Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 02	May 04 >

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 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. Star Mississippi 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Corry

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORTS. No significant secondary source coverage. agtx 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. agtx 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to find in my searches beyond the usual routine announcements and race reports. If anything, I came up with sources about other people with the same name: the actor, the associate director and a pattern designer! Corry fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, and fails WP:NMOTORSPORT at the lowest step of the Indy ladder. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to actively work on this in draft, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Clark

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. agtx 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. agtx 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this from Toronto Star [1], but everything else is either WP:ROUTINE news announcements/race reports, blogs/unreliable sources, databases, interviews or passing mentions. Simply WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet WP:GNG at the moment and obviously doesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORT being at lowest step of the Indy ladder. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - Based on his record, it could very well be a matter of time before another publication picks up on him. I'm almost surprised that the Toronto Sun hasn't yet. Norris McDonald is a gem, though and beating a Paul Tracy record is pretty cool. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATD-I draftifying is for " articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Here, the quality isn't the problem. I don't think it's appropriate to move an article to draft space because we think the subject might become notable. Certainly it's not going to happen in 6 months (which is how long drafts stay around). agtx 16:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Ontario. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rosenblatt (musicologist)

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

Setting aside what appears to be some fishy COI editing from the page's creator, the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. agtx 22:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources found in GScholar or Jstor, he might be an academic but isn't notable as one. Appears to be a Russian pianist with the same name, they have a few hits. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As editor-in-chief of a journal (Min Ad) that has been active since 1999, there is a possible case for WP:NPROF C8. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – 'Min-Ad' is not listed by Scopus, so I could not obtain a SCImago score, but it does not seem to be a particularly notable publication, not sufficient to meet WP:NPROF C8 in my view. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Creator has been blocked for socking. >>> Extorc.talk 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom., not enough coverage to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my search, insufficient coverage for the WP:GNG for this Israeli musician and musicologist. The Russian composer easily passes this bar. gidonb (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good call by nominator to focus on the stuff that matters. COI can be fixed. But when the BLP fails the GNG there is no reason to do so. In the end it's all about notability. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the Grandmas

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

Non-notable TV show. Only lasted seven episodes and thus got no WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 26 April 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?)} 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator was already asked on their talk page to slow down with all the nominations. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough reliable sources to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not enough coverage by RS. Alex-h (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing exists and examples of such have been provided. No issue with the nomination itself and if that conversation needs to continue, it can elsewhere. Star Mississippi 02:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBQ Blitz

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

No reliable sourcing found. Show only lasted six episodes and therefore got no WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 26 April 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?)} 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator was already asked on their talk page to slow down with all the nominations. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were asked to slow down on PRODs and to notify the creator of the articles. Liz's warning has/had nothing to do with AFD's and nothing User:Liz said suggested in any way that TPH couldn't bring these to AFD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks enough reliable sources to justify having it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See WP:NEXIST: topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Food Network original programming as sources pertaining to the show itself are lacking. The sources that do exist pertain mainly/only to those that appeared on the show and have little/nothing to do with the show itself.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Keep per Cunard.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Storey, Michael (2015-10-08). "Ex-football Hog hosts Food Network's BBQ Blitz". Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "The 34-year-old Jackson won Season 11 of Food Network Star (hosted by celebrity chefs Bobby Flay and Giada De Laurentiis) in August, and finally goes prime time as host of a new six-episode series BBQ Blitz. The show premieres at 9:30 p.m. Friday on the Food Network with Jackson hitting a new city in each episode. The premiere episode was taped in Little Rock and features local chefs Justin Patterson and Donnie Ferneau, along with food truck owner Gwen Jones. The other cities, all with special connections to Jackson are Miami and Charlotte, N.C., (where he played with the Dolphins and Panthers, respectively); Dallas, his childhood home; Montgomery, Ala., where his extended family lives; and barbecue mecca Kansas City."
2. Dickie, George (2015-10-11). "Jackson goes from the grid to the grill on Food Network's 'BBQ Blitz' - Tasty Tv". The Ardmoreite. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "If there are two things football players can do well, it's compete and eat. Which, Eddie Jackson says, makes his new gig hosting Food Network's "BBQ Blitz" something of a natural fit. ... The six-episode competition series, which airs Fridays, goes to cities such as Miami, Dallas, Kansas City and Charlotte, N.C., where three top local grillers, smokers and fire-roasters prepare their signature dishes, then are challenged to transform them into something completely different - all to be evaluated by a panel of judges. The winner gets a $5,000 prize. ... And this isn't just a ribs and brisket show as literally anything - fish, pork, lamb, chicken, beef, turkey or even vegetables - could be on the grill. Creativity is on display in the stadium-like atmosphere, as the competitors must rely on their imaginations to reconfigure their dishes."
3. Carlton, Bob (2015-10-30). "Which Alabama chef won the Food Network's 'BBQ Blitz'?". AL.com. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Three Alabama chefs matched their cooking skills on Thursday night's episode of the Food Network's "BBQ Blitz," but when the smoke cleared, John Hall of Post Office Pies in Birmingham came home with the $5,000 prize. ... Jackson, the "BBQ Blitz" host, is a former NFL football player who recently won the 11th season of "Food Network Star." Thursday night's show was taped in Montgomery outside the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts last month."
4. Morago, Greg (2015-10-08). "Houstonian's new Food Network series debuts Oct. 9". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: ""BBQ Blitz," the show that fitness trainer Jackson got for winning Season 11 of the Food Network competition, premieres Oct. 9 at 9:30 p.m. In the six-episode series, Jackson hits a new city in each episode, including Miami and Charlotte, NC, where he played professional football. The series also visits Dallas, his childhood hometown; Little Rock, Ark., from his college days; Montgomery, Ala., where his extended family lives; and barbecue mecca Kansas City."
5. Harper, Brad (2015-09-16). "Food Network filming BBQ faceoff in Montgomery". Montgomery Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "The Food Network is filming a barbecue chef showdown in Montgomery this weekend, and it’s looking for an audience. Former NFL player Eddie Jackson’s new show, “BBQ Blitz,” will host a competition featuring “three of Alabama’s best chefs,” the network said. The three-segment episode will start filming at 8 a.m. Saturday at the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts."
6. Frazar, Felicia (2015-10-22). "Seguin man goes on TV barbecue competition". Seguin Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Adrian Davila, of the family-owned Davila’s BBQ, will make his cooking debut as a competitor on the show, BBQ Blitz, which is set to air at 9:30 p.m. Friday. ... BBQ Blitz host Eddie Jackson travels from city to city, pitting three top chefs against each other in a sports-style setting, according to a press release."
7. Frazar, Felicia (2015-10-25). "Seguin barbecuer Adrian Davila triumphs on BBQ Blitz". Seguin Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Local grill master, Adrian Davila sacked his competition in the Food Network show “BBQ Blitz.” In the episode “Texas Takedown,” — which premiered Friday night — Davila put his skills to the test, competing against Roe DiLeo and Kyle Noonan and coming out champion."
8. Salinas, Rebecca (2015-10-23). "Seguin BBQ pit master to star on Food Network competition". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Fans of the iconic Davila’s BBQ in Seguin can look forward to seeing the restaurant’s third-generation pit master Adrian Davila hit the television screen in this week’s “BBQ Blitz” show on the Food Network. The episode, called the “Texas Takedown,” will feature Davila and two other pit masters as they go head to head for $5,000 and, of course, bragging rights."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BBQ Blitz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider the newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG overall, although perhaps on a bit of a weaker level. Source examples include [2], [3], [4], [5]. Another option would be to merge to Eddie Jackson (chef). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Hart Food

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

Non-notable show. Only lasted six episodes, got virtually no WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 26 April 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?)} 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator was already asked on their talk page to slow down with all the nominations. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were warned to slow down on PRODs and has nothing to do with TPH putting anything up for AFD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing here to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hannah Hart. Sourcing exists (Variety), but even that mostly pertains to Hannah Hart. Does not warrant its own separate article, but useful content can be merged with its parent article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Keep per Cunard as he's managed to find sources that meet WP:SIGCOV.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Warren, Andrew (2017-08-13). "Taste TV - YouTube star Hannah Hart explores culinary hot spots". The Berkshire Eagle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: ""I Hart Food" premieres Monday, Aug. 14, on Food Network, and Hart serves as both host and executive producer. Over six episodes, the media personality with a laugh-out-loud sense of humor follows her stomach to some of the country's top regional food hot spots, where she finds some amazing local dishes, and equally amazing people. ... In Monday's premiere, Hart is in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the food is just as hot as it is outdoors. She's there to check out a local culinary tradition: red and green chilies on everything."
2. Neal, Brandi (2017-08-14). "Why You Need To Check Out Hannah Hart's New Show 'I Hart Food'". Bustle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "The prank paved the path for Hart's new Food Network show I Hart Food, a six-episode series that premieres Monday Aug. 14 at 10 p.m. ET. I Hart Food has Hart traveling around the country exploring how local staples are used to highlight unique food cultures in different cities and towns in the United States. From Santa Fe, N.M., to Portland, Maine, and lesser-known places in between, I Hart Food delves into topics like the many ways Mainers prepare lobster, myriad uses for green and red chilis in Santa Fe, and the nuances of raising Bison in Montana. ... And, when it really comes down to it, preparing and sharing food is really a social experience, and a way to show love, which is exactly what I Hart Food is all about."
3. Knapp, JD (2017-06-24). "YouTuber Hannah Hart Dishes on New Food Network Series 'I Hart Food'". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Hannah Hart is about to hit the road for her new Food Network series, “I Hart Food.” The six-episode order was first confirmed in summer of 2016, but Hart and the network both revealed new details about the show heading into the weekend. ... Episode one will follow Hart as she travels to Santa Fe to test out New Mexican flavors. Subsequent episodes will see her traveling to North Carolina, Maine, Oregon, Minnesota, and Montana."
4. Spangler, Todd (2016-07-26). "YouTube Star Hannah Hart Lands Food Network TV Series". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Hannah Hart is the latest digital influencer to jump from the Internet to TV, inking a deal with Food Network for a six-episode culinary-travelogue series that will also encompass a range of digital and social content. ... The Hannah Hart series on Food Network is produced by Warrior Poets, founded by filmmaker Morgan Spurlock and Jeremy Chilnick, along with Hart and Linnea Toney."
5. Kinane, Ruth (2017-08-14). "I Hart Food: Hannah Hart shares her love for all things edible". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "I Hart Food, which premieres Monday night on Food Network, is a cross-country culinary road trip where Hart takes her unique brand of humor and enthusiasm for eating to six different cities. There, she’ll taste the signature dish in each, learning from local chefs and restaurateurs."
6. Bonem, Max (2017-08-14). "Hannah Hart Jumps from YouTube to TV with I Hart Food". Food & Wine. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Hart now has her own TV show on The Food Network, aptly titled I Hart Food. The six-episode series, which premiers August 14th at 10/9c, takes Hart on a trip across the U.S. to explore local specialties and what makes each of them unique. Along with wanting to learn more about regional dishes though, I Hart Food was inspired by Hart’s love of food and travel. ... Dishes and destinations for the first six episodes include lobster in Portland, ME, barbecue in Asheville, NC, and green and red chiles in Santa Fe, NM. As Hart puts it, she chose cities that were obviously delicious, but maybe not quite as popular amongst eating enthusiasts."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow I Hart Food to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard found evidence that the GNG is met. Dream Focus 20:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider new sources and whether they are adequate for establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Cunard are sufficient for meeting WP:GNG, but since it's been relisted, a newspapers.com search came up with more including [6], and [7]/[8] Jacona (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spin (2007 film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Needs two or more suitable/reliable sources/reviews in order to be eligible. So far, there's only review from Variety which can be found on Rotten Tomatoes. I found nothing else that's suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only places this film has been mentioned is places like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, YouTube and a few other places that do NOT in any way establish notability. No assertion for future improvement.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Panadura Royal College. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Greens

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

Non-notable inter-school cricket match. Lacking in historical significance to establish notability as it was first played in 2005, very few in-depth sources beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Sri Lanka. StickyWicket (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Panadura Royal College#Annual Big Match, which was the outcome of the previous AFD. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Joseph2302, not suitable enough for it's own article, but mentioned on the Panadura Royal College page, so should be redirected there per WP:ATD.

Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Panadura Royal College. Dan arndt (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian dance, electronic, and techno artists

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

Completely unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The lede,

Note: Because classifying music by subgenre can be arbitrary, many artists appear on multiple lists of music genres. Furthermore, artists listed have had reputable album releases and are widely accepted by DJs and fans of Christian EDM worldwide as electronic artists.

, outright admits that the idea is completely nebulous and impossible to verify.

How exactly is Owl City a "Christian dance" artist? How is Amy Grant one when just one of her albums was remixed in that fashion? How is Casting Crowns one for "various songs"? Why are dance, electronic, and techno being conflated in this list? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I clicked on one of the links. And Then There Were None (band) says in the infobox they are Christian metalcore, and have been on the Billboard Christian Albums chart. Seems like an easy way to determine who should be on the list. But then later in the article it says that other than the drummer, the rest of the band is are atheist or agnostic. So not sure about this now. There are 11 lists of Christian bands by genre at List of Christian bands and artists by genre. Dream Focus 04:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for genres made up one day, especially when the definition is meaningless. Owl City? Oh yeah that’s a Christian music project just because Adam Young is Christian [sarcasm]. Dronebogus (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to four different poorly defined terms. "Christian" is being used here for acts that actively promote themselves as such but also for others in which one or two band members have professed their personal religious beliefs. "Dance", "Electronic", and "Techno" serve no useful purpose in being mashed together in this list and some of the acts don't fall into any of them. The whole thing just doesn't work as a "group" or "set" as required at WP:NLIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC Radio 4 programmes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The (Almost) Accidental Adventures of Bell and Todd

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

Short-lived miniseries with no SIGCOV that I could locate. I would boldly redirect to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes, but it was kept by no consensus at a 2008 bundled AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Happy Ever (Radio Show)), so I thought better safe than sorry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the writer, John Eggleston, happened to be notable, then a biographical article on him could be created, and this article plausibly redirected there (with {{R from creative work}}) and be discussed as appropriate. If not, a redirect to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes would be the second best alternative to deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock reptile (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Not notable, cites only two primary sources. Was previously a redirect and then restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Rock reptile (Dungeons & Dragons) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor fictional creature that does not appear to have any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Neither of the included sources are sufficient for establishing notability, as both are gamebooks, and searches brought up nothing to establish any kind of notability at all. The previous redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters was inappropriate as the creature is not mentioned at the target, and it would not be appropriate to redirect or mention it at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons considering how utterly minor this creature is. Rorshacma (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (preferred) redirect to whtever target User:BOZ feels is the best. I concur that this fails GNG at present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor gamecruft, that is not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and has no suitable coverage for an article. I recognize there was a recent redirect discussion that ended without a consensus, and this is an unlikely search term, with nothing to nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons while having the redirect go to whatever section there mentions it.--Rtkat3 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Not notable, cites only a primary source and a trivial mention. Was previously a redirect and then restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional creature. Of the two sources, one is a primary source, and the other is a piece of self-published fiction, which is very obviously not an acceptable source. Searches bring up essentially no substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As it is such an incredibly minor creature, redirecting or merging it would not be appropriate in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (preferred) redirect to whtever target User:BOZ feels is the best. I concur that this fails GNG at present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor gamecruft, that is not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and lacks any significant coverage. Since people were recently discussing whether to include a redirect, this is an unlikely search term and there is no point on WP:PRESERVEing it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs on Fandom instead of a professional encyclopaedia CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are assertions that it's covered elsewhere, and no evidence has been provided that this is a notable topic. If someone wants to redirect this, it can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child singer

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

PROD'ed, but contested, so here's the full AfD. Besides an entirely unencyclopedic and excessive list (with of course a lot of WP:BIAS, both geographically and in other ways) which has been removed, this is, a) a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY and b) not even an accurate definition... There is no appropriate redirect target (Boy soprano might make sense in some cases, ex. Aled Jones, but very much not in others; and there is no general article about children singing), and while there might possibly be some sources from which to write an actual encyclopedic article about the topic of children who sing (under this or another title), I c) can't find them from a quick search; and d) there's not much content from this that would be helpful in writing a new article anyway, so starting form scratch is probably preferrable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nominator blanked the article, and then prodded it as a dictionary entry, despite a discussion last year at talk (recognizing the obvious deficiencies in the article, and looking at solutions), that the nominator did not participate in. When asked to discuss it in talk, they then blanked the article again, nominated it for AFD, and failed to notify either anyone who has ever participated in the discussion or worked on the article in almost 20 years. This appears to be WP:GAMING to me. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a patent WP:PA which makes no sense. The article consisted of A) a pointless and systematically biased list and B) the current lead sentence. I am not obliged nor required to participated in talk page discussions about an article which consists solely of a lead sentence dictionary definition. If you don't like it, you just don't have to follow my edits around; and particularly not come around and accuse me of "gaming the system". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, User:RandomCanadian, that you take a simple statement of facts as a personal attack. Yeah, I got the year wrong - thank you for notifying me, I have correct my post. Please no more personal attacks, or editing other people's posts. Thank! Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of bad faith... 'nuff said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just stated the facts. I didn't make any suggestions of bad faith. If you find what I described as bad faith, then perhaps that's your subconscious speaking to you, not me. Can you please notify the other participants in the discussion. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be WP:GAMING to me is self-explanatory. There's already a big bright red "this article is at AfD" tag. I have no duty (in policy or through common sense) to notify everybody or anybody who participated on discussions on the article's talk page (and considering those people rejected the very obvious idea of moving the article to a title which appropriately describes its content [not that that would have solved all the problems, but it at least would have solved one of them], I wouldn't see why we would want to indiscriminately notify them). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you are not required to notify, it is generally considered courteous to contact main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion - one might even use the word "duty" to describe such a courtesy! I'm not fullying parsing the use of both the conditional and a double-negative in your last sentence, but I assume then that you wouldn't object to me notifying those who participated in the move discussion. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see why you would want to contact people who didn't even want to change the title, much less address any of the other fundamental problems with this. As for the article's "main contributors", they all seem mostly inactive, so not like there's much point in contacting them anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't looked at the discussion much - of course one just one side - obviously one would also contact those who wanted to change the title. I'm not even sure which side would go which way on this ... I'd guess that those who wanted move it to a list would have been more likely to have opposed deletion - though I've given it little thought as the motive would obviously be to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus! Nfitz (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article with no sources. We have better more specified articles that cover more focused aspects related to this topic. This could be an encyclopdic topic, but I would want to see a well based in reliable sources article that says substantial things about the topic in existence before we throw it into main space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are to have an article it needs to be under a title such as "professional singing by children". I also think that children before voice changes due to puberty singing is a different topic than legal minors singing. Clearly just a list of some people who sang in some way (hopefully at least limited to those who did so in a very public way, but exactly what public performance points does someone have to meet to so qualify). Michael Jackson would clearly fall under this topic, I am less sure about people who began their career at 16 or 17. I am also less than sure about people who did a few paid local venue gigs as 15, but didn't release an album with a record company until 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The other issue is that the list had a clear recency bias. Children singing, in some way or another, even in what could be considered a professional fashion, existed long before the 20th century (Bach was a chorister in his youth; Mozart's Apollo et Hyacinthus was sung at its premiere by... young choristers; then there's the famed girls from the Ospedale della Pietà, ...). And of course it entirely misses the topic of non-professional children singing (for ex. in more generic educational contexts [9]). Without reliable secondary sources to write about this, though, this is just me collating information from my own practical knowledge of music and music history, and borderline OR, so not grounds to have an article like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about redirect to Treble voice? Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the topic met NLIST before blanking, and now it's just a worthless stub. Avilich (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dorsal veins of the penis. Star Mississippi 14:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick vein

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

Is this really needed? "Dick Vein" isn't mentioned in the Snickers article, and if that's removed it becomes disambiguation of nothing at all - i.e. G14. casualdejekyll 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Dick vein" is a completely reasonable search term and the disambiguation page has multiple legitimate targets. There are lots of references in reliable sources for the term, for example: <https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/snickers-dick-vein-dont-let-this-flop-podcast-1343163/> and <https://thetakeout.com/why-everyone-loves-the-snickers-dick-vein-according-1848824116>. If anything, the Snickers article, which already mentions "dick vein" in a citation, should probably be edited to include an explicit mention of the term. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dorsal veins of the penis, with a note in the article about the Snickers hoax (which is entirely premised on the apparent similarity between the anatomical feature and the texture of the candy bar). BD2412 T 19:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added content on the meme at Dorsal veins of the penis‎#In popular culture. BD2412 T 03:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the utility in having it here, it's at best a meme. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b. I'm not sure I understand your comment. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of Internet memes. Here are some examples from 2007: Category:Internet memes introduced in 2007. I'm not sure that "dick vein" is a meme, but even agreeing to that, Wikipedia documents notable memes. The coverage in multiple reliable sources points to at least inclusion here. I don't think "dick vein" has yet reached the point of warranting a standalone article, however, unlike Dramatic Chipmunk. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's what I meant, it's only recently been a meme and isn't notable enough yet for an article, if it makes it there at all. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This isn't a proper disambiguation, people aren't searching 'dick vein' looking for the snickers article. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. CT55555 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorsal veins of the penis. Personally I don't think a note in the article about the snickers hoax started by a Twitter user is even worth including.Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested; the Snickers thing is already well covered there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorsal veins of the penis. It seems fully reasonable to have a redirect from the commonplace name to the technical name, but having this as a disambiguation page makes little sense given that the veins themselves are clearly the primary topic. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss Serpent

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. My own search has only turned up promotional material from the show, a couple blogs dedicated to the show, and this Entertainment Today article, none of which seem to meet sourcing standards. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough SIGCOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Continue editorially. There is no clear consensus as to whether it should be kept or merged, but that discussion can be handled editorially as there's no input for deleting the content Star Mississippi 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobdownsite

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

This mineral species has been discredited per the source linked on its talk page. A discredited mineral species presumptively lacks notability. Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep, but update to describe it as a mistake? If it was notable before (non-trivial coverage in sources) its non-existence doesn't make it non-notable to the best of my understanding. Possibly an upmerge, if there's a suitable candidate? Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia has articles for some other IMA-discredited minerals e.g. Crossite, Pimelite, Uranocircite, Bakerite, Felsőbányaite, so perhaps discrediting by the IMA may indeed not remove Wikipedia notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability guidelines give insufficient guidance about things that were notable for being 'something' but which were later discovered to not be that 'something'. GeoWriter (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whitlockite, briefly noting that Bobdownsite is a discredited variant of that mineral. I'm persuaded by @Guettarda:'s argument that, since multiple reliable sources referenced it before it was discredited, there needs to be a redirect of the term and a discussion somewhere in the encyclopedia. But since it has been discredited, that discussion should be brief, just enough to explain what it was thought to be and why that no longer holds. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't being disproven still warrant mention in the article? Whatever it is, it was discussed in scientific papers for years. The thing being disproven doesn't negate the fact that is was postulated and discussed for years in the scientific community. Being a "non-thing" is still a "thing" if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article specifically on Piltdown man, even though it was discredited, because it shaped some subsequent science and because it became notorious with the non-scientific public. Neither applies here, so I don't support an independent article, but I believe it should be mentioned in the Whitlockite article -- briefly, because I think it doesn't deserve a lot of weight. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a redirect, with perhaps a brief mention of the " "thing" being disproven" Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whitlockite, briefly noting that Bobdownsite is a discredited variant of that mineral, changing the Bobdownsite article into a redirect to Whitlockite. The subject of a Wikipedia article must be notable but not all notable subjects must have a Wikipedia article, therefore there is no necessity for Bobdownsite to be kept as an article instead of becoming a redirect. GeoWriter (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surface to Air (film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I only found one review on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found that is suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avitesh Shrivastava

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

He has released a single, however he does not meet WP:SINGER. He is making his film debut, however it is in production. Parents are notable, however independently WP:GNG is not satisfied. Jay (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mourning After

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

Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm leaning towards keep on this one. I found reviews from Allmusic and Rock Hard, both are reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. There's also a couple in the article that I've never heard of. Honestly, I'm guessing there's more locked away in print media too - this album, and the one before it, were released on major record labels with big name music producers. I find it hard to believe it didn't get a couple of magazine articles back in the early 2000s. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not loading for me at the monent but it looks like Blabbermouth wrote 3-4 articles about this albums era too], though I can't check them to see if it's significant coverage. All the more reason to make me think it probably received coverage in print copy magazines in the 2000s though]. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Sergecross. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Winters (filmmaker)

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

Unable to find significant independent coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE search to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japunga

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

Renominating for deletion (it's been over a decade). Band doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC Mooonswimmer 15:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band lacks notability and any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to restore to draft space if someone feels they can satisfy GNG, but nothing has been presented to indicate even the beginnings of coverage sufficient to satisfy GNG, so no grounds to draftify whatsoever bar the hope that coverage might materialise in the future Fenix down (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Urbáez

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

Doesn't meet GNG and has no significant coverage.

Also fails to meet NFOOTY. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and isn't capped internationally. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, Spain, and Caribbean. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Please note that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Also fails the old WP:NFOOTY too. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - 19-year old that was called up recent national team camp; Dominican hasn't played for a year, and Nations League starts in about 3 weeks. Article missed his U-23 cap in Olympic qualifying. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Fathi Daif

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under G5. Apologies for the confusion below, I misread the timestamps on Jpesch95's block log and thought the block was from this year. Hut 8.5 07:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of gay men

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

We already have History of homosexuality, there seems to be no reason to have a "history of gay men" (could be a redirect of course). It is very unclear what content is supposed to be included in the one article which doesn't also belong in the other, and we shouldn't have two articles on the same subject. Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Sexuality and gender. Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ask/comment. why do we have History of lesbianism if we already have history of homosexuality? If we have history of bisexuality why not of gay men? I agree it could be a redirect somewhere — Tazuco 15:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just mention that I recently blocked Depressedchicano as a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpesch95), so History of gay men is eligible for WP:G5. In deference to this AfD already running, I'll not take any action on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- G5 is fine by me. Fram (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't qualify for G5 because it wasn't created in violation of a block or ban (none of the socks was blocked when the article was created). I agree that there doesn't seem to be much point in having this article though, it would only make sense if there was a load of content specific to gay men which could be included, and while there's one example given (Nazism) that isn't really enough. Hut 8.5 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hut 8.5, how else would someone create an article in circumvention of a block except by socking? Socking is evading a block. Of course an account that's already blocked can't create anything. Per WP:G5, When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5. This absolutely qualifies as G5. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suspect that the likelier explanation is that Hut 8.5 missed the connection to Jpesch95 (blocked May 2021) and only evaluated the connection to BretonAmoux (blocked May 2022) which by itself is not sufficient to warrant a G5, or misread the year of the block timestamp, rather than that they've completely misunderstood how G5 and block evasion worked as you seem to be implying. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, but I have seen that exact idea from another administrator in the past, so I wanted to be sure. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ignore the sock issues (and therefore not weighing in on the applicability of G5), this is a WP:CFORK of History of homosexuality. I feel there is not much need for a redirect as this is an unlikely search term and the article has not existed long enough that incoming links would be an issue. TartarTorte 02:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Wright (politician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician, not convinced this passes WP:GNG. Most of this article is dedicated to her failing to get elected - I'm not sure how being a candidate alone is enough to warrant an article. It seems her only achievement is being a councillor for a while. — Czello 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Czello 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (original author of article). Missvain gave a list of RS to show notability in the previous nomination. Selecting the 5 strongest from that list, plus one strong one from the article. I think it's quite clear the subjects meets WP:GNG. Two elections made national press (2015/2019), so WP:BLP1E does not apply.

Femke (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable politician whose only coverage in reliable sources is her failed candidacy. Her career as a Councillor alone does not seem to establish enough notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments for deletion are no more coherent or convincing than last time. A familiar straw man is rolled out by the nominator, who's right to note that "being a candidate alone is [not] enough to warrant an article", but is apparently unaware that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as exists here, is enough to warrant an article. In case anyone wants to claim, as a few did at the last AfD, that the coverage of Wright amounts to no more than is expected of any failed parliamentary candidate, my invitation to show similar coverage for the other unsuccessful candidates who stood in the same constituency in the same elections still applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My analysis is that Arms & Hearts and Femke have clearly conveyed how GNG is met via the sources provided. CT55555 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Light heavyweight. as a viable ATD. If articles are created on the other Lindbergs, this can be converted to a dab. Star Mississippi 02:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Lindberg did not medal at the Olympics, that is the cut off for Olympic notability. Otherwise we need good sourcing to show notability, which the two inter-related sports data pages we have, neither of which even has 2 lines of prose on Lindberg, are not enough. The last deletion discussion was done before our decision last fall that only medalists are default notable. It shows why the old system did not work. No one argues that they were able to find any sources. I went looking and could find no other sources that spoke of Lindberg really at all. The previous deletion discussion was done before we limited default notability to Olympic medalists. No one there presented any place they could find any coverage in the type of sources we require to cover people to justify biographical articles. This is not a good redirect target either. I was able to find a book on the history of one of the Dakotas that devoted 2-3 paragraphs to the biography of someone with this name who was treasurer of a country in that state, and I was able to find an IMDb listing for a person who seemed much too recent to possibly be this person who I believe was a filmmaker of some sort. So there are at least 2 other people who have this same name who are just as not notable but poissible search terms as this person, so there is no reason to make this name the redirect target. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Light heavyweight per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why exactly should this name redirect to this non-notable athlete, as opposed to the county treaurer who I can find several times as much text on, or the filmmaker?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of those people have an article on WP, Lambert. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been asked over and over again to stop referring to me by the unaccompanied last name. Your rudeness and disrespect is increasing. As shown below one does have a current link to him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That is quite rude and aggressively uncivil. If you're going to insist that you get to dictate which form of your name people use, you don't deserve respect, Miss Lambert. 68.15.62.184 (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and a different Carl Lindberg is mentioned at ManOpen - although I am not convinced that it is notable, and if Rixstep isn't a reliable source then it should be brought to AFD and this article turned into a redirect. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is now at least the 3rd other person with this name who is at least as close to being notable as this person who we have identified. Even less reason to even consider making this name a redirect to this non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I found no indication of notability besides his Olympic appearance and redirects are cheap. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What of the multiple other possible people who have the same name, including one mentioned in an article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article we're discussing is about the boxer. If you feel there are other notable people named Carl Lindberg, feel free to write an article about them. There's a reason disambiguation pages exist. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel none of these people are notable period. However the other non-notable people with this name are as likely to be search terms, and so there is no reason to force searches to go here when we have no reason to actually think this is the most likely target. I think all of these are non-notable, and none have a strong suggestion as being the redirect. However another person with this name is mentioned in the text of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. This is the kind of article that should be here. Jacona (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, albeit borderline no consensus. Either way, there isn't a consensus to delete the materials. Star Mississippi 02:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Paul

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Just a journeyman with no breakthrough roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ROTM actor, decent enough, but fails WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any actual significant roles to meet our inclusion guidelines for actors. Not everyone with a credited role in a commerical film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me as he had a list of numerous (supporting or other kind) of roles in notable films and tv shows. [10] MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Johnson, DeWayne B. (1986-12-25). "Chatsworth Actor Finds Steady Work, Dividends as Film Heavy: But Veteran of 100 Roles Seeks to Change Hat to White". Los Angeles Times. p. 35. ProQuest 292479644. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  This is a 1,246-word article about Lee Paul. The article notes: "Actor Lee Paul's career record reads: "Bad guys, 117; good guys, 3, with one of those in question." Predominantly "bad guy" Paul is something of a rarity among the 80,000 card-carrying actors and actresses in America today. ... With roles of various sorts in well over 100 television productions-primarily the heavy-the residuals show up regularly in the Paul mailbox. They range from an occasional hefty sum to a career low of $2.67. Thirty or more television commercials have added to Paul's credits, and income, including a "good guy" part in an inspirational commercial for the Mormon Church. ... At "5 feet, 17 1/2 inches," and 225 pounds, he is both tall and solidly built. Paul acknowledges that it hurts when he is passed over for a part simply because of his height, as has happened more than once. ... With an IQ of 165 and the initial sponsorship of an attorney, a retired Air Force officer who took an interest in him while he was in the Boy Scouts in Brooklyn, the young Paul Lee Kroll went off on a fully paid scholarship to Marietta College in Ohio. He was graduated at age 19 with a bachelor of science in petroleum studies, later changed to a fully accredited degree in engineering, and a lifelong bug to be an actor. ... Paul was drafted into the Army but, because of his engineering degree, he shifted to officer candidate school at Lackland AFB, Tex., where he earned the gold bar of an Air Force second lieutenant and assignment as a "weapons controller." ... Paul is married to Kathleen Kroll-she took his family name, king in Polish-a former Las Vegas dancer and front row principal."
2. Lentz, Harris M. III (2020). Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2019. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 316. ISBN 978-1-4766-4059-4. ISSN 1087-9617. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  The book notes: "Actor Paul Lee died on September 22, 2019. He was 80. Paul was born on June 16, 1939, and was raised in Brooklyn, New York. He attended college in Marietta, Ohio, and served in the U.S. Air Force. He began performing on stage and appeared in numerous touring productions. He appeared in films for the early 1970s, with roles in ..."
3. "The cowboy from Brooklyn". Evening Standard. 1959-08-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Royal Ballet season opened at Covent Garden last night. Into the foyer swaggered a 6ft. 6in. cowboy from Texas, Mr. Paul Lee Kroll. ... He is a scoutmaster who has been in Sweden for Swedish-American Day. And another thing. Mr. Kroll is really a petroleum engineer from Brooklyn."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Paul to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries is a list of various performers, some notable, others not (e.g. Sheila Paterson on the preceding book page); his entry is little more than a list of credits. And what does Paul Lee Kroll, a petroleum engineer, have to do with Lee Paul? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The combination of all the "multiple independent sources" I provided demonstrates that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
The 1,246-word Los Angeles Times article calls the subject "Actor Lee Paul" and "young Paul Lee Kroll", states he received "a bachelor of science in petroleum studies", says he is "5 feet, 17 1/2 inches" (which is 6 feet 5 1/2 inches), and states he is from Brooklyn. The Evening Standard article calls him "Paul Lee Kroll", says he is "6ft. 6in.", and states he is "a petroleum engineer from Brooklyn". The two articles are about the same person. I don't think that the McFarland & Company-published Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2019's coverage of non-notable performers detracts from its contributing to notability of Lee Paul under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria as one of the sources that is "combined to demonstrate notability".
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wasn't down with this until I read in the LA Times that Lee Paul and Paul Lee Kroll were one and the same. The article from the LA Times [11] is definitely significant coverage. The article from the London newspaper [12] is definitely SIGCOV. The book mentions, etc. are icing on the cake. Jacona (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter City Shopping Center

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

I can't find anything to suggest this is notable - it appears to be created by an undisclosed COI SPA - creator and objector to previous PROD in 2012 name matches the name of the "Country Operations Manager, Jupiter Group Romania" KylieTastic (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Romania. KylieTastic (talk) 10:06, 19 April 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 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing indicates this is a notable subject that is worthy of an article. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Hamra Domer

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Syria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Saudi Arabia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not establish general notability or author notability. This article was moved to article space after being declined by a reviewer, apparently correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Police Department in popular culture

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

Totally unreferenced TVtropic listcruft, sporting a single PRIMARY reference. Created from and still mostly identical to Chicago_Police_Department#Appearances_in_popular_culture which likely needs blanking as being beyond redemption. Fails - take your pick - a myriad of policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR, WP:V. All those issues are discussed om the essay WP:NOTTVTROPES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Law, Popular culture, United States of America, and Illinois. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable list. The usual buffet of policies it is supposed to breach. For example, which parts of WP:SALAT or WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you think are relevant here? Please quote. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously don't know which part of INDISCRIMINATE applies? Hint: it's in the name. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a huge connection of very, very trivial things and lacking actual sources to back up most of it. Even if we had sources for some of these things, Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate list of everything, and that is what this article is. The only thing here we have sourced is members of the police department being extras in a film. That probably should not even be on the list, because they are not in the film as Chicago police officers, but Gotham City police officers. So the one sourced item does not belong, unless we change this to "acting credits and non-credited film roles played by current or former members of the Chicago Police Department". This is such a broad list, it clear that some of these mentions are to roles where they people are not portrayed as Chicago police at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another list of non-notable trivia using no secondary sources. There are no sources actually discussing these items or the concept of the CPD in pop culture as a set or group, meaning it fails WP:LISTN, and none of the individual items are notable. Rorshacma (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Verifiability due to no reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say just merge some of this content with the appropriate section of Chicago Police Department, but even that is already rather bloated, if I'm being honest. Agree with the original poster that it just feels very crufty. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything relevant should be at the main article. The list is currently wholly unsourced and fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sourcing discussing the concept of CPD in popular culture - see for example Out of Exile: The Recusal of the Chicago Police from American Film and Television, 1961-2011. Lack of citations for individual entries is a problem to address through editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IFF this is the case, WP:TNT applies as there is nothing in that mess that is rescuable, perhaps outside a wikilink or two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. None is sourced, all is apparently original research, therefore the article is unsalvageable without a total rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list of just about every television show or film set in Chicago where police have appeared. There's no attempt to provide context or insight, it's just a laundry-list; and an almost completely unreferenced one at that.

Although the existence of the Arntfield article suggests that this might be a sufficiently notable topic to justify an article, this listicle is not that. This is exactly the type of article to which WP:TNT applies. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:OR, having no foundation in independent reliable sources. Also fails WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:NOT and WP:NLIST by extension. In short, WP:STICKTOSOURCES. We don't write Wikipedia articles without suitable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Baldé

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

I'm not seeing the claim to notability here. Player has no significant coverage. Most articles I can find being simple routine announcements on him going on loan, scoring for Middlesbrough youth team etc.

He's yet to make his professional debut and hasn't been capped internationally (although he has been included in an international training squad), so doesn't seem to meet NFOOTY either. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting by scent

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

A rather pointless, incuratable list which would include almost all predatory mammals, about 2/3 of predatory fish, most snakes, and about a million invertebrate species. There might be some mileage in a general treatment of olfactory-driven predation, but that needs a completely different setup and material. In the meantime, this isn't it. Suggest deletion, as I'm unaware of any good redirect targets - please feel free to suggest some. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article as it is is just a mess. A workable article on the subject would be so different that we might as well delete, and then let someone recreate, probably with a slightly different title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the subject itself is worth inclusion, but as it stands, I definitely agree with the OP; this is definitely not a necessary article. I would potentially suggest merging the content with Predation#Specialization, but as it stands, I'm not really sure how. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parties in the European Council during 2019

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

As far as I understand it, there are no "parties" in the European Council. The Council is composed of the heads of state or government: while these usually belong to a party, they represent their country or at least the ruling coalition of their country, and not the various fractions in the European Parliament, of which they aren't members. This page (and the other similar ones) mix two things together, giving the impression that European Council decisions are made based on European Parliament fractions and on the party the head of government belongs to, which is incorrect. Fram (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Fram (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the same rationale applies to all articles within this category as well? Category:Lists of parties in the European Council. Ajf773 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation of al qunut

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

I don't see a speedy deletion criterion that really fits here, but this article is related to Qunut, but is just a (the?) text of this prayer, without background, and with an incorrect title (hence makes no sense to redirect it to Qunut either). The "BBC" source (homepage) is useless here, and the other source[13] would be unacceptable as a reliable source anyway, but doesn't even mention Qunut, so is hardly any help. Fram (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. Fram (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, this seems to be the text of a qunūt prayer. If there were a source it might have been added to qunut, but the only 'source' used is the author's (Olaitan2022) own blog (also directly linked in-text a few times). @Fram: given that it duplicates qunut without improvement and without references, and given the nonsensical title (not useful as a redirect), I actually think that WP:A10 would have applied here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haitham Al-Ashri

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. A search of the Arabic form of his name turns up plenty of passing mentions, but no significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of renewable energy companies by stock exchange

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

Maybe was useful many years ago but nowadays too broad a topic and impossible to keep up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About time it had to be nominated for deletion. Orientls (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscenely incomplete, no comparable lists. Reywas92^Talk 02:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Sherif

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in online English, Hungarian or Arabic-language sources (includes searching for سامح شريف). The only information about this footballer's career suggests it was not notable (3 matches in Hungary's NB I), and the article appears to fail GNG comprehensively. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Yusof Din

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

Non notable person with a completely unsourced article. Fails WP:GNG. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references at all. Chongkian (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hound packs of Ireland

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Not a single notable entry and no evidence of notability of group. Similar discussion for UK related list is in progress:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and Ireland. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is absolutely right. This is a textbook example of WP:NOTDIR which clearly fails WP:NLIST. (I didn't nominate this initially along with the UK lists as I planned to nominate separately) AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NOTDIR. Spleodrach (talk)
Delete per nom and other similar deletions. desmay (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. FalconK (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hound packs of Australia

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Not a single notable entry and no evidence of notability of group. Similar discussion for UK related list is in progress:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and Australia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination is incorrect, or at best misleading. There are (at least, I didn't check the unlinked entries) three entries which have articles, the Adelaide Hunt Club, Melbourne Hunt Club and Oaklands Hunt Club. A7V2 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason for nomination was copied from an AfD I set up just prior to this one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hound packs of New Zealand). I was aware there were a few blue-linked entries but forgot to update this. However I'm not sure that those sufficient meet the notability requirements on their own, there isn't much to them. The rationale for NOTDIR still applies and even when removing all non notable entries, leaving three remaining isn't sufficient for a list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTDIR Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other similar deletions. desmay (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. FalconK (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hound packs of New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Not a single notable entry and no evidence of notability of group. Similar discussion for UK related list is in progress:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless stub list of non-notable things. Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remotely notable. The main article on Beagling contains enough basic information about Beagling in New Zealand and could be expanded.NealeWellington (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. FalconK (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject appears to be notable. I will revert per consensus. Further discussion on improving the article can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Everything

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

Delete WP:COI with no references to support any of the claims made in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Quebec. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how I can add references. This is all accurate information coming from the original source, me.

I copied my edits based on another musicians and they had no references on their discography so I thought it was ok.

Also let me know how many references I need to put for my article to be valid. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, the lack of references, which need to be reliable third party sources, isn't the only problem - there's also the fact that this is extremely promotional in tone. Wikipedia isn't a place to post promotional material, it's an encyclopedia and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. This is why you shouldn't write articles about yourself. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I found someone to help out. This was my bio posted. It wasn't intended to be a promotional tool, I just wanted to make sure things were more accurate/up to date and I didn't take the time to learn more about the nature of the site. I apologize. In case of Discography, how can someone reference that to be accurate? Is there a way to stop the deletion process to make it easier for us to edit in a proper manner? Thanks for your time. Fredeverything (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a prior version in the page history which has been overwritten with the COI version. The references are now mostly broken though. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently there is a single RS reference from 20 years ago in the San Jose Mercury News, but the link is broken to verify if is third party. But there needs to be more than a single source to establish notability. I'm leaning delete, but want to give this guy a fair chance to present more examples of third party recognition. I'm also bothered by the promotional tone of the updated edits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick google search I found these two and suspect there are more out there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I mentioned, I didn't do enough research before I did my edits. I'm not the one who started the page and I just wanted it be more accurate. I will comply and send the proper reference. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a test with a reference in the first line. Let me know If that's ok. If so, I can get someone to rewrite the article with the proper references and also making this more neutral. Let me know if this works. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh Boy. This looks like a copyvio from his SoundCloud page as well. I find one review/interview with NPR [14]. Bunch of minor mentions in the Montreal Gazette, not sure notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can type in : Deep House Producers in Google and my photo appears as third so I don't think it's a question of notability here. I can appreciate that you didn't find any press links but I would be happy to correct that. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to a version from 2021 and clean up that one - The article has existed since 2007, and until recently it was a fairly respectable stub article thanks to some reviews Mr. Everything has received (e.g. [15]), and some useful info at AllMusic ([16]). In March 2022, Mr. Everything himself appeared with the goal of adding updates, but despite good faith intentions, turned the article into a giant reproduction of his own promotional and social media sites. That's not what Wikipedia is for and you're not allowed to write about yourself. The late 2021 version of the article might be salvageable if it is cleaned up, because Mr. Everything does have some coverage from more reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've taken note of what everyone has said and acknowledged my wrong doings and ignorance as far as how the site works. Now I'm trying to clean up what I did and add references. I have someone who will help me with this but I need a bit of time. Hopefully by next week it could be a decent page again. Also, it would be very difficult for anyone else but me to come up with the exact discography.Discogs isn't even up to date with it. Fredeverything (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we take the last acceptable article, before I pasted my bio BUT we keep the Box with the newer photo (I can reference the photographer) and the additional things in there like Aliases, etc... + My updated discography. Could that work? I just want to make things right and according to the site's policies as well as having an up to date article. Let me know. Thanks! Fredeverything (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert: There does seem to be enough coverage for our good friend Mr. Blais here to at least establish baseline notability. The fact that it has been disturbed with some puffery and COI does not change that. A very basic Google search brings up some mentions in Billboard, a review in MusicRadar [17], the San Jose Mercury News, NPR [18], Forbes [19], a review in HX Magazine [20], Mixmag [21], and from my small parsing, I believe there are even more sources that can prove notability. Revert the article, fix up the sources, and then if it still isn't believed to meet the notability requirements, start another AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an entry in DJ Mag [22] and in Decoded [23] Why? I Ask (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. I really appreciate it. It seems by trying to improve something, I made a big mistake! 96.22.164.27 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert - I'm sure Fred Everything is not being smacked but just didn't know how Wikipedia works. Don't feel that you should stop trying. Sometimes it's easy to think that one may have a vested interest in an article but it was in good faith. Revert to the original and if there are changes that are properly cited with reliable sources then have at it. Pmedema (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhone revenue division

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

Dhone revenue division

This article appears to be about a division of a state government in India, but has two problems. First, it has no references, and so fails verifiability. Second, it does not provide enough information to establish context, let along to determine organizational notability. This does not even provide enough information to locate reliable sources. An earlier version was already created in article space and moved to draft space, so that this version cannot be moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author wishes to use citations, I see no way to verify what's said. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND I've added sources. I apologise for my proactive draftification to Draft:Dhone revenue division. I should have marked it as {{Sources exist}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying further, I actually wanted to add refs after draftifying when I get time. However, I didn’t contemplate the user would simply recreate the article — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that of the sources that exist, there aren't sufficient that are suitably reliable, independent and in-depth to show notability.

Should new, good, sources come into being in the future I will be happy to draftify when shown them Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Beavis

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP:NATHLETE or WP:NARTIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and British Columbia. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to meet the general inclusion threshold of at least two substantive coverage pieces as the subject has been featured in topics related to notable awards as well as for athletic and business success. ViolinDebbie1972 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides reliable, independent of the subject sources and the subject has been featured in topics related to notable awards as well as for athletic and business success. General notability guidelines appear to be met. ViolinDebbie1972 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires media coverage, which one of those two links isn't, and even if we overlooked the fact that the Métis Nation British Columbia isn't media we would still require more than just two hits of media coverage anyway. An award isn't automatically a notability claim just because you can source it to the awarding organization's own self-published press releases about itself — for any award to constitute a notability claim, it has to be demonstrated that the award itself is a notable one, by virtue of being an award whose presentations get reported as news in media, and an award is not notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it if you can't show that the award gets media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "notable" awards aren't notable. Provincial entrepreneur for media is hardly a Gemini Award. He's basically a really smart guy that's good at jiu-jitsu. Most sources found are press releases. Forbes and the Globe and Mail articles are advertorials. I get 8 hits in GNews, 2 of wich aren't notable as just discussed. Rest are in passing or press-releases. Vanity spam Oaktree b (talk)
Delete. The article is based far, far too heavily on primary sources and blogs that are not support for notability, and states absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, this article should be considered to be moved to the sandbox as it appears the subject is somewhat notable in the Indigenous community and the trajectory of new sources appears to be climbing. OneEyeball (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Schwartz Tichon

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

~~Businessman BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- the company is likely notable but this isn't WP:INHERITED to the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support - Schwartz Tichon made a notable impact with his demand for privatizing the public transportation companies. "Noa Tanua" is just a part of it. his activity plus writing in the newspapers plus podcast plus being chosen for "People of 2017" by Time Out Tel Aviv makes him meet WP:NBIO.Ofir michael (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support - Why is this article nominated for deletion in the first place? I worked on it a lot and already explained its importance several times, and so I believe I deserve an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this discussion is about whether or not Roy meets business criteria. Nonetheless, the result should not be deletion. While I might have been mistaken, categorizing him as businessman, the basic notability criteria for people is:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Schwartz Tichon meets that criteria as he has been covered and recognized by multiple of the most known and significant Israeli media outlets, some of them are shown in the references, including: The top 2 Israeli news websites - Ynet and Walla, the top 3 Israeli newspapers - Yediot Ahronot, Haaretz and Israel Hayom, the three major Economic news outlets - TheMarker, Globes and Walla, The most viewed television news channels - 11,12, 13 and 14 ::::and several international news outlets. If it is a matter of number I can add more references, but he seems to meet this criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for Schwartz Tichon's notability is the fact that his position paper advocating government incentives to promote vaccination was adopted by the Minister of Justice.see here Ofir michael (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. The number, breadth, and quality of sources is impressive. Can be changed into the organization but I would not recommend it. Not the effort and not the outcomes. Tichon is notable and next thing we have an article on the person and on the organization that will just rehash each other. gidonb (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian Reporter

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

While the mentioned website has been cited as a source by some news outlets, there is no significant coverage available in reliable sources about this defunct news outlet or their current website. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Rekhi family

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

Reads like self-promotion with no sources exclusively providing coverage to this family. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and it is definitely not self-promotion because I am not related to the family at all. I am an investigative journalist working from Dubai. As far as sources are concerned, there are more than 58 sources and a lot of them are from reputable sites like Forbes, Hindustan Times, India Today etc. Delhisentinel44 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clearly just self-promotion with no reputable sources. Please delete as soon as possible. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete article. The article should definitely not be deleted. Just a simple google search of Vaibhav Rekhi brings thousands of articles. He has married one of the most influential activists and actresses of our time, Dia Mirza. As far as the family as a whole is concerned, the Partition archives and other sources demonstrate their importance. And of course with Vaibhav's immense publicity it has brought the family to light. Their connections in starting companies like BlackRock and creating foundations at Wharton, sourced from Wharton's own publications, is also bringing immense glory to India and should be shared. Just like Delhisentinel44, even I am not connected to the family. I am doing a series on influential people during Partition and where they are now and came across this article. Delhi33 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) — Delhi33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 07:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete article. I just reviewed the article again and other notable users have also edited it without any issues. Also sources from JSTOR have been added to increase the credibility. Delhisentinel44 (talk), 3 May 2022 (UTC) — Delhisentinel44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Looked through a few of the sources and for the most part they have nothing to do with this family, or do not mention the family. Not Notable and except for a few SPA no one else has added to this article. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete While I understand your perspectives that the article should be deleted considering the sources do not directly speak about the subject, I think the article should actually not be deleted because there are a lot of sources and I have gone through many of them and they don't speak about the family as a whole but they do talk about the person within the family for which they are cited. Moreover, I don't feel that this is self-publicity because none of the sources are interviews of members they are other publications. Also the Vaibhav Rekhi argument is solid. Albert983 20:26 3 May 2022 (UTC) — Albert983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 07:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very informative about wealth and status in India. Thanks to the author for collating the genealogy (no thanks for the promotional text). Wikipedia is not the place though, since there's absolutely no indication that there is any WP:RS on the family as a whole and the page is a huge violation of [WP:OR]]. I suggest Familypedia on Fandom as a suitable repository for this kind of info. Hemantha (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individuals might be notable, but the family itself is not notable beyond some private genealogical interest. There are very few families that are overall notable. These are either ruling familties, families of established nobility and the rare instances where multiple generations of a family are notable in the same field (e.g. the Bernoullis or the Schneersons). Unless there's a fair few independent articles on members of a family who are independently notable, there is no reason for an article on the family. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim O'Connor

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

Non-notable TV host. Hosted only one show whose article is currently at prod, and had a couple minor acting roles after Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 26 April 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?)} 05:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-notable host of a few tv shows, but most are early in the last decade so sourcing online was an issue for me when trying to find them. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Rille Books

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

This article for a non-notable small press has been mostly written by SPAs, who have at times reverted editors trying to clean it up (eg: [24]).

It was dePRODded with the reasoning "list contains many blue-linked authors suggesting notability; also many independent reviews linked" - but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the notability of individual authors and books published by the press does not help us here. (Sidenote: the authors include, for example, Isaac Asimov, who died before the press was launched; the list of authors in this article does not indicate a working relationship with any of them. Also, it's unsourced.)

The guideline this needs to pass is WP:NORG; it doesn't. asilvering (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Companies, and Kansas. asilvering (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any publishing house article that touts its discovery of new talent, and then lists authors published who died years to decades before it was started (Asimov, Heinlein...) , is paradoxical, and presumably self-promotional. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that works by notable writers are published by your press is not a sign that the press itself is notable. This especially applies when the second person on the list of writers your press published is someone who died 13 years before you started your press, and it is not like you are bringing out new works by him, just reprinting older workers. That your press gets name dropped in some reviews about a writer also does not show the press is notable. What we need is articles that give substantial discussion of the press itself, that are in reliable sources, and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a number of links that appear to be promotional/sales related in nature, but I find none in the news. If any were presented, I'd gladly re-consider... but until then I can only say that it seems to fail Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a Nebula Award listing for 2012 and 2013 nominations for works published, and quotes from "Eric T. Reynolds, editor and publisher of Hadley Rille Books" in The Art of the Future (Publishers Weekly, 2013). Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Delgado

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

The article is unsourced and I found nothing in Pubmed that appears attributable to him. He's also not an endocrinologist, contrary to the article. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to keep this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an advertorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is pure promotion, does not meet WP:BIO. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria, including WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Anthropology Student Network

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because I have doubts it could build up enough reliable sources to meet notability requirements. I came to this conclusion after making this proposal. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. As for my own view, I didn’t find any reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and there’s not even enough of a claim to notability to stave off an A7 speedy. --Finngall ^talk 03:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight International Jazz Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews and a plain google search just comes up with directory listings including for alternate name "Isle of Wight Jazz Festival". The sources provided are local press. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has never amounted to much more than a list of past performers and a Controversy section which generated much heat in 2008. Neither aspect is sufficient to establish that it ever attained encyclopaedic notability and searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Settleman

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

Founder of a non-notable company; fails WP:GNG. The page's sources are all non-notable promotional pages or extremely tangential mentions of the article's subject. — Mainly 02:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a lot of references plus I did my own search. The problem is that I didn't find the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Some of the references in the article don't even mention his name. Being interviewed on podcasts, writing sports articles, and being active on social media don't meet any WP notability criteria I'm aware of. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 SC Bastia season

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:NSEASONS since they played in the third division. Sakiv (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What did a search per WP:BEFORE give you? Championnat National is not a fully professional league but SC Bastia is one of three major Corsican clubs with a large following so I would assume there's a lot of coverage of its matches. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same could have been said of Deportivo La Coruña, which is more famous than Bastia. The article for the 2020-21 season was deleted for the same reasons when it was relegated to the Segunda División B.--Sakiv (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the absence of significant coverage beyond match reports and transfer news. Ping me if sources are found. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article expanded with sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I've added some material covering financial difficulties the club was at the beginning of the season. What do you think? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A step in the right direction, but I'm still not fully convinced I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Okay, I added another paragraph. Will it suffice? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how it works. This will be decided by the community.--Sakiv (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GS can have his opinion. You have not responded to my question regarding WP:BEFORE above, Sakiv. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Bastia be treated in a different way than La Coruña when relegated to a non-professional division. Their history should have no weight. The nomination is correct and the opinion of GS confirms this.--Sakiv (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not well versed with AfD procedures. But does Wikipedia:NSEASONS eliminate the requirement to complete "basic due diligence" to "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" (WP:BEFORE)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article would need to be improved with sources for it to be a keep. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder that AFD is not cleanup. --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have significantly expanded the article's storyline. The citations I included should easily satisfy WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MEETS GNG, sources have been added and the article has also been expanded. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, and Robby.is.on's expansion demonstrates this. --SuperJew (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, the article has good sources.Pincheira22 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the Way (TV series)

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

Short lived early Nickelodeon show. One source is an unofficial YouTube upload which is not a RS. Took to AFD instead of prod because of the one newspaper sources and the off chance others might exist. Delete or redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 26 April 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?)} 01:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as you mentioned above. You weren't kidding, this program feels lost to time. I've come up empty apart from what's already been shared. PureRED | talk to me | 02:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn Chase

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

Non-notable blogger. Doesn't appear to be notable. References have mentions, but not significant coverage. Jsfodness (talk) 00:08, 26 April 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 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One source in the Jewish Journal that seems reliable, the Forbes one appears to be a "pay to play" article. Rest are trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notability guidelines. Much of the coverage is not intellectually independent, and some of the comment is WP:RISING. She might become notable someday, but she is not at the moment, which is what the question is.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wong (actor)

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

Non-notable actor "known" for one role. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am hard pressed to say the role that he is "known for" was even a significant role in the film. It is definiately not a lead role, it just barely may scrape by as significant, but not enough so that if that is the very best we have we can really justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. CharlesWain (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ally Brooke. Seems like a pretty clear WP:SNOW case here. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Música

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

Mi Música

This song does not satisfy song notability, at least not at this time, because it neither satisfies any of the criteria that normally indicate that general notability is likely to be satisfied, nor does it directly satisfy general notability. Songs that do not satisfy song notability are usually redirected, to the album, or to the artist or the artist's discography. In this case, the album has not yet been released, and the single was released in advance. The article does not explain how the song is notable. It says that the song has been released; we knew that. None of the references are independent secondary coverage of the song. They are either about the (pending) album, or are associated with the artist.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Billboard	Announcement of plans for album	Yes	Not about the song	Yes	No
2	Youtube	Music video of the song, on the artist's Youtube channel	No	Yes	No	No
3	wearemitu.com	Interview with the artist	No	Not about the song	Probably	No
4	songdata.io	Information about the song	Yes	Not as to coverage of the song - Contains metadata about the song	Yes	No
5	Apple Music	States that the song is available on Apple Music	Yes	No	Yes	No

This article was originally prepared in draft, and the title in article space was a redirect to the discography, but the submitter replaced the redirect with the draft, and then replaced the draft with a redirect to the article. These actions were permitted, but they don't establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Mexico, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the discography. There is no evidence that WP:NSINGLE is met, and the sourcing in the article and my own searches do not turn up anything to suggest a standalone article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Just another demonstration of the creating user's disregard for the notability of songs. (They've also shown no qualms about adding unsourced material, and have created drafts for speculative or outright fake album titles.) Ss112 08:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ally Brooke discography, fails WP:NSONG. Fully agree with Ss112, this editor is borderline disruptive – they currently have three AfC creations submitted where they have made up the name of the album and stated release dates, even though neither of these things have been confirmed. Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I note in addition that the disruptive editor has gone so far as to try to add a deletion notice to this page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Orestis

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

Promotional in nature Amigao (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amigao (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity spam. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV, also WP:NAU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari T. Benchaim (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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