and at the WP library, notability does not appear to be adequately supported by independent and reliable sources. The AU Review does not appear to be well-known, based on the few sources available (e.g. via ProQuest: "Babaganouj's tasty March tour", The Daily Mercury 2014, quotes the AU Review; "Pigeon apply their live punch to electronica", The Gold Coast Bulletin 2012, quotes the AU Review; "Abreact to rock with Bam", The Bendigo Advertiser, 2015, "A mystery fan nominated the band when The Au Review called for bands to support Margera on his Balls Deep in Australian tour."; "BACKSTAGE PASS TARYN LA FAUCI", NewsCorp Australia, 2015 promotional interview, the artist mentions "The single was reviewed on popular music site The AU Review and I played on the AU sessions with them"). WP:CREATIVE#3 also requires the website to be the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, and I have not found sources to support this part of the guideline, or other parts of WP:CREATIVE. WP:CREATIVE#1 does not appear supported due to the limited amount of independent and reliable secondary sources available to show she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Online, I found an interview on the Music Industry Inside Out website, with a summary of her resume that may not be independent content. In the WP library, there is a 2017 article in The Courier Mail announcing a festival that mentions her ("Some of Australia’s most respected music journalists will share the bill, including Iain Shedden of The Australian, Sosefina Fuamoli of the online AU Review, and Michael Dwyer of Rolling Stone Australia.") On ProQuest, I found a 2021 NewsCorp Australia press release promoting her podcast and others. The National Live Music Awards were created by the AU Review and directed by its founder, so this seems to contribute limited independent support for any notability guideline. She has also been nominated for an Australian Women in Music Award, but this does not appear to be enough for WP:ANYBIO or to compensate for the lack of support for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability. Per The Partae interview, she is also known as "Sose Fuamoli" ("Music Journalist, Radio Host & PR extraordinaire"), but I have not found independent and reliable sources with this name. Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sources above.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:04, 14 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!} 21:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Klein

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

No evidence that Klein meets WP:NPROF. Only mainstream coverage is for the attendance policy controversy on the page, which isn't sufficient for an article per WP:ONEEVENT. Note that there are a number of Gordon Kleins on Google Scholar, at least one of which DOES appear to be notable enough for an article, but not this one. PianoDan (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find the reviews of his books that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR-based notability, and Google Scholar searches (taking into account similar names as above) didn't turn up evidence of WP:PROF. In any case this seems like a WP:COATRACK for the attendance incident, an inappropriate basis for an article on an otherwise-non-notable WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable academic. There are seven Gordon Kleins on Scopus. As PianoDan says, one of them may well be notable, but this one is not one of those seven. Disclosure: before tagging this page for notability on 30 January 2022, I removed a good deal of unsourced and/or trivial content; here's what it looked like before I touched it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Additional info: he wrote an article for Bari Weiss's substack ([2]) in which he mentions that most of his income comes from consultancy work, so it seems much more likely that, if he were notable, the appropriate guideline would be WP:BASIC rather than a specific biography SNG. On that, he fails WP:BLP1E. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At 23:10 yesterday User:Szmenderowiecki, a non-admin, purported to close this discussion as delete. As the deletion discussion had not reached its closing time and a non-admin cannot actually delete a page, this closure was procedurally improper. It was listed for DRV within the hour, and less than an hour after that, Szmenderowiecki undid their closure, albeit leaving the DRV signage in place and the DRV open, although a comment posted to the DRV discussion seemed to suggest that they were keeping the discussion open.
To the extent Szmenderowiecki has not agreed to withdraw the closure, I hereby, pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, vacate their closure and reopen this AFD to close on its normal closure date, unless it be properly closed early by an admin before then. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ScotRail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 ScotRail timetable cuts

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

WP:NEVENT - whilst currently somewhat major, I don't see how (in its current form at least) this event could have much lasting notability. In my opinion, this should just be a section of/mentioned on the main ScotRail article. Remagoxer ^(talk) 19:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Transportation. Remagoxer ^(talk) 19:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep literally nominated 25 minutes after creation and while I was still adding sources. These cuts have had a big impact on people in Scotland and are approaching a month of coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that this has much lasting notability. In addition, if you don't feel that an article is ready yet I'd strongly advise publishing it as a draft and then moving it to mainspace when you're happy with it, but this isn't a requirement. Remagoxer ^(talk) 20:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely nothing exceptional or notable about these cuts, major transit in every country has cuts - unless there is significant coverage otherwise, this isn't suitable for a standalone article and anything relevant can be said in the main article. I'd also advise the creator to read WP:NOTNEWS a little more thoroughly. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely nothing exceptional or notable about these cuts these are the largest cuts I can remember. As for major transit in every country has cuts so what? Nothing is stopping you from writing articles on those, too. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. NemesisAT (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything related to mass transit to ever have existed. We don't need to have standalone articles for most cuts and this is no exception, to say otherwise is patently ridiculous and a waste of time. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the seven sentences in the article, it could be a brief mention in the article about the railway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain..but don't delete. The most severe outcome should be to drafity or merge into an appropriate article. There is enough significant enough to say this is a notable topic, but I think it might make more sense as part of ScotRail or any article about ScotRail's management of trains in Scotland. CT55555 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the History section in ScotRail and per WP:NOTNEWS. Timetable cuts happen to pretty much every transport operator, this example is still not notable enough to have its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ScotRail. This never should have been made into a standalone article, especially considering the subject isn't even covered at all in ScotRail at all at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article; there is clearly not enough stuff here to warrant an independent page; and covering this on the ScotRail page would obviously be more helpful to readers as it would provide them with all the required context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 9 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!} 21:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Medina

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are non-existant, profiles, event pages, music pages that don't much, or about the specific band, not about Medina specifically. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 6 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fasanghari

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

Extent of notability unclear, but I'm leaning towards non-notable. Internet memes can be tricky, but he isn't notable as a musician, that's for sure.

The sources don't look promising, but I am not a Farsi speaker, nor am I familiar with Iranian sources, so I can't be completely certain. Mooonswimmer 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran deletion discussions.--4cc211 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think. I am relying on google translate, but the article appears to have multiple sources providing in depth coverage. I don't understand a proposal to delete if the nominator has been unable to check the sources, so the nomination seems a bit speculative, in the context of deletion being a last resort. My opinion is based on google translation of the following sources, what I don't know is if they are tabloid or not:

I'd be delighted if a Farsi speaker came along and gave better analysis. Until then, I'm running with my imperfect analysis plus the assumption of good faith by the editor who added them. CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is famous and covered at the same time. Reputation is not temporary; There is no need for continuous coverage whenever a subject is subject to "extensive coverage" according to the General Guidelines for Reputation. News continuity is about events, not people. Many singers or actors stop working for a while. This does not destroy their reputation.--4cc211 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:46, 6 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!} 20:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Zizzi

AfDs for this article:

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

Physicist whose publication record does not meet our typical standard for wiki-notability of scientists, and for whom there does not appear to be the kind of secondary-source coverage that would justify an article on any other grounds. Passing mentions in a couple books on esoteric topics, low citation counts, publications mostly just on the arXiv or in marginal journals (e.g., being the guest editor for a 2-article "special issue" of Entropy [3]). The article was previously deleted in 2010, and I cannot find reasons to argue that the situation has changed since then. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Science, and Women. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still does not pass WP:PROF (or any other notability criterion), and in particular her citation record, while significantly improved from the last time around, is still not enough for #C1. The article is formatted to look like its reference is nontrivial coverage of her work in a book by someone else, but that is misleading: actually the only reference is to a chapter she herself wrote, in an edited collection of papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I noticed it but, per my typical disorganization, failed to mention it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case could be made that she might reach WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF based on non-scientific mentions... but not a good case. PianoDan (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks to me like this was re-created much to soon after the first AfD. But, here we are. I didn't see enough references that could expand the article never mind footnote what little is there now. Without that it fails to establish notability. --mikeu ^talk 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ She has presented a unique theory (WP:FRINGE alert, although hosted by Cornell University) presented here: The Early Universe as a Quantum Growing Network and that has been discussed in a book (although she also wrote of the chapters, so the independence is utterly debatable) (The book: Physics of Emergence and Organization. (2008). Singapore: World Scientific.) That's not enough, I think. But a Google book search does bring up many hits about her theory.

For example page 194 of Lataster, R. (2018). The Case Against Theism: Why the Evidence Disproves God’s Existence. Germany: Springer International Publishing.

So, therefore, we could consider her notable as per criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE if felt she was widely cited. That's debatable, but I think maybe yes.

Criterion 2 is if she is known for "originating a significant new concept, theory" and that is what clinches it for me, because my analysis is that is exactly what she has done.

Now, I've not spent hours on this, I may have misunderstood, but that's how I see it. Thoughts? CT55555 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, the "hosted by Cornell University" link you provide is to the arXiv. That does not count as Cornell giving the paper its imprimatur. All sorts of material ends up on the arXiv; preprints that have not gone through formal peer review are not reliable sources (and none of the rare exceptions where we can actually use them apply here). As to the rest, I found all of those sources. None of them amount to significant and independent coverage, and evaluating a nominally-scientific claim by the standards we apply to artistic works is even odder than comparing apples to oranges. It's easy to write a paper and have a few people chatter about it in marginal publications. Writing encyclopedia articles about fringe topics means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, the website was funded by Cornell, the paper isn't hosted by them. I also agree that the depth of coverage is shallow. WP:CREATIVE is for a wider range of professions than artists, it's for creative professionals, authors, editors, economists, architects, so that unarguably includes non-artistic professions. Should it include scientists who develop theories? That's a fair point to debate, but not as clear cut as you've presented it. I do find that the guidelines aren't good for inventors. Maybe I should have just stuck with WP:NACADEMIC which, to pass, would need "significant impact" or "substantial impact". Is a new theory a "significant impact" I'm honestly not sure. Your feedback has shifted me somewhere between weak keep and uncertain. I'll pause for others to comment and may refine or update my analysis. CT55555 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a paper that has attracted all of 22 citations in more than two decades, 8 of which were by the author themselves, with 2 of the remaining being actually peer-reviewed, and the longest discussion in either of them only a single sentence, I can't call that "significant impact". (The ratios are a little different for the other publications, but they all have the same problem.) Contrast with, to pick names off the top of my head, Bianca Dittrich and Renate Loll in quantum gravity, Fay Dowker in quantum gravity and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, Claudia de Rham in cosmology... I'm generally happier when articles can be fixed up and held onto, but I just don't see how that is possible in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that feedback. It suggests you have subject matter expertise? I don't, so if you do, that makes me even more likely to agree with you. What's your analysis of the various books that talk about her work? CT55555 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a physicist, with all the good and bad things that implies. Lataster's Case Against Theism is a counter-blast to William Lane Craig; setting aside any opinions about the worth of apologetics and counter-apologetics overall, the relevant point for the question at hand is that it gives Zizzi a one-sentence passing mention. The author works in a religious-studies department and has a degree in that field, so we shouldn't expect a detailed discussion of the physics. Moreover, the paper by Zizzi that he cites was published in NeuroQuantology, a "journal" that provides no meaningful peer review. (To be fair, someone who is not a specialist in physics or neuroscience may well be ignorant of its status.) None of the other Google Books hits provide more to work with. The first of them, The Archetype of the Number and its Reflections in Contemporary Cosmology, is downright crackpot, and The Science Behind the Secret is no better. Gregory Chaitin drops her name in with a list of physicists who think about information, but we can't base an article upon a statement that practically boils down to "this person is one of eight people who exist". XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've talked me out of my "keep". I'm about to score it out. Thanks for the careful feedback to my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pleasant conversation about it! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The discussion above has convinced me.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the interesting conversation above Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles about it. Fails WP:PROF.Samanthany (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily fails WP:NPROF, not convinced meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Egyptologists

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources don't seem to divide this profession by gender, so why do we? We have List of Egyptologists for everyone. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Lists of people, History, Archaeology, and Egypt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer the question, I think the reason we should keep based on this seeming like a notable topic as per the following sources:

These blogs and articles

These books/chapters:

You Can be a Woman Egyptologist, Betsy Morrell Bryan, Judith Love Cohen, 1999, ISBN 9781880599457 (100% about the topic)
Breaking Ground Pioneering Women Archaeologists, By Getzel M. Cohen, Martha Joukowsky, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, 2004 (15 mentioned of Egyptologists in a book only about women)

The following academic sources:

https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/xx-cavations-women-in-ancient-egypt-and-modern-egyptology
Book Chapter https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203981511-17/women-british-archaeology-visible-invisible-sara-champion which talks about Egyptology in the context of women's role CT55555 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CT55555's list of sources make clear that this is a notable enough combination for WP:NLIST: "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per both the above votes, clearly fulfills WP:NLIST Eritha (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is awful but the phenomenon of being a woman and studying Egyptology is clearly covered in the reliable sources provided above. Meets LISTN. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links above show the notability of the issue. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems like a notable topic. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencylopedic cross-categorization and a content fork of List of Egyptologists. The sources are thoroughly unconvincing. For example, a blog listing a few historical figures in the field doesn't do anything to establish notability, period. And simply because people have talked about the particular phenomenon of being a female Egyptologist doesn't make this a valid list topic. "List of {minority X} {profession Y}s" is very very rarely going to be a reasonable topic for a list, especially when "List of {profession Y}s" already exists, even if "{Minority X} in {Profession Y}" is a notable topic for an article. This is a classic case of WP:RGW, by attempting to single out a minority group from a pre-existing list for special attention. If someone really wants, they can add a "sex" column in a table at the main article, which would handle everything this list already does in one fell swoop and removes the pointless duplication of effort in maintaining both lists. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This list is about gender, not sex. And you can speculate about the reason it was created, but we should really just focus on notability and assume good faith of who ever started it. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My claim of RGW is about the article's existence and not about the motivations of whomever created it in the first place. Nitpicking over sex-vs-gender is completely beside the main point anyway. On the other hand, you've completely neglected the actual substance of my argument, namely the fact that it's not a notable cross-categorization, and that it's a fork of material already contained at the main list, for which keeping two separate lists is a bad idea. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct to say that I did not address the main point you're making, because I don't think it is necessary to do so. I think all we need to do is prove that the subject is notable and I think that it doing so in such a significant way is much more important than anyone's guess as to why. I don't think it's "nitpicking" to differentiate sex from gender when the trust of your argument was linked to equity and gender. CT55555 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is well covered and notable.--Onetimememorial (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought by CT55555. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding Frenzy (TV series)

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

Zero hits on ProQuest, Newspapers, or Google News for "Feeding Frenzy" "animal planet" "Christopher Douglas". Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The search query above misses articles that call the actor Chris Douglas or that mention the Discovery Channel instead of Animal Planet. Some additional digging finds this article in the Anchorage Daily News and this piece at Today.com; the show is also discussed in this 2010 book by Chris Palmer and this 2013 book by Sherry Simpson. That's probably enough for a GNG pass, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Extraordinary Writ.
1. Medred, Craig (2008-12-28). "Bear attack 'documentary' raises officials' hackles". Anchorage Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "Put a TV soap star in a plastic box in the bear pen at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, tie a dummy alongside, turn loose the bears, roll video and what do you get? A whole lotta controversy. A storm of it has been building since a program called "Bear Feeding Frenzy" first appeared on the Discovery Channel. State wildlife biologists call the self-proclaimed "documentary" misleading and worse. The bear authority who worked with the filmmakers says he got snookered. And some average citizens -- taken in by the show's appearance of having been filmed in the wild -- are outraged that television producers would be teaching grizzlies to attack life-like dummies, tear into tents and break into SUVs."
2. Palmer, Chris (2010). Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. ISBN 978-1-578-05180-9. Retrieved 2022-06-13 – via Google Books.
  The book has a section titled "Feeding Frenzy". The book notes: "In late fall of 2008, Animal Planet broadcast Bear Feeding Frenzy, Lion Feeding Frenzy, and Crocodile Feeding Frenzy. This three-part series described "experiments" with bears, lions, and crocodiles conducted the ruggedly handsome Chris Douglas ... The film crew built a five-foot cube, which they called a "predator shield," made of see-through Plexiglas with six-inch wide air holes. For dramatic scenes, Douglas climbed inside while the powerful predators came right up to the shield. Certainly, the show had an entertaining hook. The animals were just inches away from the handsome host, and they seemed powerful enough to break through the cube at any moment. ... Many scientists, including wildlife biologist Sterling Miller, were dismayed at what these shows tried to pass off as research."
3. Celizic, Mike (2009-01-06). "New TV show is unfair to bears, some experts growl". Today. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "The scenes are from Discovery’s new cable-TV series “Bear Feeding Frenzy.” And as NBC News’ Peter Alexander reported for TODAY on Tuesday, they have sent many wildlife experts and some viewers as well into a frenzy of their own. “The idea of a bear attack can be terrifying, and this show may not exactly ease those fears,” Alexander said. “It was meant to show bears in their natural environment, but experts say it misses the mark and instead reinforces the stereotype that most bears are looking to attack people.”"
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Orr, Jasmin (2009-01-29). "Highlights - Saturday, August 1". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "Bear Feeding Frenzy, Channel 9, 5pm. Former soap star Chris Douglas sparked controversy when he and Thomas Smith antagonised grizzly bears in Alaska to demonstrate what a bear attack looks like. The pair climbed into a "predator shield", a box designed to protect them from a 360kg grizzly, placed a mannequin outside the box and encouraged the bear to attack prompting outrage from naturalists who called the move misleading."
  2. Cutler, Jacqueline (2007-07-25). "After 20 years, Shark Week still has teeth -- lots of them". The Gettysburg Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes about Les Stroud: "In "Shark Feeding Frenzy" on Tuesday, July 31, Stroud tries to determine which of seven species has the strongest jaws."
  3. "Friday". The Times. 2011-02-12. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "Lion Feeding Frenzy RTE2, 8.05pm In this documentary Chris Douglas heads to Africa, where he studies lions with the help of the expert Scott Lope. They hope to discover more about these majestic and fearsome creatures through a series of controlled experiments, observing different behaviours and explaining how they relate to the animals' predatory instincts. Stand well back."
  4. Belcher, Walt (2009-09-02). "Lope is an expert on lions, tigers, panthers". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "Lope also is featured in "Lion Feeding Frenzy," one of the most popular specials on Animal Planet and Discovery. He goes inside a transparent box placed in the middle of a pack of lions to observe what happens when lions fight for food in the wild."
  5. "TV Best Bets". New Haven Register. 2009-04-22. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "Shark Feeding Frenzy - No longer seen as the robotic, insatiable predator, Les and crew analyze the feeding behavior of seven shark species, including the great white and hammerhead. At 8 p.m. on Animal Planet."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Feeding Frenzy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Show created a lot of controversy and thus a lot of coverage as indicated above. Clearly meets WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 13 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 Marsh Mokhtari. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perilous Journeys

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

Only hits on ProQuest are directory listings. No good sources found whatsoever. Prod contested for WP:PEACOCKy "aired all over the world" phrasing which I could not substantiate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I haven't yet looked for anything regarding this subject to either vote yea or nay yet, I would like to say that you need to be more accurate in your deletion rationale's. You used quotes above to explain why someone contested your PROD when you wrote ""aired all over the world" phrasing which I could not substantiate." This is inaccurate. I looked at the Deprod comment and it was "aired internationally, deserves additional review". Which is not really peacocky. If it aired in more than one country, it is accurate to say it 'aired internationally'. And their reasoning leans more towards the fact that they believe there might be another review out that that would save the article...which is a legitimate reason for removing a PROD. Please be more accurate in your deletion rationale's...especially if you are going to quote something. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely peacocky and that should be fixed but, of course that's not a reason to delete it. I did not try to substantiate international airing when I DEPRODded, so TPH may have a point there. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Global Networks indicates a global presence for different versions of National Geographic Channel so the claim that this program has aired internationally is not without merit. WP:NTV indicates that programs with national or international airing are likely to be notable which can also be read as unlikely to be unnotable, therefore my DEPROD. ~Kvng (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marsh Mokhtari (with the history preserved under the redirect), the television show's host, where the show is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow editors to do a selective merge to the target article and to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 07:41, 13 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) 16:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joy MiniPig

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

Not neutrally written, full of fluff ("intense research"??), lacking proper secondary sources that have more than local interest. Not an noteworthy subject. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pig; I would have allowed a sentence in an article about the theater itself, if it was on the NRHP for example. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the lack of notability. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zagnut

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:PRODUCT. Few or no sources since 2014. Per Talk:Zagnut#Notable? even the editor who removed a PROD raised in 2019 had concerns that they made a questionable call. Did a bit of my own looking around and also had no success turning up sources or evidence of notability. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Sorry, I somehow missed the first AfD on this one. I think the article desperately needs sourcing, but the first AfD does reference a number of apparent options. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 6 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 03:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pavlovic Today

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. Does not meet WP:ORG. ––FormalDude talk 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United States of America. ––FormalDude talk 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews only turns up articles published on their site, there might be one hit in GBooks, the first one about Trump, but them we get into tiles ranging form Gaddafi in Libya to zoo and aquarium history. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 7 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 03:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Wolf

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Wolf

Articles for deletion/Michael Wolf (businessman)

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

Previously deleted, jack of all trades businessman. Lots of profiles, puff references, standard notices of start/leaving jobs and PR. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or possibly draftify. I disagree that these are all "puff" references - what seems to be more of an issue is that the article is significantly overstated from what the references actually say (for example, the WP article says "he oversaw Comcast's acquisition of AT&T's cable television systems," but the cited reference for that statement says nothing of the kind). I say weak delete because even a quick Google search shows that he does seem to be an expert that tech media interviews somewhat frequently, which makes me think he must have done something noteworthy to establish himself as an expert, but if he has, I certainly can't find it. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tech experts in media are often just paid mouthpieces from xyz company, so a poor standard by which to measure reliability. I find not much for significant sources on this fellow, other then mentions in passing (as discussed above). Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 7 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. Nomination Withdrawn. Coverage around his new role as the FAA administrator makes for a clear definition of being notable. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Washington

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Routine coverage, e.g. appointement notices, none of it secondary. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Washington was appointed to the president's transition team ([4],[5],[6]. He was CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, He is now the CEO of CEO of Denver International Airport [7] There are more good sources in the article, this is significant coverage, the sources are not WP:PRIMARY, they are not WP:ROUTINE. The article meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a blog reference here, a confirmation of being tapped by Biden, a notice of employement, a confirmation of employment. All of it, low-quality dross, absolute low-quality junk references. The confirmation is slightly better quality but it another routine notice. None of it is secondary. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This multi-page article in the LA Times [8] is not "low-quality dross, absolute low-quality junk". It is in-depth significant coverage. Jacona (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is routine annoucement of employment and the majority of the article isn't about it. That is a perenial problem with articles of this type; folk at folk present these notices as though they are genuine secondary sources when they are not and there is rough consensus around that fact, that they are not. They are routine coverage. They're not exactly primary but they not secondary either. What they are is standard notice no analysis. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are countless articles that are published by LA Times, Denver Business Journal, Local CBS stations, and other sources. I feel that this article should be expanded, but there are plenty of quality secondary sources to expand this article. As mentioned above, adding a section about his inclusion on Biden's transition team, his involvement and plans for expanding public transportation before the 2028 Olympics in LA. There is room for improvement, not deletion. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/10/22/phil-washington-ceo-denver-international-airport-long-lines-parking-shortages/

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/30/denver-airport-phil-washington-new-ceo/

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/15/denver-international-airport-phil-washington-investigation-l-a-metro/

Sheehanpg93 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this Jacona (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yip. @Jacona: I think it is now a super-heavyweight keep. Being brought back into the fray a second time, i.e. given the nod, is a clear indication is being notable. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 10 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!} 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leones Regios de Monterrey

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

Contested PROD. I had initially tagged the page for being unsourced and failing notability guidelines. The tag was removed, and some sources were added, but all primary sources which do not address the notability of the team in question. fuzzy510 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Mexico. fuzzy510 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom may well turn out to be right about notability, but no sign of any BEFORE. I added the sources, such as they are (mostly not primary), from the Spanish article: "unsourced" =/= "inadequately sourced", and it's not inconceivable that a more thorough search would produce more. I've no view one way or the other beyond that. Ingratis (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, league itself was brief and now defunct. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 13 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 15:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Nyadoi

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

Not notable academic, fails WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC. Possibly UPE at work here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, and Africa. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only hits I get are the papers she's authored as described in the article, no other sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles about it. Fails GNG.Samanthany (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems likely to have been created in good faith to improve coverage of women or African topics but I'm not seeing anything here to meet WP:PROF; with a PhD in 2010 might be too early in the subject's career. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kokou Senouwogbe

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Participation only" type situation. Sources just have listing type entries. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 9 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 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.A.N.

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

Unsourced and nn Sungodtemple (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article that has never been sourced to anything more than the author's Sourceforge. A PROD on its day of creation was removed by an IP in an edit adding various unsourced claims about the software capabilities. Searches find this barebones review but nothing to indicate that notability was ever attained. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, the SPAs are also an issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 6 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 23:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pliers

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. The article was apparently created as an instance of WP:RECENTISM shortly before the results of the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum. However, 15 years later, it is clear that the allegations have had not everlasting impact or coverage. Any relevant information that can be rescued is already covered in the respective section of the main article (2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#CIA allegations).

The article has had sourcing problems since its creation; half of its current references are dead links, and from the other half, only one source is reliable and independent, the BBC, which does not even refer to the allegations as "Operation Pliers". The closest description offered is "Mr Chavez has accused Washington of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. US officials have called the accusations ridiculous.", which hardly qualifies as a passing mention. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting effect, if it ever had any. Non-notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabatangan

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

Fails notability guidelines. Best for this article to be redirected at List of barangays in Zamboanga City. BloatedBun (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City, fails WP:GEOLAND. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of barangays in Zamboanga City as an alternative to deletion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:22, 9 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 Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Equestrian. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Antoli

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

Antoli was a non-medaling Olympic competitor, so he does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. The one source here is a sports table with no actual prose on Antoli. Olympedia has an entry for him, but it is also a sports table with no prose. I was unable to find any other sources on Antoli at all, searching google, google books and google news archives. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Horse racing, and Argentina. Radioactive (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if nothing can be found on him, the redirect to Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Equestrian, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:PRESERVE, etc. unless other sources can be found, perhaps in Argentinian books written in Spanish. The source in the article verifies that Señor Antoli competed in the 1928 Olympics and so, failing notability, the article must be redirected. Why does the nominator need to have this spelled out to him nearly every time he nominates something for deletion that has been verified? Does he have a WP:IDHT issue? Indeed he does. He also needs to get into his head that PRESERVE is an integral part of WP:EDIT, the site's editing policy, whereas his precious SIGCOV is only a guideline. And, once again, despite all his bluster at ANI, he has been very quick today to AFD yet another article created by Lugnuts. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See this discussion. AfD is an appropriate location to discuss articles that might have a valid redirect target but should not exist as an article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Where else could I open a discussion on this article. It is clear that unilateral redirection is not supported, people object to that very vocally, so the only option we have is to take the matter to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Equestrian. There are two other valid targets, but they are both mentioned there so it isn't unreasonably difficult for users to locate them. I don't see any real benefit from such a redirect, but while there are no other Raúl Antoli's mentioned on Wikipedia there is no harm to having it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to a redirect. I just know we do not need this as an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, tell us something we don't already know. Presumably JPL uses XFD on Twinkle to nominate articles for deletion? That's deletion, btw, not discussion. When he states his reason, why doesn't he begin it with the simple word Redirect? I rest my case. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just withdraw your nomination and make it a redirect. Dream Focus 22:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As discussed many times at AFD, AFD is an appropriate forum for discussing whether something should be redirected or not. A WP:SNOW-close for redirection should be a no-brainer though. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP @Dream Focus because he then argues that close and many closers are utterly worn out by the non stop c.f. User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_5#I_feel_you_have_closed_many_AfDs_in_error Star Mississippi 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That was about a different article that had multiple editors in the discussion favoring outright deletion. It was also over 3 months ago. Your post makes it look like it has any direct bearing on this specific discussion which is very unfair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Just Be bold and do that next time rather than waste a week and a ton of people's time at AFD. Smartyllama (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize every single time I have tried, it has been reverted. People more familiar with this particular set of cases explictly advise against doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @User:Johnpacklambert Do the right thing, don't blame the hypothetical act you think some one else may take for doing the wrong thing. But, even if you redirect, are reverted, and bring the article to AfD, if you would mention redirect in the nomination, your behavior might be received as more appropriate. The more people see appropriate behavior, the less conditioned they will be to oppose your actions automatically. It is better to do something right than to do it fast. Jacona (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rredirect if no sources forthcoming - why this has to present such a constant difficulty is a mystery and a damn nuisance. Ingratis (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per discussion. pretty clear WP:SNOWBALL also. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Equestrian. I know this is jumping on the bandwagon, but redirect is exactly how these source-poor but obviously of interest articles should be handled. It should have been done boldly, but no one tried that before bringing it here for deletion, they should have taken the time to try. Jacona (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I followed the advice above to do exactly what was advised on Frans Kuijper. Guess what, it was reverted with not even a claim as to why my deep analysis of exactly why it did not meet inclusion criteria and should be redirected had any problems at all. It basically amounted to a personalized refusal to allow this redirect because I did not bother trying to redirect any other article today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert, so if something doesn't work one time, you feel you have no need to ever try it again. It may have you saved time, but definitely cost all of us time. If you do the right thing, every time, then over time, people will see you cooperating and begin to respect your work and in return will cooperate with you. But it doesn't happen immediately the first time you do the right thing. Try building trust. You will not get instant results, but over time you will get better results, and more congenially. Jacona (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Based on the results of the other article, I can 100% gaurantee that if I had tried to unilaterally redirect this article exactly the same thing would have happaned as did with Frans Kuijper. That attempt to redirect was actually one done after this article, on an article with the exact same problems, the exact same lack of sourcing. There is no reason to suspect it would have turned out any diferent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not surprising that doing the right thing once, after doing the wrong thing hundreds or thousands of times, did not immediately get the desired result. If you are determined to improve your success in collaborating, you have to keep trying to collaborate, even when your first attempt fails. After people see you consistently trying to do the right thing, they will start coming around. If you immediately revert to your old ways, why should they come around? Jacona (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Lombardi (Italian guitarist)

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

There are numerous Alberto Lombardi's cluttering up the search results, but this one clearly fails WP:GNG. The article is sourced only to primary sources, and a search brought up nothing more substantial than a couple of unreliable churnalism pieces. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed about half the article when I came across it, due to opinionated language and improper sourcing. I also flagged it as potentially not meeting GNG. Having now had a chance to properly assess the sources, I agree there is nothing substantial enough to indicate notability. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:04, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers Venture Partners

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

This venture firm stub is not significant to be on Wikipedia. The sources has routine mentions of the company, and the general notability is missing here. Delete Assirian cat (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, press releases and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most sources are WP:MILL. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per users above. It's not even a matter for discussion. Just a weak under wiki stub --2603:6000:A500:25EF:9573:CA90:7D21:AC63 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no RS, no general notability shown. --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:49, 12 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) 12:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoon Capital

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

Not notable venture company with small capitalization and no notable clients. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Reads like advertisement. Assirian cat (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Companies. Assirian cat (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the edge, but I'm leaning towards deletion. --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, passing mentions, no RS. --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a firm investing in regional start-ups, covering their appointments and various funding initiatives in which they have been involved, often alongside other firms. None of this is indicative of encyclopaedic notability, and I am not seeing the level of coverage about the firm needed for WP:NCORP. (I did wonder whether some form of merge/redirect to SGInnovate might be feasible, but as 1 of 17 co-investor firms, I think Cocoon is too remote for this to be anything but WP:UNDUE.) AllyD (talk) 07:06, 13 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 13:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Way Public Academy

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. An earlier AfD closed as merge but that merge was reverted. The Banner talk 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Washington. Radioactive (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources already present in article demonstrate GNG and NSCHOOL being met. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge discussion at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? resulted in a unanimous consensus against a merge. It took place after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Way Public Academy and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20#Federal Way Public Academy were closed. All AfD and DRV participants had been pinged in the merge discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Rodriguez, Carrie (2014-05-21). "Students shine at Federal Way Public Academy; lottery determines admission". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
2. Low, Kyra (2008-12-13). "Federal Way Public Academy celebrates 10 years". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
3. "Public Academy not adding 10th grade this fall". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2002-03-13. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
4. "Federal Way Public Academy supports Kenyan school for AIDS orphans". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2012-10-31. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
5. Ciepiela, Elizabeth (2008-06-13). "Public Academy head sets goals for next year". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
6. Broom, Jack (2013-03-24). "We Day concert/rally expected to draw 15,000". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
7. Maynard, Steve (2004-02-02). "Federal Way academy to dedicate building - 'Success': Public prep school uses Socratic style". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
8. Sullivan, Paula Lavigne (1999-08-30). "New school to challenge gifted children - Federal Way district's academy will offer immersion learning". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
9. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-09-16). "Idea For Rigorous Federal Way Junior High Academy to Get Hearing - Proponent to Share Views About Controversial School at 2 Public Meetings". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
10. Pemberton-Butler, Lisa (1999-09-01). "Shh! It's Almost A Charter School - Federal Way Academy Sets Its Own Curriculum". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
11. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-11-24). "College-Prep School OK'D in Federal Way - Board Votes 3-2 To Set Up Academy For 120 Students". Archived from the original on 2022-06-08. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Federal Way Public Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
With significant coverage in the Federal Way Mirror, The News Tribune, and The Seattle Times, it is clear that Federal Way Public Academy passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources above provided by Cunard provide SIGCOV sufficient to meet GNG.Jacona (talk) 23:45, 11 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 11:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbasket

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

Native advertising by UPE. Article created multiple times. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reaffirm here, that I have no association with the subject. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it as potentially not WP:GNG-worthy during NPP simply 'cos I thought I'd sent too much to AfD for the day. So here's a delete vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with assessment that this is extremely likely to be native UPE; it is displayed as a client of a firm that is definitely conducting UPE on Wikipedia according to recent WP:COIN case. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Websites. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:04, 7 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. Star Mississippi 03:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Gottlieb

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

A translator and undoubtedly a fine one at that, but no WP:SIGCOV presented and no WP:GNG notability. He was a translator and a teacher, but that doth not WP:GNG pass. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Denmark. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing quite a few highly cited work in what I believe to be a medium-to-low citation field. I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. The editor-in-chief position would be a possible claim to WP:NPROF C8, if it could be backed by a reference (I did not quickly succeed; contrary to what is in the article, his CV lists dates of 2006-2011 for Chief Editor of Perspectives). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPROF #1 and #8 criterion. Samanthany (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a field I know at all but appears highly cited in Google Scholar (410,366,284,190,170; total of 8 papers >100 citations). The editor-in-chief position is also potentially notability conferring. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analytics India Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as speedy, tag removed so here we are. Not notable, no notability presented, sources are incidental to subject for this one-line article about a one-horse website. Fails WP:GNG; WP:WEB; WP:ORGCRITE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Software, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Website doesn't meet WP:N, has no significant coverage.Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per nom.Owlf 📪 23:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedy-deleted. Still not notable per nom's explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more credible citations (news) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bworld166 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems Legit. Enough sources Theprathap
Note to closer Theprathap was the editor who removed the speedy tag. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:02, 7 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. Those arguing for deletion are right that the article is a mess. This by itself is not a strong argument for deletion and I don't think there is clear consensus for WP:TNT. Those arguing to keep the article have clearly established that self-replicating machines are notable. Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point; however, there is not clear consensus here either. I do not think that relisting this will result in additional clarity, so I am closing this debate as no consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-replicating machines in fiction

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

Another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances self-replicating machines appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, it falls WP:GNG, WP:IPC, mostly WP:V and WP:OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Science, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup, totally indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not TVTropes.org. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whole article is trivial just like many other recently nominated articles of the same kind. GenuineArt (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but weed out uncited material — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostInTheMachine Meeting WP:V alone is not sufficient to warrant keeping an article. The article also has to be within project's scope. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No meaningful discussion on the topic or any sources that discuss it as a group or set, simply a list of non-notable trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In a BEFORE-type search, I found no evidence that the list topic is considered notable per WP:LISTN. I disregard WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:IPC for the purpose of the AfD discussion, as they are essays, not policies. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. There are no self-replicating machines not in fiction, therefore all self replicating machines are fiction, even VonNeumann's original thought experiment, and so all RS coverage of the concept applies to this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's the case, than this article would be redundant, as we already have a full article on Self-replicating machines. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Seconding above, and out of curiosity, rename how? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it possibly is redundant and could reasonably be merged, but the fact that I'm the first person to point this out speaks poorly to the participation to date. i.e., if I'm the first one to point this out, no one previously opining has been paying sufficient attention. Jclemens (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens And pray tell what would you want to merge? Which part of the article do you consider worth saving? Please, do quote it. After all, if there is mergeable material, maybe this can be saved and does not need to be deleted at all? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything. Since the topic is notable, anything that can be sourced to a primary source meets V and should be included. I get that you don't like that, and want to shift the burden of work to me, but there's no particular reason I should be forced to implement a merge. I wouldn't object to rewriting into prose, but again, that's work I don't have time to do. As far as your prejudices? See WP:BELONG. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for tat, all you are saying is WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this page was originally split off from self-replicating machine in 2017. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT as an example farm with no encyclopedic value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indisriminate information, a good chunk is unsourced, possible original research. Merko (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is a whole book on self-replicating machines in fiction,^[1] and discussion in other reliable secondary sources.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Tim Taylor; Alan Dorin (2020). Rise of the Self-Replicators; Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030482343.
^ Isiah Lavender (2011). Race in American Science Fiction. Indiana University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780253222596.
^ Hamid R. Ekbia; Bonnie A. Nardi (2017). Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism. MIT Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 9780262036252.
^ David H. Guston, ed. (2010). Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Vol. 2. Sage Publishing. p. 701.
^ Gregory L. Matloff (2005). Deep Space Probes; To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer Publishing. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9783540247722.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a topic that could have a prose article, but it would need 100% rewriting to reach that point, so there is no harm in deleting the current version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of disagree on a prose article being needed here, simply because we already have a detailed, prose article on Self-replicating machines and, as already pointed out above, as the entire concept is theoretical/speculative to begin with, any coverage of the topic with those sources would be better off being used to supplement that article, not being split off into a separate article covering most of the same information. The book linked above is an excellent source for adding to the main article, not for justifying Keeping a trivia list. There is absolutely no content currently in the article that would be appropriate to merge to the main article currently (which is why this non-notable trivia was split out from that article to begin with), and any additional sources on the topic would be better served supplementing that article, not adding on to this mess. Rorshacma (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the other references section of the main article, it is dedicated to real-world developments in self-replicating machines, so not so theoretical. It is useful to have a clear distinction between scientific developments and the significant body of notable but imagined concepts in this area. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree there's a difference between scientific concepts and in fiction treatment, and I would not be opposed to seeing this rewritten and kept as a stand-alone article. The problem is that nothing in the current list of trivia seems worth saving (per WP:TNT, WP:IPC, WP:LISTN, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well let’s look at all three:

WP:TNT - well WP:TNTTNT, yes the article would be better written in prose but it is far from useless. No fundamental issue with the content, that cannot be resolved by the normal editing process has been presented (such as copyright, advocacy, sockpuppetry etc).
WP:IPC - or more reliably MOS:POPCULT clearly states that “prose is usually preferable to a list format” but does not say that a list format is unacceptable.
WP:LISTN - Although it’s irrelevant as it passes WP:GNG, some of the reliable sources above discuss the fictional works featuring self-replicating machines as a group or a set. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list format is a minor issue. Please focus on the first part of POPCULT: "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." Since this is not show, GNG is very much not met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content issue that can be resolved through the normal editing process per WP:ATD. WP:GNG applies to the topic, not the content. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to do so when 100% of the article is trivia. TNT applies. If you disagree, please quote a passage from the article that you think is salvageable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as one of the keep !votes noted above, self-replicating machines is a notable topic. The main article has been written and referenced in a way that meets our guidelines, but this fork has not, mainly due to a lack of sources. At best, it's a WP:CONTENTFORK with no sources that verify WP:NOTABILITY of this subtopic, separate from the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We have the main article for this already. This is a trivial list that does not meet standalone criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence between [Merge selectively back to self-replicating machine, where this content was spun out from] and [Weak keep]. There are enough sources that exist to justify WP:LISTN. Having too much extra content isn't a good reason for deletion -- it's a good reason for removing the extra content. The list certainly lacks good inclusion criteria, but a start would be to require every addition to cite a source independent of the work itself. Additional prose would be good, too. But as I look at the main article, I'm surprised by how little it covers "in fiction". In this case, "in fiction" isn't equivalent to some trivia section but a major aspect of the subject. I'm leaning towards the selective merge, with the idea that if sourced content grows too big in the main article, it can be spun out again -- but we need to first demonstrate that the good content is too much. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What specific content in Self-replicating machines in fiction that is not present in the history of Self-replicating machine do you think is suitable to merge? 18 of 19 refs and most of the text were there before the split.
- The "Galactic Scourge: A Plug-in for Escape Velocity" source was the only ref added since the split, but it links to a Geocities site, which is not a reliable source. Its access-date=25 June 2001 implies that it was copied from elsewhere.
- This is the version of Self-replicating machine before the split. The In fiction section was removed around a month before the split.
- The split was a direct copy/paste: the cross-page diff is clean.
- For reference, this is the diff from the split to nomination, but it is complicated by sections being reordered.
Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SailinginaBathtub. Meets WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources from SailinginaBathtub pertain to a different article "self-replicating machines", an existing and separate topic that SailinginaBathtub acknowledges. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this as a separate topic. It's otherwise a WP:CONTENTFORK of a better written article, possibly to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Jontesta (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SailinginaBathtub. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, it's a valid WP:CONTENTFORK of self-replicating machines which would be too large if we were to merge. I am not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion which is completely ignoring the available RS on this topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 15 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lottery Corporation

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)

Non-notable organization failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Chirota (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with your assessment. Given that they have done exactly nothing up to this point, I suspect they're just using Wikipedia for free advertising (given their incredibly generic name). Even if that isn't the case, the article can always be re-added if they ever meet WP:NCORP. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabcorp as a very valid alternative to deletion. There are a couple of sourced articles that could be merged if appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tabcorp is a separate entity not related to The Lottery Corporation other than it was a result of a demerger of the Lotteries and Keno business from Tabcorp. They are separate unrelated companies. https://www.afr.com/markets/equity-markets/demergers-add-thrust-to-share-prices-m-and-a-20220525-p5aoez Mantuku (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Mantuku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Move to draft space, a case of too soon given that the demerge doesn’t take effect until 1 June. As one of the 50 largest Australian companies by market capitalisation, and five times that of Tabcorp from which it was spun off, will meet WP:NCORP in time. Glenefill (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)— Glenefill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems obvious that it's an official national lottery provider; this isn't some random pop-up scam, but a lottery which features around 4,000 lottery terminals, sells scratch games, and has national televised coverage of its drawings going back a few decades. Needs some fill-in for sure since it's a new spin-off, but it's obvious it's notable and in no way a WP:PROMO. This would be like deleting the National Lottery (United Kingdom) or Powerball articles. Nate • (chatter) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf, please refer to WP:ATA and provide policy specific reasoning as to why the article should be kept instead of saying I Like It. Unambiguously the topic fails WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are WP:RS, the coverage must be significant and must be independent of the subject i.e. WP:INDY. We don't see the organization crossing this required threshold. Chirota (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The items contained in the spin-off itself didn't lose their notability the moment it occurred, and burnished the notability of TLC; that's not how WP:N works for corporate spin-offs. Also please don't refer to yourself as a 'we' in a nomination discussion where you're the sole nominator. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expanding eg copy the contents of Tabcorp#Lotteries_and_Keno section in.John a s (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguously the topic fails WP:NCORP, its completely irrelevant how much popular the organization is or in how many counters the brand has access to. We need to satisfy WP:NCORP, which means there should be references that are WP:RS, the coverage must be significant and must be independent of the subject i.e. WP:INDY. If you think otherwise, please provide appropriate reasonings. Chirota (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs expanding eg copy the contents of Tabcorp#Lotteries_and_Keno section in. It is the only company to operate Australian Government State licences to operate lotteries across Australia ( Golden Casket, NSW Lotteries, SA Lotteries, and Tatts Lottery) with the exception of Western Australia. Its background history includes Tatts Group Mantuku (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)— Mantuku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote struck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is the only company to operate Australian Government State licences to operate lotteries across Australia. The subject fails Wikipedia's policy of inclusion for companies. Chirota (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I am struggling to understand is the inclusion of lotterywest, the counterpart to The Lottery Corporation in the Western Australian jurisdiction, into Wikipedia with no issue. The inclusion of Jumbo Interactive, a reseller of lotteries licenced by The Lottery Corporation, with no issue. The Lottery Office that resells overseas lotteries into Australia, no issue. But The largest licence provider of lotteries in Australia with a large retail and online presence, large taxation contributor to state governments, notability for the largest wins for powerball and oz lotto in the nation , a history stretching back through major corporations: Tabcorp; Tatts Group,Nsw Lotteries; Golden Casket etc etc, there is suddenly a huge issue. Mantuku (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF which nullifies your stance. Chirota (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly salt per Ari T. Benchaim's nomination.Signal Crayfish (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Signal Crayfish: that user has not nominated this article or participated. Why should the article be deleted or salted? I'm curious about your participation in this and other debates, as a user who suddenly started participating in AfDs after a minimal number of edits. Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given by Nate and Mantuku. Glenefill (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)— Glenefill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote struck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons provided by Nate and Mantuku are not policy based. The subject's notability can't be defended against Wikipedia's relevant policy WP:NCORP. If you feel otherwise, just cite the policies against which this organization is notable. Chirota (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiro725: you can't argue for deletion if there is a valid alternative, which I have suggested. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing users. Deus et lex (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex:, If pointing to policies appears WP:BLUDGEONing to you, you need to read the policy properly before invoking it. Chirota (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. There is currently an on-going investigation of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantuku. There is a high volume of WP:SPA accounts voting to keep this article, and any close should be based on the strength of the arguments and not a vote count.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Tabcorp. No evidence that this corporation passes WP:NCORP. Given the sock accounts, I would recommend deleting the article history to prevent easy re-creation before redirecting. 4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:44, 16 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!} 06:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Daudi Abinallah

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

Should have gone with A7 but there's one US press association interview that probably would have kiboshed that, so here's the AfD. Fails WP:GNG no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to lack of notability, and I've searched. Additionally the article is in bad shape with a lack of citations, and no suggestion of notability. I agree with the nominator that a PROD would have been reasonable and I'd also support a speedy delete. CT55555 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are insufficient. Does not meet notability.Craigwikiman (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some changes in the content, please check the updated version with required references and credible sources. Juma Sadala (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kopanong FM

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

Fails WP:GNG - quick Google search did not yield any additional notability. Grabup (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Grabup (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 6 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!} 02:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of India, Accra

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

Fails WP:GNG. All this article is, is a list of non notable high commissioners. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Ghana, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana%E2%80%93India_relations --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 16:51, 2 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!} 06:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhopa

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

Apparently Zhopa in Russian means 'asshole' which is something new learned today. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NALBUM, no significant coverage/evidence it charted/notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searching in Russian I see a very large number of GBooks sources that appear to be discussing the topic. Obviously I do not speak Russian so I cannot really assess how much coverage these actually give to the topic, but this website includes quotes from a few books/magazines that appear to be sigcov of the album when run through machine translation. reproduktor.net appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on the list of editors here and the "about" section here and did a full review of the album that can be seen here. Fuzz Magazine also reviewed the album and also appears to be a WP:NEWSORG pass based on this "about" page. Two instances of SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources makes this a WP:NALBUM pass, particularly as the reviews are extensive and published a long time after the album was released. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I researched some of these sources since Russian is my native language, and I did find some coverage of the album like the Reproduktor.net review which was mentioned above, and a mention (p. 188, which also mentions this album being recorded at SNC and also being published under a different name in 1990) in an encyclopedia of Russian rock music written by Andrey Burlaka. The Fuzz article actually describes a concert that was held in honor of the 20th anniversary of the album, but it's still a notable source that also somewhat describes the album itself. I've also added some of the mentioned sources to the Russian Wikipedia article of the album. Soglasun (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:36, 7 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!} 05:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Qualls

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

Candidate for nomination as candidate for Governor. Not elected to office. Previously unelected. No other notability, fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also he's long since withdrawn from the gubernatorial election, so his only notability is losing twice for different offices. Fails GNG by a long shot. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as he was never elected. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are almost never notable. Basically the only exceptions are major party nominees for senate or governor, and even that is only some of them. Qualls was a candidate for US House, which is almost never enough to be notable and nothing suggests he is the extremely rare exception, and he was a candidate for the nomination for governor. The article seems to suggest he is no longer in the running for that, but he clearly has not yet won that nomination, and it is not getting that nomination that might put him over the top, but the very good coverage that some (but by no means all) candidates for governor get. We do not have that, and cannot at this time justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or delete and redirect to 2022 Minnesota gubernatorial election, where the subject was a candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But he also lost MN-3 in 2020; are we, when redirecting, target the election with the biggest profile? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates for political office do not meet WP:NPOL. Withdrew from gubernatorial race, so maybe redirect to his first failed campaign? Bkissin (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here beyond the failed electoral run. WP:NPOL not met here at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 9 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 Marsaxlokk F.C.. ✗plicit 10:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marsaxlokk F.C. seasons

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

These short lists of seasons are not very common. I would say the content would make more sense in the football club's main article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Malta. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent article. Giant Snowman 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per GiantSnowman. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:23, 6 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 Tintagel Slate Quarries. ✗plicit 10:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dria Quarry

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

No indication of notability. A quarry is not a populated place or a natural feature. No evidence of in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Not sure if there is any appropriate target for a redirect. MB 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and England. MB 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted a summary could be added to Tintagel Slate Quarries.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tintagel Slate Quarries; not notable per nom. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per above. I mean, what does a quarry have to do to get noticed these days? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 6 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 Kent county cricketers to 1842. If there is disagreement on the correct redirect target, editors can discuss this on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Razell

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Prod was removed after an editor found coverage in Carlaw's series of biographies, but according to them it is brief, meaning it is not the required WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this today I imagine. It's a shame that a note wasn't put on my talk page asking whether I'd had time to review this before it came to AfD - as the editor who removed the PROD. At the very, very worst there are clear and obvious redirect targets, but articles with similar sourcing have been closed as keep recently. I'll see what else I can find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a redirect - the details are too sketchy and there are too many possibilities for us to say for certain which Thomas Razell (or Razzell or Wrassell) he is. There are two possible targets that make sense: List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 or List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Given that he only played once for Kent, the latter might make more sense here - the biographical sketch can be longer on the former, but it's less of an obvious place to look for someone who played for Epsom as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BST, and WP:PRESERVE, etc. Note that the nom had recently suggested a redirect for similar cases last month. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 per BST, I've not found much in a simple search and given BST's knowledge on Kent cricket, if he can't find much I doubt there's too much there. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly done to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 6 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!} 04:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Assyriologists

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

Fails notability WP:NLIST. List subject is not notable. Furthermore this is unmaintainable: no way to identify all the Assyriologists in the world. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goal may be better served by having an Assyriologist category and tagging relevant wiki entries with that tag. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the nomination. How does it fail WP:NLIST? Are you saying that Assyriology is not notable? Or that Assyriologists are not discussed as a group? Both seem patently false. As for "maintainable", I don't see how it would be any harder to list all the notable Assyriologists in the world than any other occupation in Category:Lists of people by occupation. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale misses the point of Wikipedia lists. A list such as this one should have only bluelinked entries, but this one does. It would be possible to include a little more about each entry (dates, nationalities, and specializations, within a single line of text, say) to keep this from being completely redundant with a category. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum delete all unsourced entries, as they fail WP:V. I'm not convinced that this list meets WP:LISTN either, just because these people are individually notable, does not mean that they have been discussed together as a group. Furthermore, I generally think that most lists are not worth keeping on Wikipedia due to lack of maintenance and scope issues. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first half of the list before giving up and none of the linked articles are unsourced. Do you mean that the list entries don't have inline citations? We almost never do that in lists. The inclusion of individual entries are verified by clicking through to the linked article and looking at its references section. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a list to me! Blue links all round... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a worthy subject and a valid list of bluelinked people within the sharply-defined group. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles need sourcing. Specically sourcing that shows that the topic as a group is notable. We have no such sourcing here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:John, you just click on the blue linky things and every.single.one takes you to a distinguished Assyriologist. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say exactly that. Calling the list unsourced is extremely misleading. There may be exceptions, but all of the links I've followed are perfectly well sourced. Athel cb (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any general history of Assyriology is going to discuss the Assyriologists of the past and their influence (see the index here (1) for a start). This is the definition of a notable list. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valuable list. All the entries are blue-linked. That's not to say it can't be improved. I'd like to see birth and death dates, nationality, and a brief indication of why the person is notable. For example, for the first entry one could write "Arthur Amiaud (1849–1889) French Assyriologist and philologist known for research on Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions". For that example only, I have done that in the list. Ideally it should be done throughout, by someone expert in Assyriology (which I am not). However, that's probably not going to happen, and the linked articles provide the information needed. If commenters here think it's a good idea I may do it. Athel cb (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After writing that I saw that 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 has been working hard on the list since I last saw it, adding at least some of the information that I wanted to see (dates, nationality), but I still think a few words on notability would help. Athel cb (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable list for the article Assyriology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We better keep this kind of lists. In some cases it's really helpful. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we're going to have lists of people at all, this seems an obvious keeper. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Assyriology is an archaeological speciality. As a list this does not need references: the references will be in the articles listed. It does not need regular maintenance. It is more useful than a category, because there is scope for a sentence or two on the person's career. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 12 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!} 02:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Hitman

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding much either - if anyone has access to this beyond a snippet view, it should list if it received any reviews. I did find an interesting little bit of info that I added to the article, but it's not really something I'd say contributes to notability. It's just interesting, if it's true. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 6 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!} 04:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mekin Sezer

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

Mekin Sezer

Non-notable actor. Nothing in this article says anything that would establish either general notability or acting notability. None of the films or plays listed in the filmography appear to be considered notable themselves. There is no mention in the text of this article about significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Turkey. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:04, 6 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!} 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic heritage

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. The title is possibly a keeper although it is so broad that it's almost certainly a duplicate of other articles. (e.g. Islamic history) The contents of this article are a personal essay. This isn't derived from the references (and there are only 30 cites in this entire gigantic essay.....needs about 100 cn tags ) instead they are put in as footnotes for the editor's essay / wp:OR. As such, is not in compliance with wp:not wp:ver. There a lot of work here which would be a would be a good paper to write for somewhere else other than a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this personal essay. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very long, occasionally odd, essay. "Mutations are the only way to catch up with others, let alone precede them..." Hmmm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:00, 6 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 Little Big Econ State Forest. czar 07:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flagler Trail

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

Local hiking trail, no indication of notability. MB 02:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge per below. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to Florida Trail, especially with creation of an anchor/target to which this may redirect (i.e. to Florida Trail#Flagler Trail), would be okay, or outright Keeping and developing this would probably also be okay as I tend to think sources, not yet found, will in fact exist. As the article is short now though, merging and redirecting now would be okay, allowing for recreation when an editor comes along with much more information. In the article there is statement with source that at least part of this is part of the Florida National Scenic Trail; this is not merely "local" in significance. The term National Scenic Trail redirects to the National Trail article which states that there are just 19 National Scenic Trails. These are designated by the U.S. Congress, and few in number, therefore I tend to think significant coverage will exist about all of them and they will all be individually Wikipedia-notable. (I also tend to think almost all named, verifiable hiking trails will be wikipedia-notable, as they are public attractions and covered in touristy books, etc., in spirit of essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION to which I contributed. But this is not a minor hiking trail.) And Florida National Scenic Trail redirects to article Florida Trail, which includes in its list of components a dot point for "Little Big Econ State Forest & Flagler Trail. That dot point can be expanded with merged information including that part but not all of Flagler Trail is included in the Florida Trail, and with all the information in the current article's infobox. The Florida Trail article's list of components could well be expanded into a table with that type of infobox information, though having extra information about this one trail is okay for a while. The redirect left behind should be kept in Category:Hiking trails in Florida and perhaps others of this article's current categories. --Doncram (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that search on "Flagler Trail" in "books" yields multiple trail guide books, including "The Florida Trail: The Official Hiking Guide" (2004), "Explorer's Guide 50 Hikes in Central Florida (Second Edition) (2011), "50 Hikes in Central Florida (Third Edition)" (2018), "Hiking Central Florida: A Guide to 30 Great Walking and ... " (2008), "Central Florida: Beyond the Theme Parks" (2021); "Five-Star Trails: Orlando: Your Guide to the Area's Most ... - (2012), and "Bicycling in Florida: The Cyclist's Road and Off-Road Guide" (2015), and more, which all appear to be reliable sources and to contain, in combination, substantial information which could be used to expand this article. --Doncram (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Little Big Econ State Forest, in which part of it is located. It's a short generic local trail without wider significance. The Florida Trail is over 1,000 miles long, so a couple miles overlapping with this trail doesn't warrant a section on it there, even with welcome expansion of that article: mention at Florida_Trail#FNST_route is adequate since the Florida Trail has so many portions in so many other protected areas. I wrote the article on the National Trails System, and while each major trail is obviously quite notable, that does not extend to the many segments that overlap locally-named trails. AllTrails.com has tens of thousands of trails, and various hiking books similarly describe routes of many thousands of trails, but Wikipedia should typically mention these in an article on the recreation area in which they're located, if at all, rather than stand-alone articles unless they are longer and have much more substantive content and coverage. The book results are all brief mentions of it among many other non-notable trails. Reywas92^Talk 17:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus on which is the best merge/redirect location
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to either page suggested above. The main problem is the 8.2 miles comes from original research as you can see on the talk page. A database suggests 14 miles [9]. A lot of the articles for trails are connections to eventually serve as the huge trail. It's just money for ROW acquisition is done this way. – The Grid (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Little Big Econ State Forest, but include the details on the trail and it's history. Most of the maps I've seen indicates that the trail is only within this state forest, and older maps have shown that it was part of the FEC Kissimmee Valley Line. -------User:DanTD (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Yerevan jokes

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

Poor quality article consisting almost entirely of uncited jokes; merely deleting the unsourced material would pretty much remove the entire article. — The Anome (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn’t be deleted. The topic is important. There are sources for some of the jokes in the current version. When the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia but the article has quality issues that can be fixed, deletion isn’t the right thing to do. Deletion is ”appropriate for articles which cannot be improved”. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "During the 2014 Crimean crisis"- part was quoted in Yleisradio - Finnish Broadcasting Company.--RicHard-59 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable as a WP:GNG pass due to multiple instances of SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, see particularly 1 2 3 4. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete it, I will fix the problems in the article, partially translating from RU wikipedia and partially doing some research (including on with links provided by FOARP). As a native Russian speaker, I can attest that the topic is super notable in the post-Soviet countries (particularly RU, UA and BY). That said, some of the examples of the jokes may be moved to Wikiqoutes. I need a day or two of research. Anyone can join. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above, notable as a WP:GNG. Archives908 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - clearly notable for anyone who has grown up under Communism or studies stoicism, humour, Soviet-style societies, resistance by culture, censorship and its subversion, etc. I am sure good sources can be found. They're a treasure trove for academics of many sorts, deserve a good article, not least so in the times of Vladimir Vladimirovich, to whom I'm sending my warmest wishes. Arminden (talk) 06:58, 10 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monaem Khan Raju

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. I can only find database entries and trivial mentions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bangladesh. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Raju played over 20 matches for the eighth most-populous country in the world, I would be shocked if there were not coverage in another language. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - but in the absence of Bengali sources...220 results for 'মোনায়েম খান রাজু' on Google News, 13,800 on Google proper. Giant Snowman 16:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If any sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
possible Keep per [10], [11], [12], those are just some English sources with mentions, however I can't really scan for Bangladeshi sources and the fact there are a number of English sources doesn't negate the lack of Bangladeshi searches. A true WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, because it hasn't been done in the Bangladesh internet sphere. It would greatly help if someone from that country would scan the proper channels for sources. And the fact this player has 22 international caps for a country that does like it's football my guess is there will be sources. Govvy (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked an active Bangladeshi editor here to see if they can uncover anything. Tried to keep the request as neutral as possible, of course! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some sources in Bengali: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. These are mostly mere mentions of him being named in squads and I cant find any English news sources. Theres a more detailed coverage of him regarding a controversy: [18] but the website shows security warnings when I open it. He also seemed to be the former captain of Chittagong Abahani Limited. I am not familiar with football guidelines in Wikipedia so I cannot tell who is notable here. Thanks. Human (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Human for taking time to have a look for more sources on him. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human, there is no football notability guideline anymore, so what is your assessment based on GNG/BIO? JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Willing to give this another few days due to language barrier and to discuss whether Human/Govvy's sources are enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can make out through Google Translate, the first 5 sources provided by Human do not contain significant coverage. The subject is named once or twice in each article, but isn't commented upon in any depth. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources uncovered in this AfD are not significant coverage of Raju.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Daily Star	? author is just "sports reporter", although the site does have an editorial team	passing mention and a quote	✘ No
New Age BD		mentioned once in a list of names	✘ No
Prothom Alo	? author is just "online desk"	mentioned once in a squad list	✘ No
Daily Inqilab		name is listed in a transactional report	✘ No
Prothom Alo	? author is just "sports reporter Dhaka"	passing mention in list	✘ No
Jai Jai in BD	? author is just "sports reporter"	passing mention in list	✘ No
Mzamin	? author is just "sports reporter"	passing mention in lists	✘ No
Somoy News	no byline; link is highlighted pink by the unreliable sources script	passing mention: "Monaim Khan Raju got a red card for hitting Hemant on the neck."	✘ No
Banginews	? no byline, seemingly from a wire service	namedrop and a quote	✘ 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}}.

A search for "মোনায়েম খান রাজু" only returned reprints of the above sources (e.g. "Odhikar News", "News Bangla 24", etc. have basically an identical story to the one in Somoy News) and other trivial roster mentions. I am not seeing any SIGCOV of this player anywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG per the cogent source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 15 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!} 02:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyota Marsudi

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

Reviewed under new page patrol No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. None of the given references have suitable coverage of him, One has medium depth coverage of his dad. North8000 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are insufficient. Does not meet notability.Craigwikiman (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:20, 11 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. Consensus is the arguments for WP:GNG trump other guidelines, and that the sources presented and improvements to the article are sufficient to show this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaisa Marquis

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. WP:SIGCOV is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 6 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) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability criteria has not been met. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unprodder. We have nontrivial coverage in two national-level newspaper articles, and significant coverage with less depth in a third: One giving a paragraph-length bio of her as shortlisted for her country's "sportswoman of the year award", one leading with a photo of her and calling her a key player for the national team, and the third listing her as team captain for an Olympic qualification tournament. There is plenty of additional newspaper coverage giving individual mention of her as having scored goals (or in one case an unfortunate own-goal) in significant national-level events (and also some coverage of her in US collegiate events, where she made the all-conference first team [19]). This is GNG-level coverage, far beyond the usual footballer with only a line in a database to document their inclusion on the roster of a dubiously-significant league-level game. PS @Sportsfan 1234: the Oceania deletion sorting list? Really?? Since when is the Caribbean part of Oceania? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, which multiple independent secondary RS go into any depth beyond the routine match coverage explicitly rejected in NSPORT? I looked at the sources in the article and all of them are exactly the kind of coverage we regularly discount in athlete AfDs per WP:NSPORT. If you think SNGs or the GNG hold any value at all in assessing what is notability-defining coverage of their subjects, you should read the relevant updated guidelines as well as prior AfDs on sportspeople to see why this coverage fails. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable the coverage goes beyond the usual stats and rosters: "A very unique and special athlete", from the award nomination. PamD 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, Saint Lucia Star described her as "over many years Saint Lucia's marquis player when it comes to women's football". Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those assessments are by the same person, and neither of them is SIGCOV... We don't write articles based on one reporter's brief opinion on the subject no matter how complimentary they are or how esteemed they imply the subject to be, otherwise we would have an article on every single junior college athlete in America. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded article further in light of comments above. There is room for even more expansion given the volume of coverage about Marquis and her achievements. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A photograph, paragraph and a "she's captain of the national team mention" is not significant coverage. Scoring goals falls under routine coverage regardless of whether it's a World Cup Final or a Under-7s game. Dougal18 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have coverage at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A huge flag is that there are multiple spellings of her first name – specifically, "Elissa Marquis" seems very prominent. Rechecking for additional coverage and will add accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Giant Snowman 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear and significant coverage, a lot more than probably 90 per cent of the Wikipedia pages out there. If this doesn't count, let's just wipe the website and start over.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not agree that all sources are trivial. For example these two give SIGCOV 1, 2 Mujinga (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is now in much better shape thanks to excellent work by David Eppstein and Cielquiparle. Coverage is beyond trivial/routine stats listings, mentions etc. meaning that WP:SPORTBASIC is met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David above, looks like more than enough sources in the article, it all adds up. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has undergone a remarkable amount of refbombing, including with unusable-for-GNG and BLP-violating sources, apparently arising after a ~~WP:POINTY~~ DYK nomination. The subject does not meet GNG SIGCOV or ANYBIO requirements unless we decide to ignore the hundreds of articles deleted on other footballers with the same or more coverage and relative achievement, and the thousands of deleted subjects who are not athletes. Currently the article consists of way too much unencyclopedic and UNDUE material on minor athletic events, and the only independent commentary on her is the opinion of ONE reporter, which fails NPOV.

The first St Lucia Star article has a couple brief mentions of Marquis with no actual coverage of her in any detail ✘
The second SLS article (articles by the same paper are not counted as independent, especially when they're by the same author) lists her on a roster ✘
The first The Voice St Lucia source is also just her name in a roster list ✘
The MNU Accent source is discounted out-of-hand as it's non-independent, but also only includes a half-sentence on Marquis ✘
The third SLS ref (still by the same author) is a routine match report with two partial-sentence mentions ✘
The second TVSLU ref is not independent (and is also by the same author as the first) and is just a routine match report with 1.5 sentences mentioning her ✘
The third TVSLU ref (also by the same person, who can't seem to spell her name correctly) mentions her in a list and then again at the end of one sentence (emphasis mine: "Levern Spencer who did not make the list last year is back and is more than likely to win her 15th Sportswoman of the year title ahead of Qiana Joseph and Elisia Marquis" -- how selective is this honor if someone can win it 15 times.....) ✘
The fourth SLS article, also covering the Sports Awards and predictably by the same reporter, has the only non-trivial coverage out of all the sources but still comprises just 5 very short basic sentences on her: this would not be enough for any other modern athlete at AfD, why would we overturn our guidelines for this case? ✘
Carib Direct, by an anonymous contributor, has just a trivial mention of her ✘
Terry Finisterre blog is a blog and should be removed per BLP ✘
Fort McMurray Today article mentions her joining a college team along with another St Lucian player ✘
SXU Cougars is non-independent routine match coverage ✘
SXU Student Media is another non-independent routine match report ✘
GU Jackets is a non-independent info table listing Marquis as a member of the 1st Team of a minor NAIA conference ✘
The Vincentian doesn't mention her at all ✘
The fourth TVSLU article is exclusively a Q&A interview with virtually zero independent info on her; such interviews are explicitly excluded by both WP:OR and WP:NSPORT ✘
St Lucia News Online gives her a one-sentence mention (and is by the same blog author, so not independent) ✘

<15 words of opinion on her from David Pascal of the St Lucia Star is not enough for a neutral biography. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the two sources people are claiming "provide SIGCOV" are just the two reports of her nomination for Sportswoman of the Year, then BLP1E is also failed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on "ref-bombing" – intention was not to ref-bomb, but to confirm facts using multiple sources. Obviously not all of the sources can be used to establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the DYK nomination occurred after the expansion; you only have 7 days to submit, which is why I submitted it when I did. I don't submit every single article I expand or create to DYK, just the genuinely interesting ones, which also help to provide variety to the usual topics covered in DYK. I understand that if this article gets deleted, the DYK will not stand. I also think it's important to have empathy and respect for the AfD nominator, who has undertaken a very difficult and underappreciated job which is very important, as well as all the creators who have meticulously compiled a large number of article stubs under a somewhat different set of rules. We are all part of the same process, which is to ensure that Wikipedia has good, accurate, reliable content. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see the DYK being in good faith, I've struck that part. (The rest of this isn't necessarily a response to you, but a general comment). I really do appreciate efforts to increase representation of groups that have been historically undervalued (see my user page), but as someone highly active in athlete AfDs and notability discussions, keeping an article with this level of coverage only serves to muddy the waters when the next USL recruit with a mildly successful college career comes up at AfD. Because if being named to the 1st team in your conference, or being nominated for the equivalent of Tempe, Arizona Sportsperson of the Year (based on population), or being mentioned in a positive light by one reporter a couple times is enough for a standalone article, we're going to get tens of thousands more stubs on white male athletes for every one on an intersectional identity, which means tens of thousands more BLPs on largely private people to monitor. I'm also strongly opposed to assuming a country "needs help" getting WP coverage based only on its being obscure-to-Americans and non-majority-white. WP:BIAS is supposed to encourage editors to find notable topics from underrepresented regions -- which they normally wouldn't come across due to geography/interests -- and to recognize the potential for offline sources in places with little online presence. It's not a license to lower our standards just to get more articles on subjects from places we consider "developing world" -- that just smacks of paternalism and double standards. An island of ~180,000 people with clearly strong online journalism and two Nobel prize laureates -- the highest per capita in the world -- is hardly in need of an artificial boost, especially when a St. Lucian is already 3.5x more likely to have an article on WP than an American is. They are doing just fine producing notable people and topics relative to their population without needing to redefine GNG so one athlete can have an article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one making arguments that this article exists for the purpose of artificially boosting underrepresented people. In fact, your argument amounts to: we should impose artificial barriers on people from regions we think are adequately represented, even people who are documented as being the best from those regions, and only provide coverage on global stars and people from the really backwards regions. It's the same all-or-nothing reasoning that blocks poor people from having any savings at all, forcing them to remain poor, because as soon as they do they stop being poor and we must take away every little bit of assistance they've been given. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I am advocating is using a consistent standard for what constitutes SIGCOV regardless of the subject's background. It should not make a difference whether someone is the best athlete from a city of 200k people or a country of 200k people if the depth and amount of coverage is the same -- otherwise we are introducing some kind of subjective pseudo-ANYBIO "achievement" aspect to the GNG when there specifically is none, as well as overriding explicit consensus on NSPORT subjects. Athletes with this level of sourcing are straightforward deletions, and even ones with 5x the coverage are regularly deleted -- for example, look at the sources for Danish Manzoor, Genny Rondinella, Treyten Lapcevich, Alex Cox-Ashwood (who even had the prestigious distinction of "Jimmy John's Male Athlete of the Week"), and Indrit Cullhaj. The one source on Marquis that provides anything beyond routine match details or brief mentions is the award nomination announcement -- 5 short sentences, the majority just listing where/when she played rather than actually discussing her, is not considered SIGCOV for athletes -- and therefore also fails BLP1E.

And applying consistent standards for notability is not "removing assistance", it's ensuring we have adequate encyclopedic material for all standalone subjects. That means we don't have articles sourced to run-of-the-mill match reports, coverage of minor achievements from clubs or orgs the subject belongs to, or a single reporter's opinion on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in just the St Lucia Star & the Voice alone is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Also, the quality of the recent improvements make this an exemplary WP:Hey. FeydHuxtable (talk)
Keep she has significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple national newspapers. This is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and I don't agree with the source evaluation above (from a couple of days ago) claiming that none of the sources are significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the source evaluation above is farcical. I could go through the sources at David Beckham or Cristiano Ronaldo and pretend they're all "refbombing" or try to disparage them on some other tenuous basis. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay. None of the sources seem to be more than routine sport coverage or trivial mentions. None of the RSes go beyond a few disconnected sentences, and none that I see go into significant biographical details. We'd need to see some sort of dedicated profile for this to pass WP:GNG. And I can't find more sources that go in depth. Many of the keep votes are saying there is significant coverage, but I can't figure out which sources they're referring to. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a dedicated profile. WP:GNG specifically says the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 14 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!} 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Nemeia

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:36, 6 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) 01:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 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!} 02:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarariki Tarotu

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:34, 6 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) 01:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 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!} 02:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enri Tenukai

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:32, 6 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) 01:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 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!} 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biitamatang Keakea

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Oceania, ~~and Caribbean~~. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has nothing to do with any country or territory in the Caribbean, therefore I am removing it from that delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:47, 7 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 11:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viber BI

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, doesn't meet WP:BIO , sources are not that much reliable and are press release. Owlf 📪 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Asia, and Nepal. Owlf 📪 18:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Withdrawn.

Previous discussions: 2018-02 (closed as Withdrawn)

Logs: 2019-06 ✍️ create ← 2018-04 ✗ G5 ← 2014-07 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deltete as per nom and it fails to show WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google sources include links to their Wikipedia article, Instagram, Spotify channel, Youtube channel, Apple music, Celebwiki, Lyrics, Facebook etc. Nothing on Wayback. Nothing on Newspapers.com. Source one in the article appears promising on its face, but clicking the link takes one to a bunch of press releases that in addition to not being independent, have nothing to do with the article subject. Other sources within the article are trivial and lack independence, such as this brief coverage merely rehashing a press release. As such, the person at centre of the article has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent meaning they clearly fail the first criteria for singers, with none of the subsequent criteria met either. I also note that the subject is said to be a writer of songs, I do not see any writing of notable compositions or the other criteria for composers. Overall a strong case this article fails WP:NMUSIC. MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage/impact. No chart placings. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 6 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 01:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Kellman vs. Damari Inniss

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

Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says that [t]o be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive. Tt does not appear to be the case that coverage has been extensive nor that the match has had an extraordinary and lasting impact on the sport of boxing. There's not really a place to redirect this to (Nathal Kellman and Damari Inniss do not appear to have articles), so this page should be deleted as failing the relevant notability guideline. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Barbados. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norminator. Not enough WP:SIGCOV on the event itself to get a page. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced autobiographical article about a non-notable fight by a non-notable fighter. Meets no WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Papaursa. page appears to be created by Kellman himself, and there is zero evidence of this fight, or the opponents being notable. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:33, 9 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 01:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Kellman vs. Jacob Sanders

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

Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. While the guideline says that [t]o be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive, it does not appear to be the case that coverage has been extensive nor that the match has had an extraordinary and lasting impact on the sport of boxing. There's not really a place to redirect this to (Nathal Kellman and Jacob Sanders do not appear to have articles), so this page should be deleted as non-notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Barbados. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norminator. Not enough WP:SIGCOV on the event itself to get a page. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. In fact, the editor who created this article is more than likely Kelman himself. Check out the User page for the article creator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced autobiographical article about a non-notable fight by a non-notable boxer. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of January 22, 1841

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

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in antarctica and its adjacent seas , and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, and Antarctica. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an astronomical database; and as can be seen solar eclipses happen frequently. The only source for this is an all-inclusive catalogue, which is well short of the WP:GNG required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:56, 10 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 solar eclipses in the 19th century. plausible search term, WP:ATD, content remains in the history undeleted so can be merged if anything is worth merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of February 3, 1859

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

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, and Antarctica. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely lacking coverage in reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an astronomical database; and as can be seen solar eclipses happen frequently. The only source for this is an all-inclusive catalogue, which is well short of the WP:GNG required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:55, 10 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. with no one actually offering to work on this, so I have not drafted.If someone would like a copy, just ask. No need to go through refund Star Mississippi 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suomenlinna Brewery

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The company, which per the article brings in an annual revenue of under 1 million Euros, currently contains three sources:

A wordpress blog;
A database entry at the Finnish trade register;
Another database entry, this time from Kauppalehti.

None of these satisfy all three of WP:RS, WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH, so none contribute towards WP:ORGCRIT. A search returned few sources that even mention the brewery, and those that I found that did (such as this article, this article, this blog post, this list, and this travel guide) don't provide WP:CORPDEPTH-level coverage. As such, I think that this article should be deleted as its subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for corporations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Finland. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been there. I have drunk the beer. But it does, indeed, fail WP:NCORP which really, really sucks because it's a fabulous place (and fabulous beer!). I looked for something, anything out there, but sadly not a trace of WP:SIGCOV. It's a rotten world, folks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Highly experienced creator...JIP, would you maybe want to userfy this and work on it in user space? Maybe if you can find Finnish sources? valereee (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I myself searched for the Finnish name of the restaurant and was unable to find sufficient sourcing. It’s generally not a good idea to draftify articles that whose subjects lack notability, as there is nothing that working on a draft can do to make a non-notable article subject notable. Therefore, I oppose draftification of this article as an alternative to deletion unless this company’s notability can be credibly demonstrated. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but you can keep a draft in userspace and watch for more sources to show up. I have drafts in my userspace that just don't quite make it over the hump but that I believe might at some point. But I don't have a strong opinion on this -- as an admin, JIP can easily go view the draft and copy it to their userspace themselves. What I'd really like to see is them translating into their userspace and then not moving to main until they've proven notability, as it seems fi.wiki may have profoundly different requirements. valereee (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  [I]t seems fi.wiki may have profoundly different requirements.
  
  Reading their guidelines, they seem to be pretty much the same as here. I think a smaller community just means less oversight in practice. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I was unable to find an equivalent to WP:NCORP on fi.wiki, so notability for companies appears to go by their WP:GNG-equivalent. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are more strict than GNG, so it's quite possible that the article meets inclusion standards on fi.wiki but not en.wiki. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss School of Business Research

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

Non-accredited college, no evidence of meeting WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or WP:GNG, can't find any independent coverage in reliable sources. Storchy (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Schools, and Switzerland. Storchy (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL. Also ran it through the copyvio detector and the closest match is this, which might be a bit sus. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put quite some time into this article as it appears to me that it was originally written by someone very close to the school. I tried my best to improve it, but some kind of low-level edit war is going on. It seems clear to me that this school exists, and that they aim to use wikipedia to promote their services.

Please also note already that they will claim that eduQua certification is somehow equivalent to them being accredited. This is misinformation. eduQua is not accredited.

The only thing I wonder about - and this may not be reasoning fit for wikipedia - whether it would be a good idea to have a wikipedia article about them state clearly that they are not accredited, and their degrees may be worthless. This might be the only place prospective students learn about that. Functionist (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh and please note there is also an ongoing conflict of interest noticeboard thing going on related to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Swiss_School_of_Business_Research Functionist (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the work you've put in on keeping this from turning into a brochure. I take your point about information about degree mills being useful, but see WP:ITSUSEFUL about that. Definitely worth an entry in List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland though. Storchy (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah fine by me. I don't want to oppose deletion. Functionist (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, not verifiable, fails WP:GNG and others per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single line in the description is fact. Because I checked and double-checked that before editing the description. One of your editors told me I had a conflict of interest, but I made it clear I was neither employed or connected to the school. My interest in Swiss education stems from the fact that my son wants a Master's while he is employed in Canada. That led me to SSBR, and that led me to your editor who keeps repeating that SSBR is not a university because it is not accredited by SEC. This led me back to researching their license, certification and the nature of their degrees. Your editor keeps claiming SSBR is not a university because they are not accredited by SAC, that eduQua quality label in adult education is basically worthless and therefore any degree they award is also worthless - even criminal. I find this incredibly offensive and personal. You may agree or disagree with the relative quality of education between universities and for-profit business schools, but to label a quality assurance label from the Swiss government as rubbish smacks of a personal agenda on display. As you can see yourself from the different links I included in my edits, the Swiss government, the European Union, as well as private institutes claim and qualify under the same system, but your editor refuses to even recognise that.

My son may or may not go to SSBR or SSM, but I am disappointed that a single individual can define any institution for better or for worse on Wikipedia. ViRajPty (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you, but you fell for some misinformation (perhaps from their own website?) and misunderstood accreditation in Switzerland. I don't blame you, the issue is complex. But somehow you misunderstand the license, certification and nature of their degrees. For example, by law a Swiss institution that calls itself a university must be accredited, which is why this one isn't calling itself a university and taking care, when pressed, to say they never claimed to be accredited. you also misunderstand that eduQua is not an academic accreditation. Functionist (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as educational institute. lorstaking 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 18:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corfu Reading Society

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

Corfu Reading Society

This article does not establish organizational notability and is non-neutrally written. There is only one source provided, a book. We can assume that the book is an independent reliable secondary source, but that it does not constitute significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Promotional material extends from the first paragraph to the last section. In the first paragraph:

It acquired a social, educational, political and patriotic character, occupying an important role in the intellectual and social life of the Ionian area, as it was born through the liberal Western European perceptions of early 19th century and the emerging common European concept.

In the last section:

The Corfu Reading Society, during the last fifty years, has developed a remarkable publishing activity that focuses on the study and promotion of Ionian culture.

A Wikipedia article should describe what third-party reliable sources say about an organization. This article is written from the perspective of the society and tells what the society says about itself. There is no discussion of third parties.

This page was moved from article space to draft space by one reviewer with the notation that it was not ready for article space. However, it was then moved back to article space by its author. Moving it back to draft space unilaterally a second time would be move-warring, and the community can decide on the disposition of the article. The organization probably is notable, but the current article is not a suitable beginning, and should probably be reduced in draft space to a stub and then rewritten from independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, and Greece. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't see anything so terrible as to delete it in face of obviously passing WP:GNG. AfD is not a place to improve articles. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I do see some secondary source coverage online, but as it stands, it's just not ready for mainspace. I am worried, though; the author has gone back to their sandbox and reinstated the copyvio version of the page. Further action may be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the most elegant way forward, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bearian's argument. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose a draftify in this situation. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Neither do I. The Greek article that suffered from the society's POV, COI (at least three connected contributors) and copyright infringment, was deleted because of copyright violation and recreated from scratch. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:53, 10 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. but a merger target can be identified and performed editorially. Star Mississippi 18:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Democratic Reformers

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

Unknown party, born from a split of an already extremely small party, which has never participated in Italian political life. It is extremely difficult to find even sources mentioning this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the context of the decomposition of the political parties of Italy's "First Republic" and reconstruction of new political parties, the subject is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In the context of the decomposition of the political parties of Italy's "First Republic" and reconstruction of new political parties", at each Afd, I see your opinions that are questionable, here we are talking about the splitting of the atom (without sources), not of the "decomposition of the political parties of Italy's First Republic". You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Italian Democratic Socialist Party as it is obviously part of its history, rather than a separate thing. Yakme (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case the merge would be appropriate with the Italian Democratic Socialist Party (2004), since the PDR is not a split from the historic PSDI but from its refoundation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 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.

Keep, given the description of its significance, and it's backing by sources.--Autospark (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to NBC Sports Philadelphia. ✗plicit 10:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies Post Game Live

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

Barely-sourced stub on a local-interest show that only airs on one market. Found no other sources. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to NBC Sports Philadelphia. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Bison X. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Bison X. starship .paint (exalt) 07:40, 10 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 move to Draft:Animal X (TV series). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal X (TV series)

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

Despite claims of airing in multiple countries, I couldn't find any sources. No matter what keywords I tried, I got only false positives on ProQuest. Everything already in the article is either WP:PRIMARY or tangential. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Paranormal. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I oppose the nomination for deletion. This article has been heavily edited in a time when I was legally blind and unable to keep things from going from decent to bad. I have sight in one eye now and can help you find sources. As to claims that it has aired in hundreds of countries, well, that seems a bit much. I'd like some time to try to bring this up to a better quality article. I watched the episodes that aired on Discovery's Animal Plant and they were entertaining for what they were. They were certainly a huge cut above the Cryptid shows that are the norm in present. Now that the show streams for free on Tubi, almost anyone can watch it. I volunteer to work on this and if given a list of requested changes and/or concerns, I will do what I can to help. LiPollis (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the show in any degree. As I said, I dug all over newspapers.com and ProQuest and found only false positives for unrelated content with the phrase "Animal X" in it. If you or another editor is unable to find reliable source coverage that I couldn't, then that would save the article. Whether or not you liked the show is immaterial; I like the announcing work of Randy West and still had to nominate his article for deletion because I couldn't find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need reliable sourcing on articles. Watching something and then writing an article from your watching it is not the way we get reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based on primary sources and original research, which is what we have if you build the article on your watching the show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did NOT state that I wrote the article based upon watching the series. That is an inference. I merely stated that I had actually watched the series during its initial US run in order to be informative. In comparison to today's low-quality shows "reality" shows featuring self-described amateur "Squatchers" and such, this show was quite different and far more professionally produced. I invite you to stream a few episodes since you can do so for free. In the years since I began having serious eye-sight trouble, large parts of the article have been altered and references lost. What is the huge hurry to delete? I have told you that I am willing to work on this article now that I have enough sight restored to do the research. The article was part of a now-defunct wiki-Project. I believe it can be greatly improved. I am offering to help. The more time I spend discussing this, the less time I can spend sourcing things. Give me a list and I can get to work. Thanks for your timeLiPollis (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  All of the sources added are either WP:PRIMARY -- that is, originating from the show, its network, or its distributor. The only exception is an obituary on one person involved in the show, which only mentions it very briefly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that. In the two days I have had to search for new sources, I have been trying to verify claims about distribution in all those countries mentioned by other editors and it's problematic for a show of this age. Why not help me? The complaints about the article seem to be about sources and not notability and therefore this is something that could have been better dealt with on the article's talk page. I am not particularly enamored with this article but it does cover an early attempt to cover Crytpid inquiry with some basic science included as opposed to a bunch of people running around the woods asking each other if they heard a noise. A number of those types of shows have run for 100 or more episodes, much to my dismay. Part of the problem I am encountering is the changes in the show's name and the less than unique nature of the names confounds search engines of various types and makes trying to sort through sources a long and tiresome process. I have looked at the activity of past contributors and contributors to the project that began work on this and similar articles and it seems most are inactive. I'm working on this but I cannot fix it in a matter of days all on my own. Thank you for your feedback. LiPollis (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I already did try a search on multiple platforms. "Storyteller Productions" + "Animal X" gives me no results whatsoever on Google News, newspapers.com, and ProQuest. There's literally nothing to help you with. The IMDb entry is completely blank. Even regular Google gives me only IMDb and sites that mirror its content. There's just nothing out there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your reply. The IMDB page isn't exactly blank, but a change in name from Storyteller Productions to Storyteller Media Group may not be helping matters. That and the fact that it has erroneous info. Here is a link to the page that lists other productions by the company and you may notice some similarities in content. Storyteller Media Group seems to be interested in both real or purported animals. Storyteller Media Group (Sorted by Popularity Ascending). There is also info available about the producer. The long time lapse between its first season airing in Australia and it's revival on Animal Planet is another problem. The dates complicate searches as does the common name of Animal plus the letter X. It is frustrating. Back when I was first editing, I wasn't careful to cache reviews in the Internet Archive, so those are just gone. I'm gonna give it some more time and clean out what I can. I've avoided deleting things just yet but the time has come. If I can't get some reviews or anything better than Internet rankings and IMDB popularity ratings, I will throw up my hands. Syndicated shows such as this with complicated production histories present unique problems. I do think the series is notable but I truly DO respect your concerns. Again, I thank you for your time, your reply and your interest in improving the article if possible. LiPollis (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: An editor is expressing a good faith desire to improve the article with the belief that improvements can be made and satisfy WP:N. This can be done in Draft space outside the time constraints of AfD. - 2pou (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify ~~Delete~~ - Nothing in Newspapers, despite many hits for proof of the shows existence being it is named in TV guides as to what time and day it was aired, like this. Nothing on Wayback. Nothing on Proquest. Nothing on Google. Comments made about watching the show and "Give me time and I will find sources" are not valid reasons for keeping, as in my view they amount to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SOURCESEXIST. There is no significant coverage by multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hence the article fails WP:GNG and no amount of editing can overcome its lack of notability. Wikipedia does not have an article on every television show in existence, I vote keep on any show I can see meets WP:GNG, but this one simply can not meet this guideline and so ought to be deleted. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify based on sources located via EBSCO, a database I did not check. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - More sourcing for the revival/spin off Animal X: Natural Mystery Unit, probably due to it being more recent and not airing in 90s where online sources may be scarce. Sydney Morning Herald with follow up in Herald again, Marshall News Messenger, Miraudo, Nadia (May 2, 2004). A matter of hit and myth. The Sunday Times via EBSCO. December 14, 2004. Film team hunts big cat. Hills Shire Times. p. 017. via Newsbank. Short blerb[20] announcing deal to make 3rd season. Small bit of coverage in Business News(AU). Obviously no point to delete main article and make new article for the spinoff. Current title covers both. More sourcing can be found while in draft state, but I think we have enough coverage on the 2004 show, and can use some time to sourcing for the original show, which is main reason I say draft for now rather than keep. If anyone can find more non primary sourcing for original two seasons, I would change to keep. Best I found was a quote from Western Morning News (November 2000, p.9) in this paper[21]. People with access to British/Australian sources would be helpful. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You found all those on EBSCO? Thanks, I will add this resource to my list of databases to check. Changing vote to draftify also. I legit found nothing through my mentioned methods. Thanks @WikiVirusC- MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nothing came up on the Sydney Morning Herald when I searched Newspapers - usually it will even if paywalled. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of them were EBSCO/WP Library, but I only was mentioning via EBSCO for the one I couldn't find a direct link to. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WikiVirusC. starship .paint (exalt) 07:40, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1925 in television

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

Not enough happened in television this early in the game to warrant a list. Deprodded by IP without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. There are five highly significant events (two more than 1926's list), plus renowned films like Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush and Harold Lloyd's The Freshman~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. Must have gotten the films from 1925 in film. Has anybody seen my marbles? I lost them around here somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "Not enough happened in television this early in the game to warrant a list." is opinion and not policy based. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:RS and WP:V are no longer policies either? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't proposing to delete the list based on that. You're rationale just said that not enough happened. So, this deletion request is invalid. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Plenty of things are on the list. The list is a valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 14:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about some sources, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 18:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article mainly listing people who were born in a year who became important to something much later on does not really have much of a point. Television did not exist as a broadcast media in 1925. The stuff about early background developments can be better covered in an article about the development of television.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. The list of births is not significant and the rest of the article is a fork of History of television. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is deleted/redirect does that mean Before 1925 in television should be moved?★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small articles are still articles; nomination offers no policy-based reason for deletion, as pointed out above.
Comment this is difficult, "television" wasn't really a thing until WW2 and after, but there were mechanical televisions before this. Seem to have sources for most of the statements. Best would be to redirect to an article on the history of television. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 10 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!} 02:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tari Signor

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reviews I have added for her theater work help support WP:NACTOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 9 episodes in One Life to Live and several other credits means that she passes WP:NACTOR. Lovewiki106 (talk) 20:39, 12 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!} 02:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Chisum

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV from LA Times here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The LA Times clippings establish enough notability in conjunction with the rest of the article. IrishOsita (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the Los Angeles Times coverage and other sources in the article fir a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 9 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 11:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trisha Paytas performances

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

Topic is not notable per WP:NLIST as it has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 19:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Music, and Television. ––FormalDude talk 19:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator, individual performances have been noted by a few sources here and there, but haven't been discussed significantly as a group or set to justify a split. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, uncontroversially so. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 6 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 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Games: Vegas

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

Sourced only to IMDb. Could barely find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial RS coverage found to support GNG or WP:Notability (media) requirements. Searches yield just incidental mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 9 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 01:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City Diaries

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

Sourced only to IMDb. Couldn't find anything else. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Sex Lives, I cannot find any coverage of this, only listing and database types of sites that not that it existed. Rather puzzled that this obscure thing garnered an entry at Wikiquote, [22], but, whatever. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no valid reason to relist this. A clear nomination, a clear factual opinion to delete, with no objections. There isn't a magical hidden hoard out there with quality reliable sources, just waiting to be discovered. This was a forgettable, 1 season softcore Skinemax show. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The goal at AfD is consensus, and participation in this debate is minimal. Admins have discretion to wait for more input. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, lacking non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. Independent searches for coverage yield only incidental mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 10 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 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Break

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

Of the two sources, one is just a TV Guide listing. No other sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other source is a self-published book. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator's given reasons. Only one source present and that isn't look to me reliable enough. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:53, 11 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 01:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Around the World (TV program)

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

Sources are from the network. Couldn't find any other sources. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This program doesn't seem like it was notable enough for it to have its own article. Is there any benefit in merging this into CNN Newsroom, perhaps? – numbermaniac 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect or delete as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, source-free zone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:23, 6 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 11:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paradise

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

Local-market show. No sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Local shows are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find anything more than brief mentions when searching for sources, and there does not appear to be a reasonable target for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 05:07, 6 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 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Hobson

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated twice before, and while it was been kept, there have been no improvements. The article reads as self promotion and a resume. No other pages on the project link to this page, and it does not add to the project.Sheehanpg93 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete William S. Hobson is a chemistry teacher. And he is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe he actually meets any of the prongs of notability we have for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 6 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 11:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Shots

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

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found, deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adds nothing to the project, and doesn't meet notability standards. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources on Google, Wayback, or Newspapers. No books or or other significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:29, 6 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 03:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Sprouts

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

Only one source, nothing better found, prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there is only one source and through my searching, which was not extensive, of finding no rs it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources on Google, Wayback, or Newspapers. No books or or other significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Kidscreen article cited is also not significant in its coverage. Funnily, there were more articles found on sprouts the vegetable than I ever would have thought, nothing on the show though. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:38, 6 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] Tim Taylor; Alan Dorin (2020). Rise of the Self-Replicators; Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030482343.

[2] Isiah Lavender (2011). Race in American Science Fiction. Indiana University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780253222596.

[3] Hamid R. Ekbia; Bonnie A. Nardi (2017). Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism. MIT Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 9780262036252.

[4] David H. Guston, ed. (2010). Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Vol. 2. Sage Publishing. p. 701.

[5] Gregory L. Matloff (2005). Deep Space Probes; To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer Publishing. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9783540247722.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]