Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No compelling case for notability has been made Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stiamo bene insieme

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

Not a proper WP entry. Regardless of notability~~, WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies~~. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of a better focused discussion, I have stricken through the part of the intro that sidetracked the entire discussion thus far. gidonb (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not be notable, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY certainly does not apply. This is about a TV series, not a word or phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Stiamo bene insieme actually is a phrase in Italian, meaning "we look good together". Our dictionary article explains that this phrase is the title of an Italian tv series. È tutto: that's all it explains! gidonb (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - A TV series is not something that you would find covered in a dictionary. If you want to argue that this TV series is not notable then please do, but this is nothing like a dictionary entry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I meant is that there is nothing more here than a definition of three words: Italian tv show. If you want to call that differently, no problem. It's not about the name. It's about the principle. And, sure, this can be expanded but in its current state should not be an article. No objection to redirecting and mentioning the show elsewhere either, if it truly belongs. gidonb (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed it is about a principle, and it is a principle that you haven't grasped. This is a nearly substub encyclopaedia article. It doesn't define words. It tries to tell the reader about an television show, and in fact tells the reader almost nothing about it. It is from an editor who has in the past created lots of almost content-free substubs, and that has been a problem. But unless you've actually researched the sources to determine notability, you do not have a policy-based rationale for deletion. In fact "this can be expanded" is a rationale for not deleting. We keep stubs that have scope for expansion, as long as there is adequate context for identifying the subject. You want this deleted? Show that you've done the research to show that it cannot be expanded. And please familiarize yourself with what our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy actually says, which is not your erroneous idea of what dictionary articles are. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with stubs and with the fact that these can be expanded. My problem is with these substubs. Articles that only define what a thing is and do not provide any other information should imho not exist in Wikipedia. Dictionaries definitely can provide more detail as well but in their most concise form that's what you'd expect. I appreciate that there are people who defend dictionaries, the other data usually included, and their overall service to humanity. My problem is with these articles, not with dictionaries. I nominated two of these articles and a list that provides nothing but titles. Whatever the community decides! I received a message from the serial article creator on my talk page. gidonb (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Uncle G, though it tries to tell the reader this is an Italian TV series with an article on Italian Wikipedia which you can help expand if you want to improve the content. That was the idea, that thousands of people collaborate and work together. Most of the content free substubs were basically transwiki placeholders to blue link missing articles which were presumed notable... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are project pages for that. Creator basically confesses that he never intended to create a proper article. This is another clear indication that the article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ONLY source in the article does not have SIGCOV per the person who placed it. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You missed the point of why such stubs were created. They were placeholder entries really to bridge the gap between wikis. The problem was that they needed more content and sourcing... A massive number of stubs were expanded and wouldn't have been if they were project pages..

Not missing any points. Your points are about the past and the future. AfDs are about the present. This article should presently not exist. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable enough for somebody to be a fan of it and upload episodes to YouTube but I can't see decent sources to write an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC),[reply]

Week keep Searches in Google Books on "stiamo bene insieme" rai, "stiamo bene insieme" televisione, "stiamo bene insieme" Sindoni turn up various sources that discuss the series, mostly snippets in Italian, that indicate a reasonable amount of coverage as would be expected of a series that ran to 16 episodes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 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. Yes, previously nominated and technically ineligible, but no one is contesting deletion. Star Mississippi 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speed thinking

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

Speed Thinking

There are at least two problems with this article, tone and notability. The tone is blatantly promotional, as it has been since the article was written in 2010, and has been tagged as {{peacock}} since 2011. It was written by two single-purpose accounts, neither of whom has edited since, one of whom is either the developer of the technique or a relative of the developer of the technique. Removing the puffery would reduce the article to a stub. So the question is whether the topic is notable. Does it pass general notability? Does the article speak for itself and explain how the technique is discussed by reliable sources? The article says that the technique is valuable, but it doesn't attribute that to reliable sources. A check of the references shows that their purpose has probably been to have references because Wikipedia requires them. Four of them are about three other books on similar techniques (and Wikipedia has articles about their authors and their works), which were written before Hudson's books. Two of the references are to the author's books. One of the references has nothing to do with the subject.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.edwdebono.com	An Indonesian web site that has nothing to do with Edward DeBono.	Yes	No	No
2	gladwellbooks.com	Web site for an author who is cited in the article	No	No		No
3	Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell	A book that is mentioned in the article as a predecessor to the technique	Yes	Not about this topic	Yes	No
4	Speed Thinking, by Ken Hudson	The book that describes the technique	No	Yes		No
5	The Idea Accelerator, by Ken Hudson	Another book by the author of the technique	No	Yes		No
6	The Inner Game, by Tim Gallwey	A web site about another author and their methodology	Yes	Not about this topic		No
7	www.kenblanchard.com	A web site about another author and another methodology	Yes	Not about this topic		No

This article is about a technique. An article about either of the author's books might or might not pass book notability if it were neutral, which this article is not. This article does not establish that the technique passes general notability, and is promotion. Is there a bit bucket handy? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability issues and promotion, should probably have been Speedy Deleted long ago. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 29 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 23:55, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 01:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Pimblett

Subject is a mixed martial art fighters. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fight in the top tier promotion and subject also fails GNG as all the sources except one (Guardian) (only event) are either not independent (interivew) or merely routine sport report. To pass notability guidelines, subject needs to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (only a few or several) where by the sources talk about the subject in depth and in detail and not only merely passing mention. BTW, there is a draft article Draft:Paddy Pimblett about the sujbect in Wikipedia and subject might be have a fight in July 23, 2022 at UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. Aspinall, then we will moved the to the mainspace but not until such time when the subject is notable. Pls note: popularity is not equal to notability in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 23:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 1st AfD Paddy Pimblett here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Pimblett

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and England. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep The fighter passes WP:GNG, there are multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage. If WP:GNG are satisfied, WP:MMA is irrelevant.

Firstly two articles by Donald McRae in the Guardian. 1 and 2. Neither of these constitute "routine coverage" in the scope of WP:GNG. One is an in depth feature on the fighter, the other a detailed report on his fight.
Secondly three articles in the independent. 1, 2, 3. One of these is an in depth feature, one a match report and one an account of Pimblett's activities outside the ring.
Thirdly Gazzetta dello Sport, Italy's premier sports newspaper and a Reliable Source. This has a feature on Pimblett 1 and a match preview giving significant coverage 2.
Fourthly, a feature in the reliable source Fox Deportes, a Spanish-language sports website based in the US. 1
Fifthly, a feature in the reliable source Fox sports, the Australian arm of fox sports. 1
Sixthly a detailed match report on the BBC, not merely routine coverage. 1 and an article speculating about his next fight 2 which would fall foul of Crystal Ball, but is fine for notability.
Seventhly, an article in the Irish Mirror, detailing his relationship to Ronnie O'Sullivan, while the British Daily Mirror has no consensus on reliability, I believe the Irish Mirror is considered RS. 1
Eighthly(!) Skysports a detailed match report, not routine coverage.1

So very widespread coverage in RS, I would say he his more notable, in terms of WP:GNG than the majority of UfC fighters who already have pages. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little mild refactoring of your comment for readability. I hope you don't mind. Dancter (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "keep" assessment seems to me undeniable. I hear about Paddy Pimblett very often, both online and when speaking with friends who enjoy MMA but don't follow the sport. He is especially notable and famous compared to his peers, due to his look, antics, accent, etc. Both his showmanship and enthusiastic performances garner a great amount of attention compared to other comparable fighters. What MMA media source doesn't talk about Paddy Pimblett? Even before he ever fought in a top-tier promotion, Pimblett was widely talked about in my country (America). Baz Daniels (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and histmerge previous versions as well as Draft:Paddy Pimblett. Boynamedsue is not wrong. Not only that, based on what I can ascertain, the original version discussed in the first AfD also fulfilled notability. That version of the article more than met WP:GNG from the Fighters Only and Insider profiles cited, and anyone who thought that sources like the Bloody Elbow article did not count towards establishing significant independent coverage either misunderstands WP:SIGCOV (which addresses depth, not ubiquity) and WP:IS (which addresses how sources such as MMA media having a domain-centric bias does not mean they are not independent), or has not been paying attention to the majority of accepted articles for MMA fighters on Wikipedia. Dancter (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree on that. It's just that I am not personally well-versed enough in MMA websites to comment on reliability and editorial independence. That's why I limited the list to Reliable Sources at national and international level dealing with news or sports in general. Luckily there are plenty of them. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to invite User:Cassiopeia to withdraw this AfD nomination. While I do not agree that the consensus among Wikipedia users is that interviews cannot establish notability, the weight of non-interview sources is overwhelming. The Guardian has already been accepted by Cassiopeia, The Independent sources number one and three are not interviews and provide significant coverage. Neither Gazzetta dello Sport article is an interview. The American Fox Deportes source is not an interview. The Australian Fox Sports is not an interview. Neither BBC source is an interview, the second contains many quotes from a press conference, but that is not an interview. The Irish Mirror source is not an interview. None of the sources constitute "routine coverage", which would mean passing mentions of Pimblett's result or box scores. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pimblett undoubtedly fails NMMA. However there is definitely enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely wide evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG --Angelo (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a champion in Cage Warriors and he's had two fights and counting in the UFC. He signed a 7-figure contract with Barstool Sports because of the amount of hype he generates. MMA fighters who have similar records usually have Wikipedia pages and they typically don't have anywhere near the public profile that he has. Honestly, if anything, I was surprised that he didn't already have a Wikipedia page when I first saw him fight and saw all the media attention he was getting and I was wondering when he would finally get one. I think the time has come. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS showing significant coverage: Marca is a reliable source and Spain's most popular sports newspaper, here are three articles showing WP:SIGCOV of Pimblett. 1, 2, 3. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 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 merge to Wizkid#Starboy Entertainment. Soft consensus here, but it was a longstanding redirect Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starboy Entertainment

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

There is little coverage independent of Wizkid. I'd propose a merge/redirect to Wizkid#Starboy Entertainment. MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Companies, and Nigeria. MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wizkid#Starboy Entertainment, which was the decision for the first AfD in 2016, and which was intact until about three weeks ago when someone decided to resurrect a company article. The company has a few award nominations and brief media mentions, but all that is worthy of coverage is already at Wizkid's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:06, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Lowe (video game composer)

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

BLP prod failed on account of external links being news articles, but I don't think the articles show notability; the only remotely reliable source is an interview. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Video games, and United Kingdom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Far from my area, and the article is not in a good state, but I note there's an entire category for him: Category:Video games scored by David Lowe. Finding sources is confused by the better (to me) known composer, David Lowe (television and radio composer). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search at archive.org seems to produce quite a few hits for him in Computer Magazines, for example the first hit for "David Lowe" Amiga is a six page article about him in Retro Gamer magazine Piecesofuk (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another place to add to my WP:BEFORE searching toolbox. Thanks, Piecesofuk! Withdrawn. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:15, 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. It is a copyright violation and cannot be kept. Since it was created with the violation, there is no clean version in the history to restore to. Interested editors are welcome to create a new article since consensus appears to be that he would be notable. Star Mississippi 01:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mar Koorilose IV

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

No references at all, mainly consisting of one huge paragraph where most of it is not even related to the person in question. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a copyright violation of this site. Click on "Joseph Mar Koorilose IV - 6th Metropolitan (1856-1888)" and "Read more" to see it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As head of the church he is almost certainly notable, but as this was created as a copyvio a new article is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep once the copy-vio issue is resolved by editing the article. As a metropolitan of a denomination, he should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 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) 21:24, 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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hexnode

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

An unregistered user tried to add this to the daily deletion log with the following edit summary:

This is just advertising for the company. Has nothing worth knowing what belongs in Wikipedia.

Completing the nomination on their behalf. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there is a case of violation of WP:COI, there are sources suggested by Wikipedia that help write the article in a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), if an editor comes up taking the responsibility of editing the article; which may solve the issues related to WP:N. WP:ORIGIN mentioned by the user Pavitapu is unclear, though. May be the user is referring to WP:N. A few references are in accordance with WP:REFBPLAIN since the retrieved date is cited along with. FlashWikipedian (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer

FlashWikipedian is apparently also a Hexnode employee.

This user also looks to be a marketing employee of Hexnode according to his Wikipedia history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlashWikipedian

@FlashWikipedian

Please do not use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. To provide information from a company, there are websites on the internet. You can not present an unnotable company from a neutral point of view in Wikipedia.

This is advertising and nothing else.

Please do not misuse Wikipedia for this purpose and use it as an advertising platform.

Here you can see that the references which are named for the page are not sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Source_assess_table/testcases

This page is not notable for Wikipedia. See here:

(WP:GNG)

(WP:SNG) Pavitapu (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe this needs an administrator review. User Pavitapu is also a user who has not yet edited any articles other than Hexnode. User's concerns are based on original research rather than facts or sources (WP:NOR), and behavior is absurd (WP:OTHERUSERS). FlashWikipedian (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pavitapu,

You're absolutely right. This page is not notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But, what I see is the chance of expanding this article based on sources suggested by Wikipedia. An article is non-notable doesn't mean it stays non-notable. FlashWikipedian (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Notability is a property of the topic, not the article. The essay WP:OVERCOME attempts to explain this: If a topic is not notable, then improving the article about it can't fix this underlying problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! As a new user, I still have a few questions regarding notability. Not here, but on talk pages. Notability criteria are harder to understand for a new user like me. I believe this article has a few verifiable sources that are trustable. I may be wrong; I was just going through the sources at the top of this page. FlashWikipedian (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Ten Pound Hammer: I think it's totally the right decision that it should be deleted.

This is clearly not an encyclopedia article and does not fit into Wikipedia. We need to keep Wikipedia clean from these pages. This is more about free advertising for the company Hexnode at the expense of Wikipedia. Such a page has no place on Wikipedia.

It is clearly intended as a backlink source for SEO optimization of one's own Hexnode website.

This company is not notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia (WP:ORGIN).

This page is in violation with the General notability guideline of Wikipedia.

This page was created by a Marketing Employee of Hexnode. (Redacted)

Explanation:

However, to qualify for a Wikipedia page, multiple references from reliable news sources are required. (Wikipedia source assessment table.)

This is absolutely not given here.

1st reference points to a broken link.

2nd reference points to the own website. Clear reference for backlink building.

3. guide for buyers. You get listed there for a fee. It is not a reliable news source.

4. reference points to own website. Clear indication for backlink building.

5. this is a press release written by Hexnode itself plus it is an advertisement. It is not a reliable news source.

Conclusion:

Absolutely clear, delete. Pavitapu (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user has changed his Wikipedia name after my hint above.

Before "Neerajor" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neerajor

Now "Be_Like_Me" : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Be_Like_Me&action=history Pavitapu (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

This is merely the Government Ministries companies office confirmation of the company's existence. Fails CORPDEPTH
This from Networks Asia is a short review of 5 similar products with almost no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This Buyers Guide is not "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND, it simply regurgitates information from the company. The document itself says that it consolidates, organizes, and presents information from the top 20 MDM service providers so you can see what they offer and what they don’t, fails WP:ORGIND
This from Solutions Review is based on a Press Release (says it at the bottom) and only talks about the Buyers Guide mentioned above. Also fails NCORP criteria.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 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 Space (English band)#Discography. ✗plicit 23:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music for Pleasure Music for Pain

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

Fails WP:NALBUM quite easily, but the article creator insists on repeatedly reverting the redirect, so bringing this to AfD to gain consensus. I don't blame the article creator for not improving the article... because there are literally no independent sources with which to do so. The current sources are two social media posts, and two quotes from an WP:PRIMARY interview with members of the band, laced with some original research, about how the album was written on a bass guitar and the effects pedals that were used – the album is not even named in the interview. This does not make the album notable. The album didn't chart anywhere, and it doesn't appear to have been reviewed anywhere at all – absolutely nothing online, and I've tried checking print versions of UK music publications Mojo and Uncut and found nothing in there either. In summary, nobody apart from the band members appear to have said anything at all about this record, and I believe it should be redirected to Space (English band)#Discography. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know there isn't a great deal of research online to be found for this album, and it hasn't received any chart placings or reviews yet, but all the other Space albums have Wikipedia articles, and it would be unfair for this album to left without a page. It would feel very incomplete and not up to date in the great scheme of things. TrippyDippy (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TrippyDippy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

But that's not how Wikipedia works – the notability can't be WP:INHERITED just because the artist or other albums have articles, the album needs to be independently notable. And it's been out for six months, I think if it hasn't charted or been reviewed by now, it never will be. Richard3120 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Space (English band)#Discography, and protect against another reversion. Like the nominator, I can find no reliable reviews or other significant coverage for the album, which is unusual and probably disappointing for an established band that has some success in its past. There is simply not enough info out there for an encyclopedic article. There is no harm in redirecting because if the album turns out to be a late bloomer, a full article with robust sources can be created at that time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space (English band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 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 redirect to Mid-Plains League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rossville Rattlers

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

Article lacks any claim to notability. I can't find any detailed coverage of this team, just a few routine announcements about fixtures and their dissolution. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, and Kansas. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect article to the Mid-Plains League. Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems the best solution for a better overall encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mid-Plains League Per Special:Contributions/Ezstreet19 (the article's creator), quite a few of his team articles have been redirected either by AfD or BOLD. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:51, 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 redirect to Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic System in Islam

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

Stub, Uncited, Not Notable. ~ carpathianflorist 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani as ATD; I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - pretty obvious case for this. The work was not even mentioned on the biography at the time of nomination (fixed now, so nothing will be lost in any case). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 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. Consensus is clear. If someone wants to create a redirect following deletion, they're more than welcome to do so Star Mississippi 02:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kruty (2022)

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

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kruty skirmishes

CSD was respectfully declined as this war has been a fast-moving event. However, nothing seems to have changed with this particular article from the last AfD. Sources 2, 3, 4, and 5 are completely irrelevant to this particular claimed battle, and sources 1 and 6 rely on the same completely unverifiable Facebook post. It's questionable if any action even happened at all here, and if it did, it certainly fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing changed since last AfD. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect somewhere, perhaps Siege of Chernihiv; alternativly the article on the wider Northeastern offensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you're going to remove it on others. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawsongfg, what? Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think they mean other wikipedia languages or something. 64.82.204.49 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah. Well anyways, what the other language projects do or don't do in this case is of no matter to us here. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J17172630-3614476

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

Utterly fails WP:NASTRO, unless I've missed some very recent huge news that isn't mentioned in the article. Simbad lists two papers that mention this star, but only as part of a large database of stars. Lithopsian (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 2 references to this star in SIMBAD, and both are catalog papers. Fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, fails WP:NASTRO TartarTorte 02:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previously cited reasons. GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have done a fairly thorough search of this topic and I cannot find enough significant coverage that it would qualify for WP:GNG. On top of that, this page appears to be the only article on Wikipedia that mentions the star, so I do not think that there are any reasonable places to redirect the article to. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:04, 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 redirect to List of Romania Twenty20 International cricketers where the history and attribution remain intact in the event Romainian sources turn up Star Mississippi 02:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Satheesan

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. The article contains only one source that is of a Cricinfo scorecard and no other sources citing any sort of coverage. Human (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Romania. Human (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised to see this made it through AfC with one source, then I see it had four and someone deleted most of the content. Does anyone know more background as to how we got to this point? CT55555 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seems like they were deleted by an IP. Even then the sources were just stats from different websites and the fails the above policies anyways. I'm surprised this made through AfC. Human (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider that the removal of content and 3 sources was good faith? Seems like maybe we should judge this based on how it looked with 4 citations and more content? CT55555 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it was definitely not good faith. But I doubt it changes much after I saw the previous version through edit history. Human (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had added them in. This is sufficiently outside my knowledge of wikipedia to comment on notability, but I hope this repair gives editors a fairer basis to judge. CT55555 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Romania Twenty20 International cricketers Subject fails WP:NCRIC and I'm not seeing enough to suggest a GNG pass. There might be some Romanian coverage, but I'm still not sure it would lead to a GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A captain of a team SHOULD pass WP:GNG, if sources are available. As per Rugbyfan22, there is probably coverage in Romanian sources, but in lieu of that, then redirect to the List of Romania Twenty20 International cricketers page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Garo

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

Description of a fictional universe. Unsourced fancruft, consisting only of plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT). Such content is unsuited to Wikipedia and belongs on fan wikis. Sandstein 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure FANDOM style material lacking reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unredeemable WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total Living Network

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

Local TV network, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 27 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?)} 03:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources that show up in Google are the official website (WP:PRIMARY). Does not establish notability and greatly fails GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. The sources provided by Cunard are WP:SIGCOV and pertain specifically to Total Living Network itself.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Murphy, H. Lee (2004-08-09). "Christian media group branches out". Crain's Chicago Business. Vol. 27, no. 32. p. 6. ISSN 0149-6956. EBSCOhost 14174829.
  The article notes: "Total Living, which posted close to $20 million in revenues last year, acquired a 38-acre farmland site adjacent to the Interstate 88-Orchard Road interchange in Aurora from the Aurora Christian School, which had been holding the land for a new campus and athletic fields. The studio and headquarters have been built on seven acres with frontage on the tollway, and the rest of the land is being offered for sale as part of a business park called the Vision Center. Real estate experts estimate that Total Living paid roughly $100,000 per acre for its land."
2. Krone, Emily (2004-08-08). "Station founder reaches out Christian network to moves - Aurora with plans to broadcast to national audience". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "TLN, which relocated in July from Chicago to capitalize on cheaper land costs, operates television stations in Rockford, Ill., Las Vegas and San Francisco and broadcasts original programming to 51 affiliate stations potentially reaching 50 million viewers. All programs produced at the center's two studios are shot with high definition technology and distributed through broadcast stations, cable casting, digital television, satellite delivery and the Internet. Cable systems across the country, including Comcast, Multimedia and Time Warner, carry the TLN channel. ... The network's programming reflects its founder's beliefs: evangelical Christianity, the validity of the Bible, the sanctity of marriage, the possibility of salvation."
3. Faber, Jim (2003-09-12). "Christian TV network to build new headquarters in Aurora; $18 million project: Total Living Network making move from Chicago's West Side". Courier News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Construction has started on the city's west side for the new headquarters and television studios of the Total Living Network, a Christian television network. Total Living Network will move from its current offices on Chicago's West Side into a 65,792-square-foot, $18 million building off Deerpath Road in April 2004 and have the studio up and running by July 2004. The network is best-known for its programs Encounters with the Unexplained with Jerry Orbach, Aspiring Women and Total Living with Jerry Rose."
4. Vergara, Rowena (2010-02-03). "TLN will lease facilities it sold to Hobby Lobby". The Beacon-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "What does arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby have in common with Aurora-based religious channel Total Living Network? Both operate as Christian-minded companies, but the similarities seem to end there. That has now changed. At the end of December, these two companies with completely different objectives entered into a lease agreement over Total Living Network's state-of-the-art production facility at 2880 Vision Court, Aurora."
5. Carrel, Elisabeth (2003-10-25). "Christian network building studio in Aurora". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The network began 27 years ago in Chicago as TV38. Since then, it grown to include TV stations in Chicago, Rockford and the San Francisco area. The network's production company creates films and video projects."
6. Faber, Jim (2004-07-04). "Just a little TLN Total Living Network's new state-of-the-art television studio on Aurora's West Side will bring Christian programming to as many as 50 million viewers". The Beacon-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The Total Living Network owns and runs television stations in San Francisco and Rockford and has a cable channel with Comcast in the Chicago market. TLN has affiliates in 19 states and its programs are carried on PAX and other networks, meaning, in all, some 40 million to 50 million people in the nation and roughly 1.6 million in the Chicago market have access to TLN's programming, Rose said."
7. Webster, Edith C. (2000-12-28). "Religion hits the air waves". Rockford Register Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Chicago-based Total Living Network (TLN) launched WCFC, or TV51, this month. The 24-hour, low-powered station airs nationally syndicated Christian shows and local programming blocks on Saturday night and Tuesday afternoon. ... Christian Communications of Chicagoland has been in business since 1976. Four years ago, the $120 million sale of its TV38 helped launch TLN. In August, TLN headed a coalition of clergy, educators and youth organizations behind Operation 10, a major campaign to give 100,000 book covers, folders and posters to Chicago students at the start of the school year."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Total Living Network to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources shared by Cunard establish notability NemesisAT (talk) 11:25, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sava Bento

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

Article about footballer who only played 15 games in the Swiss Super League during his entire career. I cannot locate any significant coverage in online English- or German-language sources (just trivial coverage like transfer announcements, match reports, database entries, etc). Appears to fail GNG comprehensively. Jogurney (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some material. Of the four newspaper articles I included as citations, two are solely about Bento. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying to find sources, but these are the only kinds of articles I was able to find (contract announcements, match reports, and the like). It's routine/trivial coverage I'm afraid. Jogurney (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 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 19:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough independent coverage to justify an article for the subject. --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Life

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

Appears promotional, not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no lede, no description of what the company actually does Asparagusus (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional in tone and style, reading like a blurb more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, topic is not notable and fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Cabaret

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

I can barely find any mentions of this in various places. The briefest of mentions here and there, but nothing about the show itself - let alone anything significant Nfitz (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of notability, this is so brief that it should not exist. It's basically a title. gidonb (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too little content, too little sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a newspapers.com search for the subject came up with lots of articles, they were all red herrings. Jacona (talk) 00:58, 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. Star Mississippi 02:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Haddouche

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

Unsourced BLP. Single machine generate data page and 404 ref. Date of birth is present but is not in any of the links. Seems to be a illegal common practice in these articles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the 404 (trivial misspelling), and added an additional source, making three. The date of birth was probably taken from List of chess grandmasters (in which it is supported by an external link). Bruce leverett (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grandmaster is the highest title awarded in international chess, and he has participated in international competitions at the top level. Also a many-time Algerian chess champion. The article helps build the web and is linked from 9 other chess articles including Chess World Cup 2017. Deleting it would make the encyclopedia worse. Cited date of birth and added place of birth using a dead tree source also used by list of chess grandmasters. Quale (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have usually kept biographies of players who meet even just one of the four WP:NCHESS criteria. Haddouche meets three of them. As one of only a handful of African chess players ever to been awarded the grandmaster title, he is obviously notable. Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCHESS. He has received coverage such as game analysis here and here, as well as an interview with the Kasparov Chess Foundation. EternalNomad (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This one is directly addressed in WP:NCHESS which states: A chess player is presumed to meet the general notability guideline if they have been awarded the title of grandmaster. It's like being named all-pro in the NFL, but for your brain, not your body. Jacona (talk) 01:05, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC) This should not be deleted. Frankie Saluto is an important part of circus history, in an age where circuses were like royalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palori (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Saluto

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

No sources whatsoever, and improper format. This article likely did not go through a proper review CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arts. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few hits in GBooks, Clown Egg guide (?) seems to have a write up on him, as does one other book. Unsure if notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aimen Rizouk

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

Unsourced BLP with no effective secondary sources. Several machine generated profiles are used to validate it, including date of birth which is not mentioned in any of them. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grandmaster is the highest title awarded in international chess and Rizouk has participated in the highest levels of international chess competition. The article helps build the web in is currently linked from 6 other significant chess articles]. Deletion would make the encyclopedia worse. (Note: birth year was given in the first item under External links (FIDE Profile page), but it is true that this wasn't cited correctly. I've added a dead tree source for full date and place of birth.) Quale (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have usually kept biographies of players who meet just one of the four WP:NCHESS criteria. Rizouk meets three of them. As one of only a handful of African chess players to be awarded the grandmaster title, he is obviously notable. Cobblet (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This one is directly addressed in WP:NCHESS which states: A chess player is presumed to meet the general notability guideline if they have been awarded the title of grandmaster. As Cobblet states, there are additional reasons to keep, but the GM title is more than enough all by itself. Jacona (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this blind attachment to that sentiment is destructive and unacceptable. It the same sentiment that is espoused by the train folk. Only if the article is supported by secondary sources that support WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV does WP:NCHESS work. That article has been updated, so it works here, but so far this week, I've seen about 80 of these articles and they are broken junk. They will be deleted or draftified if they are grandmasters. scope_creep^Talk 05:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "blind attachment to sentiment" to follow Wikipedia Policy? I don't know who the train folk you disparage are, and I haven't read the other 80 unnamed articles you mention. I have read the WP:NCHESS policy, I have read this article, and it meets NCHESS, is verifiable, and is covered by reliable sources. Also, I would ask that you not to call me pejorative names, even one that's only mildly insulting like Dude.Jacona (talk) 11:06, 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. No indication it will become notable in six months' time, so draftification just kicks the can down the road. If someone wants to actively work on this in draft space, happy to provide without WP:REFUND. Just ping me. Star Mississippi 02:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 AFC Champions League

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

WP:TOOSOON. The competition will start in 2024. Qby (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete The qualifying is not started for now Hhkohh (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - far too soon. Giant Snowman 10:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - nothing to write about yet, will be notable closer to the time Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024–25 AFC Cup was closed as delete Hhkohh (talk) 00:26, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Riedell

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

Riedell competed as a sports shoter in the Olympics but he did not medal. I was unable to find any significant coverage about him. I found lots of coverage about a different William Riedell who was a hockey player this century, at the minor league and college level, he may be current, who probably is not notable but is a way more likely search than this person, and so this is not at all a good candidate for being redirected. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found an obit here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A para on him here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit of brief covg. here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found a New York Times obit here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - More NYT covg. here ("RIEDELL SHATTERS WORLD RIFLE MARK"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems to have gotten covg. in a lot of newspapers after he broke the US pistol record in 1935, see The Indy Star, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, AZ Daily Star, News & Observer, and The Boston Globe (sure, all those are pretty short, but having coverage in that many papers has to do something to your notability). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above obit + coverage, with a quick look at his profile stating (amongst other things) that he was also a lieutenant commander in World War II, worked in the Naval Reserve and was buried at Arlington, indicating that there must be other coverage on this guy somewhere. At worst, redirect to Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre pistol per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass GNG (though kind of weak IMO) with sources I have listed above. If nobody else does, I'll try to expand the article when I have more time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holder of both world record and US record, [1], significant coverage provided by BeanieFan11 shows that sources exist to establish notability as per the General Notability Guideline. Jacona (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative universe (fan fiction)

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

The scope of this article is already covered by Parallel universes in fiction. Alternative universes are just a plot devise that can be used to narrate stories and achieve certain purposes; this applies to all types of media and fanfiction is just one of them (if it's not just self-published literature). For each type of alt universe explained here, we can list many examples of works made by the original creators with the same premise. Alternative timelines, that follow canon and then diverge at a specific point? Check "What If...? (TV series)". Familiar characters placed in a whole new setting, such as Batman in the old west or Superman in the middle ages? Check "Elseworlds". Characters trapped inside a fictional story? Read examples in "Trapped in TV Land". Crossovers that mix characters and settings from unrelated publishers into a single story? Check "Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man". Material that expands the original story, but gets outdated when new proper sequels arrive? The bane of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. In short, nothing that fanfiction does with alternative universes is truly new or unseen elsewhere, and does not justify a standalone article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed as a fanfiction-specific category of writing in academic sources, e.g., Thomas (2011), Samutina (2016), Bahoric and Swaggerty (2015), Finn and McCall (2016), Kustritz (2018), McClellan (2018), etc. There is, it appears, a cultural aspect to inventing a "coffee shop AU" or "soulmate AU" that differs from other ways in which familiar characters have been transplanted to new settings. We wouldn't delete an article on a musical genre just because all its instruments are also played in other genres. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Fan fiction#Alternative universe (AU), where the topic is already covered. If that page is expanded with sources, I would not oppose a split in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Apart from the six sources listed by XOR'easter, there's also Åström (2010) in Transformative Works and Cultures, Thomas (2006) in the Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, CR Bangun, N Kumaralalita, GFF Sukur (2020) in Aspiration Journal, Doring (2021) in Encyclopedia of Sexuality and Gender, Kowalska 2017 in The Materiality of Love, Larsen (2019) in Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, Samutina (2016) in Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, and D Pimenova (2008) in Internet Fictions. If these sources and others, beyond the first page when searching for ""Alternative universe" fan fiction" on Google Scholar this evening, can be added to the page, then it should be kept. Otherwise, it should be redirected to Fan fiction#Alternative universe (AU) as Argento Surfer suggested. Historyday01 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And which is supposed to be the unique and special thing that makes fanfic alternate universes a different thing from "mainstream" alternate universes? My point is that all those fanfic writers do with the concept, it's equally doable elsewhere by established authors. And XOR, in you analogy alternate universes would not be genres, but instruments. They are plot devises uses to narrate stories, that may belong to several genres. Like the chorus and the solo, concepts in music that can manifest in wildly different songs and genres. Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is extremely commonly discussed in academic discussions of fanwriting. Another major early source is, I think, Sheenagh Pugh's The Democratic Genre, but I don't have a copy to hand and there doesn't seem to be even a contents listing online. ETA: also commonly known as "alternate universe" and very commonly just "AU", which is impossible to search for, or "A/U", as well as "alternate reality" or "AR", "alternate history", and a dozen different fandom-specific terms. Some more sources from Project Muse (136 hits for "fanfiction" & "alternate"): "‘I’m a God’: The Author and the Writing Fan in Supernatural" in Judith May Fathallah Fanfiction and the Author; Catherine Tosenberger (Summer 2008) "Oh my God, the Fanfiction!" Dumbledore's Outing and the Online Harry Potter Fandom. Children's Literature Association Quarterly Volume 33, Number 2, 200-206; Bronwen Thomas (2011) What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about It? Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies Volume 3: 1-24; Lori Morimoto (Fall 2019) (Trans)Cultural Legibility and Online Yuri!!! on Ice Fandom. Mechademia Volume 12, Number 1, 136-159; "Subverting the Stereotype: Representation in Austen Fanon" in Weinstein, Zoe, Luetkenhaus, Holly Austentatious; much of the book McClellan, Ann K. Sherlock's World: Fan Fiction and the Reimagining of BBC's Sherlock esp. the chapter "OUT OF THIS WORLD: Sherlock’s Alternate Universe Fanfiction"; "Pride and Polyjuice: The Visual Culture of Internet Fandom" in Sarah Glosson Performing Jane: A Cultural History of Jane Austen Fandom; Bettina Soller "Filing off the Serial Numbers: Fanfiction and its Adaptation to the Book Market" in Adaptation in the Age of Media Convergence (Johannes Fehrle and Werner Schäfke, eds); "Seeking Asylum" in Zubernis, Lynn S. and Larsen, Katherine Fangasm: Supernatural Fangirls; Kate McManus "Loading the Canon: Harry Potter and Fanfiction" in A Wizard of Their Age: Critical Essays from the Harry Potter Generation (Cecilia Konchar Farr, ed); "Hannibal Lecter’s Monstrous Return: The Horror of Seriality in Bryan Fuller’s Hannibal" in Nielsen, EJ, Mudan Finn, Kavita Becoming: Genre, Queerness, and Transformation in NBC’s Hannibal; "Hermione Is Black: A Postscript to Harry Potter and the Crisis of Infinite Dark Fantastic Worlds" in Ebony Elizabeth Thomas The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games; Maria Lindgren Leavenworth (January 2015) The Paratext of Fan Fiction. Narrative Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 40-60; Meredith Suzanne Hahn Aquila (2007). Ranma ½ Fan Fiction Writers: New Narrative Themes or the Same Old Story? Mechademia 2: 34-47; Maria Lindgren Leavenworth (2015) Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies Volume 7, Number 2, pp. 93-110; Josh Stenger "The Datafication of Fandom: Or How I Stopped Watching the DC Arrowverse on The CW and Learned to Mine Fanwork Metadata" in A Fan Studies Primer: Method, Research, Ethics (Rebecca Williams, Paul Booth, eds) [interesting quantitative paper highlighting the high prevalence of works tagged as AU in one fandom]; and lots & lots more. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the concern of overlap with mainstream AUs, there are a lot of very well known tropes that are very common in fanfiction and rare or absent in mainstream AUs, eg, fiction where the characters wake up with wings, or gay; where the characters' sexual orientation is different from canon; fiction recasting the characters as animals; AUs of the coffee shop, high school type; the whole soulmate trope; and fix-it fiction that overwrites canonical events disliked by fans. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fan fiction. This is really not much different than a regular fan fiction, it doesn't justify having a separate article. Merge there and use the many sources presented above to build a decent information. 182.1.117.171 (talk) 00:07, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Music Awards

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

Non-notable music award. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY, and no secondary sourcing seems to exist beyond "X performed at the World Music Awards". The 2014 list does seem to have a bit more robust sourcing, but it all centers on the event that caused the ceremony to be canceled and/or is just press releases about the artists attending. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Music Awards, selectively merge all annual articles into the main. These are awards with decent exposure over the years that is clearly NOT sufficient for the annual articles. Only very important competitions should have annual articles! Nomination fails WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, as it looks at references, not at potential sources. For example, it is true (though completely irrelevant) that all the references in the main are primary. It then suggests going from one extreme (having all these annual articles) to the other extreme (deleting the main). It would make more sense to transfer some content and references from the annual articles to the main, culminating in the right amount of references, content, and coverage for Enwiki. Although my analysis is based on the coverage, not on the situation elsewhere, still, looking across Wikipedia: 29 WPs have the main, only 4 have (some) of the annual articles.gidonb (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any sources that aren't some variant of "X performed at the World Music Awards" boilerplate PR. Did you find something I didn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's entertainment. The people who host, sing, win, editions that get canceled for Corona, that's a huge part of the operations and the most interesting for the press. I would not watch it unless I get paid. Not the the Emmys or Oscars either, and definitely not pageants or wrestling shows. I do not have a tv at home. Well, I do have the screen so I can watch a movie once in a while and I zap a bit in hotels. I'm a WP editor and do not judge articles by WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONOTLIKEIT but by our policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going off WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm going off WP:GNG which says,

For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent

. Everything I could find was a press release or similar form of PR originating from the artist or their promo team. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the 2014 edition has some good coverage. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel it fails WP:NOTNEWS as the incident at the 2014 awards is the only time the entire ceremony seems to have gotten any more than the most superficial of coverage Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS only applies to the annual articles. World Music Awards takes the long view of the awards and events. It will do so even more if my suggestions are followed. You do not have to like this kind of entertainment to support keeping the main. In any case, it's not my kind of entertainment. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If literally 100% of the coverage of the event focuses on the 2014 incarnation, that does not automatically make the rest of the ceremonies notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and that's a perfect argument for my position: the annual events are not notable enough for their own articles and we should only take the long view with the SIGCOV that we have. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' We've WP:BADCHARTed their horrible current-day charts and at this point they're more of a music blog than actually awarding anything, but they've had notable ceremonies with notable people appearing to accept their trophies or perform in the past. N doesn't expire for the past ceremonies, though I do agree especially as someone who had prevent the 2014 article from becoming an ADVERT to scrub the chaos of not airing on NBC that their nomination and balloting criteria since 2000 have been so unclear that it's hard to track down, or that they even still hold a connection with the Monacan monarchy at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/keep per Gidonb. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European public sphere

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

This is not a 'thing' in any conceivable sense. It is a conceptual entity at best, it is not sufficiently definite to be the subject of an encyclopedic article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The European public sphere is not as inconceivable as many other articles that have already been published on this platform. It designates a political science concept, that has been heavily documented in scientific literature as well as reports from European institutions. It is very well defined as indicated in the various and numerous sources I put at the end of my article. The European public sphere tackles issues related to media, European elections, the Conference on the future of Europe and a space that is designed for European citizens to exchange views. I firmly believe that this article would be helpful for everyone to have a better grasp of what a European public sphere means. Antoine Ichas (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it is the subject of an encyclopaedia article. Per ISBN 9781527548749 they're still looking for it, though. Or were in 2019, an important year according to the book's introduction. ISBN 9781785360916 talks about how to make one (in case one wants to roll one's own, presumably). ISBN 9781107081659 has more than one. I pity the person who tries to wikify this content. It has its own idiosyncratic referencing system involving the creator's own userspace. For that alone, I think that this should not be in the main article namespace. This is a draft that is as it stands too hard for others to collaboratively write on.
Don't tell the umpteen social and political scientists searching for this and writing books on it for years on end that I've found it. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. However, the European public sphere is not something to look for, something that can be found. As I stated in my article, it is a process that can take different forms and may very well never happen. It is as concrete as regular public spheres, only not formed yet, or rather formed only during brief moments or on certain platforms. Helping European citizens understand what it is, is highly significant for them to appropriate the European debates for themselves in order to be involved in the coming years, especially with the next European elections. Wikifying this content may be complicated, and perhaps reserved for political scientists, but I believe that many parts of my article can be extended without broad knowledge (such as on the topic of social protests, add a section on the Conference on the future of Europe, the role of mass media in political debate at the European level...). As such, I don't believe that this draft is too hard for other users to work on. Considering the referencing system, I will try my best to conform it to Wikipedia's rules and take inspiration from other articles. Antoine Ichas (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently all the footnotes added in my article were removed, thus rendering my list of references non-usable. Antoine Ichas (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the references. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help ! Antoine Ichas (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pan-European identity. It is a concept that is being discussed in academia, but as a relatively minor aspect of the broader topics of European politics and European unification. Sandstein 10:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites many sources about the concept of a European public sphere. It does not seem to be in dispute that these are suitable sources for Wikipedia, or that they're about this topic. That the topic seems a vague and indefinite topic for academics to study is an opinion, and does not seem not relevant to whether Wikipedia should have an article on the topic. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:48, 12 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) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megamind (franchise)

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

Draftify, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:FILMSERIES, hardly any comparison. Has potential if TV series releases and article developed so not just virtually same info as the individual articles it's copied from Indagate (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have researched them and the Blue Defender game is the same as Ultimate Showdown. Mega Team Unite is just a party beat em up game. I'm making a page for that so it would have two pages of the same game but Ultimate Showdown will be a mix of the original and The Blue Defender story so far. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Defender does not seem notable in its own right so not suitable for its own article. Regardless, this doesn't address the franchise article. Nothing that isn't or can't be in either Megamind or Megamind: Ultimate Showdown. Indagate (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The story from both Ultimate Showdown and Blue Defender is the same, it’s just that the gameplay is different between the two. Mega Team Untie is more of a party game than a platformer. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can have that information in Megamind: Ultimate Showdown at the end? Blue Defender not notable in its own right Indagate (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already put in the info though. the console version shows is having a 3d platformer while the handheld version is more of a Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters feel to it. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree that it is WP:TOOSOON especially since it got several video games. Megamind (video game) in particular needs to be split into 3 separate articles. WP:NEXIST shows that the article should remain regardless of its current status and sourcing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about all that. Sometimes you can split alternate versions of games into separate articles, but that article is pretty under-developed and far from needing a split. There's going to need to be a tremendous amount of work to be out into it for that to be relevant to this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can agree that a split is actually not necessary, the article seems to mainly be about one of the versions. However, I have at least started by cleaning it up and removing the unnecessary focus on numerous games at once. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your improvements to Megamind: Ultimate Showdown look good, but that isn't nominated for deletion. The very little information about the sequels in the franchise article could be added to Megamind: Ultimate Showdown as a paragraph on future at the end to consolidate the articles? Indagate (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other two games don't seem individually notable but are better off mentioned in the franchise article than that of the unrelated 360/PS3 game... which is one of the reasons why this article should probably exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little for them at the franchise article, don't think should have that article just for that information Megamind_(franchise)#Video_games. They were released in same year and part of same franchise as Megamind: Ultimate Showdown so think fine to include them as a section in that article. Indagate (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be split because the article isn't long enough, notability doesn't matter in this case, there isn't a need for a split so it creates unnecessary duplication of information Indagate (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or worst case merge. "Franchise" is almost always a silly word to me, but this is clearly a "series" of some kind. Most series do eventually end up having their own page, and worst case the information about sequels can be included at the end of the previous entries. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I don't see any major benefit for merging everything. I do agree that calling it series is more accurate than a franchise, but there are multiple notable things that are part of the series. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a series either though, it's a movie with a potential TV series, soundtrack, non-notable short film (recent AfD result merge), two arguably notable games, and one non-notable game. Having multiple related notable things doesn't mean there should be a parent article for them, no other information to add. See guideline WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Indagate (talk) 15:17, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Democracy and Freedom (UK)

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

Not notable, has no non-trivial coverage from independent sources. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, proving existence is not proving notability. CT55555 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Micro-party that fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 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 14:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tramon Air

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

prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Ardfern with the following rationale "Not an insignificant airline in South African terms. We should be building up such articles not destroying them". I appreciate that sentiment, but the article still is missing a source that would identify this company as "not insignificant". As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, and South Africa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly seems like spam, and there are interesting pieces here like the ICAO and Callsign which are ideally preserved in a knowledge repo. Not to mention there is generally interest in who owned / operated different plane types. 2A01:CB00:56:B100:C8AC:CD4F:504F:B926 (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING addresses your arguments, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably information best suited to a "List of" type article HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a company so NCORP applies. There are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited references. Fails to meet GNG and NCORP Park3r (talk) 08:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Dyamwale

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

Not notable, single appearance on the Olympics. I wasn't able to find any good sources that proves subject's notability. Artem.G (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Athletics at the 1964 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per the un-earthing of the info, below. Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no good sources, and nothing to indicate notability. There is no reason to redirect from every name of some minor sportsperson who someone bothered to spend 3 minutes or less on creating an article about. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and we have no grandfather clause. So we do not keep articles just because someone one created them, we need to show actual notability, and that is not done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)166.149.176.61 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding some hits under "Chabanga Dyamwale", including this article which I can't access beyond the paywall. I'm trying to verify they are in fact the same person, but it looks like later on in life Dyamwale may have become a Member of Parliament (see here). GPL93 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also found this article which also states that Dyamwale was the president of the Tanzania Football Federation, Deputy Minister of Tanzania's department of Land, Natural Resources and Tourism, and the Director of Sports Development in Tanzania as well as a Member of Parliament (so passes WP:NPOL). Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, @Artem.G:, and @Lugnuts: it looks like the guy passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear if he passes WP:NPOL in my view, but I think this does give more weight to a keep argument. The reason I say I am unsure if he passes WP:NPOL is that the linked article (and nothing else I can find) confirm he was an MP in Tanzania; not just a deputy minister. While normally deputy ministers are MPs, they are not always and without something clearing stating he was an MP I think he fails WP:NPOL. TartarTorte 02:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC) He does pass WP:NPOL per GPL's findings below. TartarTorte 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TartarTorte I was able to find this obit which refers to him as a "retired Member of Parliament for Handeni". Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, thank you for that. I've struck my comment and voted to keep per WP:NPOL. TartarTorte 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that he has ample coverage in the English and Swahili media including a full-length obituary in a national newspaper (I am adding the information right now). EternalNomad (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL per the biography found by GPL93 stating that he was an MP, which qualifies under NPOL. TartarTorte 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of parliament and a deputy minister, qualifies for WP:NPOL. Jacona (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians. GPL93 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: As an MP, passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 23:14, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men in popular culture

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

Mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft (tagged with refimprove since 2008, and already during AfD 13 years ago called "just a cluttered trivial dumping ground."). Not linked from anywhere except as a see also or part of Steinbeck's navigational template. 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. As someone interested in history of literature, I'll say that it is an interesting list of trivia (well, mosty, I can't find any redeaming value in stuff like "In Cookie Clicker, there is an achievement named "of mice and men" obtained by purchasing 100 cursors.") , but sadly, it's not encyclopedic. To anyone who wants to argue this has some value, please read the above policies, and note that Scholar query shows dozens of academic article using the title of the novel as puns (ex. "The best laid plans of mice and men: the computer mouse in the history of computing", "Of Mice and Men: Animals in Human Culture", "The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men: Official Narratives and American Meaning-Making in World War II", "Of mice and men: hybridoma and recombinant antibodies"). Would you like to see a new section 'in scholarly works' listing all times someone decided to include the pun based on this novel in the title of their paper? :P That said, it's possible this is a notable topic (ex. [2]), but WP:TNT applies; as past and current experience has shown, any rewrite of this would have to start from scratch anyway. In the case someone would try to do so, we should start by writing a properly referenced section in the main article before splitting stuff up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of every minor even vague reference. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every possible call back, mention or vague citing of a work that has occured, no matter how minor. Also note that saying "the best laid plans of mice and men" etc. in a scholarly article may not even be a reference to Steinbeck. It was Burns who wrote a poem that mentions "the best laid plans of mice and men" over 100 years before Steinbeck. So not even all uses of "of mice and men" are neccessarily in any way alluding to the book at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only included source that actually says anything about the overall use of references to the book in popular culture is the first listed one from the NYT, and that consists entirely of the one sentence that is quoted in this article. The remainder of the article is nothing but non-notable trivia items. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:OR requires that a topic be covered in independent sources, or we should not have an article on it. For clarity, Of Mice and Men is clearly notable, and could use some improvement. I would recommend that someone try to find suitable sources about the legacy of the main work, as that may do a better job covering its long-term impact on culture. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely original research, textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Such-change47 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Island 3

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

Nominating for deletion after coming across it during routine clean-up tasks. There are no reliable, independent sources found for this topic that meet the notability standard at WP:N. While not policy, I have considered the essay at WP:NVIDEOGAMES and find it persuasive and logical. There it is stated a "video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources independent of the developer". I agree with this, and as there are no such sources for this video game, the article covering it is not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep This one is tough. It's an older game. Metacritic generally doesn't have games before around 2002, and Gamerankings shutdown. I found a spreadsheet someone saved of all GR scores prior to shutdown, and it wasn't even listed. Here's the kicker: It was "Adventure Island 3" for NES but "Adventure Island II: Aliens in Paradise" in EU for it's GB port. Neither is in GR. Moby however does have a list of critic reviews, and they are not all unreliable. My weak keep is based on the existence of these reviews: NintendoLife, EGM (Feb, 1993, print review), Hardcore Gaming 101, Video Games (Dec, 1993, print review), GamePro (US, Aug, 1992, print review), Play Time (May, 1993, print review), Total! (Germany, Jun, 1993, print review). Some more of the reviews at Moby may be reliable, but I know the ones I've denoted are reliable print publications or websites vetted at WP:VG/RS. I don't at all fault the nominator for missing this, searching for this game is difficult due to age and the odd English naming of the GB port. MobyGames itself is deemed unreliable, but it's list of reviews is often useful for finding reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mobygames has a number of contemporaneous reviews. WP:NEXIST applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferret. Plenty of reviews that need to be implemented. Timur9008 (talk) 21:09 ,4 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep as i know there are plenty of sources to justify its article. I could help by finding and placing them on the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you do this? Consensus seems to be keep, people are stating there are sources but I cannot find any. If someone pleases finds these reliable sources independent of the subject and includes them, I will withdraw my AFD nom. I cannot find these sources myself after looking. Thanks! Such-change47 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. I directly listed seven sources. What do you mean you cannot find any? For AFD, per WP:NEXIST, we just need to know the sources exist, they don't have to be added in first to avoid deletion. -- ferret (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ferret. The current sourcing is a little lacking, but the sourcing clearly exists, with at least a few paragraphs to build a proper article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 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. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Park F.C. (1868)

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

A short-lived club for which we have some match reports but nothing actually establishing notability. Fram (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is why they are notable - there were so few clubs in 1868 (the FA membership was barely a dozen) that South Park FC was, in essence, of the same stature as a current League team. Including a short-lived club like South Park shows the development of the game and the evanescence of some early clubs. Plus it might stimulate research into any further influence on the game. In Vitrio (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@In Vitrio: As the creator, you will of course feel more defensive, however I am unsure if the comment "South Park FC was, in essence, of the same stature as a current League team", is anywhere close to valid. I take the point (to an extent) that early clubs may deserve some recognition, although not if there is little to no significant coverage of them. Your comment sounds a bit like you like the idea of them having an article but without being able to demonstrate that they actually were notable at the time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to trace the development of the game in the pre-FA Cup days, when the code nearly died out, to show that there were teams bubbling up from the quantum foam of the unorganized sport. Given the size of the membership, South Park must have been active with games between members; that it had few external games is a reflection of the club's youth. There could be a false impression if it is restricted to survivors who, a fortiori, are going to be notable for their age if nothing else.

They were at least notable enough to warrant reports in the national press - their games are covered in Bell's Life, The Field, and The Sportsman. There are numerous other clubs from the era who did not reach that standard (to pick two examples, the Holt club and London Scottish Rifles), so the club was not part of the amorphous mass of anonymity. In Vitrio (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this nominated in under an hour of its creation? Hardly fair if you ask me, you haven't even given the article any breaving room. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There might be merit in a list or article about the history of association football in England in the 1860s, where this club can be mentioned and redirected to, but in the absence of that it should be deleted (or draftified). Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research. But what are the notability criteria? This club had more than one match reported in more than one national newspaper, that instantly puts them above pretty much every non-league team... In Vitrio (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"more than one national newspaper"? Only "The Sportsman" is quoted, which other newspaper would that be? According to this, this weekly "newspaper" had a circulation in the hundreds before 1874, making it more like a fanzine and less a "national newspaper" anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Bell's Life and The Field. They also made the Alcock annual. The national newspapers were not interested in football much in the 1860s, a quick search at the Times archive doesn't have any hits even for the Wanderers. Does every source have to be quoted? (genuine question) In Vitrio (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising considering it's a club which existed for all of 1 year. Cannot see a relevant redirect/merge candidate. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A short article, but encyclopaedic. If we can't find somewhere to merge it, we should keep it as is. SpinningSpark 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments (and thus rationale) above, which I am unchanged by despite the above !keeps. At a push, an alternative may be redirecting to 1860s in association football#1867, although there is currently no mention there and it doesn't seem significant enough that there should be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Bungle. As a history buff I am not opposed to a redirect per ATD or a merge into a history section of an appropriate article where scant sources are not dependent on advancing notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires a subject to be notable to warrant inclusion. To demonstrate this notability, it needs to be sourced by 'multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. It does not appear this article meets this requirement and so it does not meet either notability or verifiability standards and ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. South Park, Ilford is a possible merge target, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same South Park as where the club played. It was not officially a park until 1902, but the club was formed in 1867. It's article says it was previously farmland, but I have a source (which I will soon add to the article) which clearly shows it was being used for purposes other than farming at around the right time period (but not explicitly football). SpinningSpark 09:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge part content to 1860s in association football#1867 per Bungle, deleting helps no one. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:49, 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) 11:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Portuguese colonies

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

Normally I would tag this for speedy deletion as having no content, but it has existed like this since 2008. 2008! That has to be some kind of record, I hope. Fram (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Portugal. Fram (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3, also obviously fails WP:LISTN and WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people on the postage stamps of Portugal, without prejudice against recreating individual pages for Guinea, India and Timor if/when anyone has time to find sources and do the writing. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't redirect to a page which has no information at all about this. Fram (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete empty skeleton page. Dronebogus (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to clean up a lot of stampcruft from Wikipedia. This empty list is the lowest of low hanging fruit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty list Llwyld (talk) 13:05, 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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three (TV series)

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

This is a difficult title to search, but there seem to be no obvious, relevant GNews results, and considering its very short run (<2 months) I'm convinced that it likely fails WP:GNG. Only source is a book which I cannot check. This is a 1998 TV series that aired on The WB; it has no relation to the 2012 CBS show also titled 3. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- washington post article [3]; New York Times review [4]. Just going onto page two of google, I see Deseret News [5]. Pretty easy GNG pass. Just had to do a basic google search for 'Three "Evan Katz" WB'. Google News searches honestly don't do a great job picking up older TV shows, but conventional google can work. matt91486 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Matt's sources, I found [6] (Associated Press) and [7] (New York Daily News). There's ample coverage for a GNG pass, in my view, although I certainly understand how that might not be apparent at a first glance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, Strange & True

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

G4 TV show that lasted just under a year and returned zero hits in GNews. One of 146 articles deprodded by NemesisAT out of concern of rapid-fire nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder, WP:BEFORE revealed no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are insufficient sources to demonstrate sig-cov warranting inclusion Such-change47 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking sigcov. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:28, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Adventure Team

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

Short-lived TV series that never got much attention. Only source is primary, and Google News returned only a couple of passing mentions. One of 146 articles deprodded by NemesisAT due to concerns about mass-prodding. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BEFORE check reveals there are sources and these I consider meet the relevant notability requirement. Further, sourcing has been added during the AFD and as the issue at hand is addressed no ground for deletion exists in my view - Such-change47 (talk) 08:02, 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. His work might be notable but, as a person and artist, this individual is not yet notable by Wikipedia's standards of notability. It might be best to work on a Draft version of this article until he receives more focused attention on himself and not just on the songs he works on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jiroe

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

Fails the notability criteria for people in addition to the notability criteria for musicians. A search for sources yielded no results, save for a Medium article here, which is, of course, listed at the list of perenially unreliable sources. Sean Stephens (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jiroe Meets the notability criteria for people as stated here:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

He Produced and Mixed the record "Dry" by Rancid Eddie which charted number 2 on ARIA Charts (here), Number 4 on New Zealand charts (here). Such work was talked about on multiple sources such as EarMilk (here), Billboard ("Hottest Release of the Week"), Michigan Daily (Here). I can keep mentioning. The song Dry which he produced and mixed has over 13 million plays on Spotify ([8], credits mentioning Jiroe on the same page (right click on the song and click on Credits, only way to see them).

Jiroe does Meet the notability criteria for musicians as stated here:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Once again, He Produced and Mixed the record "Dry" by Rancid Eddie which charted number 2 on ARIA Charts (here), Number 4 on New Zealand charts (here). Such work was talked about on multiple sources such as EarMilk (here), Billboard ("Hottest Release of the Week"), Michigan Daily (Here). I can keep mentioning. The song Dry which he produced and mixed has over 13 million plays on Spotify ([9], credits mentioning Jiroe on the same page (right click on the song and click on Credits, only way to see them).

He also Produced and Mixed "Beautiful Life" by Cobra Starship, which has been covered by multiple reliable sources such as: Paper Magazine (Here), Broadway World (here).

Also please, you have been for some strange reason, removing everything I do on Wikipedia. Please stop, find somebody else to bully. TubbyDubby (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read every single citation in the page I create you will realize Jiroe meets and surpasses the criteria for Record Producer. Stop bullying every one of my moves on Wikipedia @Sean Stephens TubbyDubby (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TubbyDubby, I'm not bullying you, I have valid and reasonable concerns about the content you've added or are adding to Wikipedia, the chief one being that this article doesn't match the aforementioned criteria. Discogs and IMDb, both used as sources in the article, are not considered to be reliable sources. I will also note that the notability criteria for people, which you yourself cite, states that such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (which he hasn't) and that this work could be, for example, a book, film, or television series—this particular guideline does not refer to contributions to songs or albums. Due to this, he would be considered an example of someone who's only notable for one event, as he hasn't achieved sustained coverage. No sources to indicate notability are given in the article, and, at this current point in time, no such sources appear likely to be found. I have raised issues with you previously, and you've failed to listen and/or engage with me. Please keep the discussion on the topic at hand. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs and IMDb are used as source for credits, spotify can be used. They are not used as "media". The media citations are indirect citation, the producer's work (the songs) are being are being subject of multiple independent articles or reviews. His name is not mentioned directly, but the most recent work he has done (Dry and Beautiful Life) are indeed mentioned. Just because the name of the producer is not mentioned it does not mean the record producer is not notable. The songs exist in that form and arrangement because of the record producer and therefor every media article related to the song is a media article about the producer's work, wether or not the producer is mentioned there. TubbyDubby (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TubbyDubby, all those sources just prove that the songs are notable, not the producer. Not one of them mentions Jiroe by name. So he hasn't been the subject of multiple published works (the songs have), and he personally has not had a single on a national chart (the singer has). You would have to prove that as producer he played a major role in creating the songs, and the fact he isn't mentioned in any of the sources doesn't provide much evidence that he meets this criterion. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, exactly this. Better sources are needed, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the category American Record Producer, the vast majority of record producers have indirect references, which is valid. The record producer is responsible for the song, if you are saying the songs are notable but the producer is not, then you are just not understanding what a record producer is and what its role is. I don't have time today but I'll add other citations to the page which mention that particular producer directly. TubbyDubby (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been writing about modern music for the last decade. As has Richard, I believe. We know the role of a music producer, so please please don't cast aspersions on that matter. While you're at it, you may want to read up on WP:OSE and WP:NOTINHERITED, as those concepts counter much of the rest of what you're saying. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (unless TubbyDubby has a list of sources they can present here that they'd be adding later that would clear up the lack of subject-specific coverage, though that sounds unlikely based on the direction of the above conversation) QuietHere (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and my discussion points above. I could find any significant coverage sourcing for this BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 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 no consensus. There is some merit to either side of the debate. The point about the article passing WP:GNG is certainly relevant. The point about the article violating WP:NOTPLOT has some merit, since the plot section does dominate the article. However, it is not a given that something that can be resolved by regular editing mechanisms mandates deletion of the entire article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dying of the Light (Heroes)

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

Redirect declined due to IGN and AV Club reviews, but those are not enough if there's nothing else to say about the article. I was unable to find anything else. This episode therefore fails to prove its own notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reliable sources give it significant coverage, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 06:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Heroes (season 3)#ep06. Article violates WP:NOTPLOT and there is not enough coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works to correct this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – here's a review by Digital Spy, and there might be one or two other solid reviews floating out there. Also, I fail to see why two reviews in reliable outlets are not considered sufficient. The vast majority of television episodes don't even reach two reviews, so this episode should be deemed notable. Yes, the article is never going to reach GA/FA in this state, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That source has the same issue the current sources have; it doesn't contain coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works that would allow us to correct the WP:NOTPLOT violation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reviews clearly fall into the reception category you mentioned above, as long as they provide their own analysis and commentary about the episode (which the provided sources do, except for maybe the Eugene Weekly link) and aren't just simple recaps (which they aren't). By providing their own analysis, the article no longer contains just a summary of the plot, which is what NOTPLOT discourages. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Due to WP:NOTPLOT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, the presence of critical reception means this does not violate WP:NOTPLOT NemesisAT (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 2 sources should not be enough to show notability for a TV episode, should have something regarding production, and development of those sources instead of just a short phrase from each Indagate (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the issue is that the sources are underdeveloped or provide too little detail, that's a writing issue, not a notability issue (see WP:ARTN). The reviews have more details that could be added to the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  True but limited use of the sources means they aren't discussed so doesn't follow WP:NOTPLOT Indagate (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also, it's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK when it lacks information for episode-speicifc production and reception Indagate (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I don't believe a WP:NOTPLOT compliant article can be written from the current sources, although you are welcome to try. BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I would write the article if I was familiar with the show, but I tend to only write about a topic if I'm familiar with it (it's hard to explain something for someone else if you don't understand it yourself). But as has been laid out before, the two existing reviews (and the Digital Spy source linked above) contain analysis and commentary that goes beyond what is explicitly laid out in the plot. Our plot guidelines emphasize that all plot points must be clearly shown in the episode to be included in the plot summary (see MOS:TVPLOT: Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary...), so if the analysis goes beyond those directly shown details – which these sources do – the reviews are no longer solely based in plot, and therefore NOTPLOT is no longer a concern, in my view. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:NOTPLOT we also got a WP:MILL problem, nothing indicates more than routine coverage(contemporary reviews followed by nothing else) that would allow this to pass WP:GNG. Redirect..Lurking shadow (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Technically notable per WP:GNG (a guideline), but currently fails WP:NOTPLOT (a policy). Sandstein 10:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 06:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Jewitt

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The page has a lot of minutiae that don't add up to notability. As to WP:GNG, I don't see multiple meaningful references in reliable sources. As to WP:PROF, I don't see the 8 criteria under WP:NACADEMIC being met -- per that page, "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" Dr. Jewitt has quite a long list of activities (from ESL teacher to prison educator) but no indication that any of the awards are particularly meaningful (e.g., nominated for an "Inspire Women" award but did not win; nominated as "one to watch" in a book that does not seem to be a reliable source; etc) or that she has had an outsized impact in her field. I'd love to be wrong about this one, but it feels like a bunch of non-WP:RS stacked up. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost seems run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient independent and reliable coverage to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:AUTHOR, as well as a lack of support for WP:NPROF at this time, per the nom and based on what I have been able to find online and at the WP Library. Beccaynr (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An h-index of 3 in education is extraordinarily low. Refs 1-17 are not independent. Refs 18-38 are for various minor awards, not major ones. She's only four years out of her PhD - it would be very strange for her to be able to pass WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not remotely meet WP:NPROF, which is unsurprising as she's an early-stage academic. There's very little WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Beccaynr. Unfortunately being "well-intentioned" does not meet GNG. Possibly is WP:TOOSOON but there is no inherent notability in her current positions so needs to meet GNG or WP:PROF, and does not seem to. Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Months Later...

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

Non-notable episode. Redirect declined. IGN source is 404; AV Club is only decent source. Article still had a trivia section until two seconds ago. Total fancruft, minimal out-of-universe notability. Zero sourcing found beyond what's already here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources already quoted in the review section give it significant coverage. I just clicked on the IGN source and it loads up fine. https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/25/heroes-four-months-later-review How about you just combine all these into one AFD and stop redirecting other articles until we get more feedback? Dream Focus 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going with the two you explicitly undid until we form a consensus as to whether or not a couple reviews are enough absent coverage of any other facet of the episode. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heroes (season 2)#ep1. Article violates WP:NOTPLOT and there is not enough coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works to correct this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has sections for Production details and Critical reception. I doubt "influence of works" would apply to 99% of episode or movie articles on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The production section is unsourced trivia; the critical reception is three sentences long, telling us only how many viewers the episode receives, and the score two reviewers gave the episode. The Slant Magazine source can help a little with this, but I don't think it can help enough to keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per BilledMammal. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a quick Google search turns up several other reviews, such as this one from Slant Magazine and this one from Eugene Weekly. Also, I'll note that a 404 error for IGN (now fixed) shouldn't be a reason for deletion per WP:LINKROT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Slant Magazine is a reasonable source, but Eugene Weekly is another plot summary; I still don't believe we have enough to keep, considering WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a section discussing notable reviews of the episode, then the episode is no longer a "summary-only description" (i.e., it is more than just a plot summary), and therefore NOTPLOT is irrelevant. (I think part of the problem is that the current plot summary is too long, leading the plot section to dominate the article, but that's completely separate from the article's notability.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The section discussing reviews of the episode consists of On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers. Sean O'Neal of The A.V. Club gave the episode a B. Robert Canning of IGN scored the episode 7.8 out of 10. This doesn't bring the article beyond a summary-only description of the work. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - But there are more details in the sources that could be used to expand the section; within the article, each review could (and should) have a few sentences summarizing its main points of commentary. The brevity of the section is a writing issue, not a notability issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met through reviews. NOT#PLOT cannot overrule NPOV, which requires us to cover topics as RS'es cover them: if all we have from multiple RS'es is plot, we cover that plot. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If all we have from multiple reliable sources is plot, then per WP:NOTPLOT we can't have an article. WP:NPOV isn't relevant to that, and WP:GNG tells us that it is overruled by WP:NOT. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - More appropriately, we bring in non-independent sourcing to cover production, etc. once independent RS'es push us over the notability threshold. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per Dream Focus and additional sourcing identified by RunningTiger123. NOTPLOT doesn't apply here. The plot summary is a bit long and could use some editing, but the article also has smallish sections on "Production details" and "Critical reception". Clearly, it's not a GA-level article, but that's not the standard at AfD. The reviews added by Dream Focus and others referenced above by RunningTiger show that this can be further developed. In the end, there's enough here for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantive reviews put forward during the discussion. The plot summary needs hacking down but that's true of a lot of television/film articles. I don't read "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" as requiring coverage of all those items, just at least one in addition to the plot summary. ETA The Eugene Weekly review is not just plot summary, there is opinion and analysis, eg the comparison with Joss Whedon's work. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RunningTiger123 and Jclemens. Keep all the other related ones too. Huggums537 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, the presence of critical reception means this does not violate WP:NOTPLOT NemesisAT (talk) 09:53, 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 keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete. A strong minority is for merging to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, but not enough to establish consensus. A merger can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 abortion protests in the United States

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

Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:DELAY. Much of this is already covered in the Dobbs article itself. A separate article is only redundant. This is jumping the gun, we'll see if this becomes notable enough for a standalone article later. A lot of things receive national-level protests, but they don't have their ~~only~~ own articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge that mention of where some additional protests were held, but there's little else and given that at least right now there does not appear to be the type of outrage building like in wake of George Floyd's death, I can't see this being an extended protest event. --Masem (t) 05:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This will continue until June when the decision is released and afterwards to the midterm election in November. This is only the first week. This is impacting all women in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with this! Wikipedia is meant to be reliable, but not a news source. This event is changing far too fast to make an encyclopedic and reliably informative article. Uncanniey (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I cannot agree with this statement. You're right about Wikipedia being not a news source, but it relies on news to a big degree for a lot of things. You might be right on how the event is changing rapidly, but there have been several similar articles (that I cannot think on top of my head right now) that did not receive a deletion notice. Teedless (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization#Reactions. There are a great many Supreme Court decisions that result in protest, some on the scale we have seen with this one. Such content is generally covered in the article on the decision, as is appropriate. BD2412 T 05:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now – At this time, the content of this page can fit in Dobbs v. Jackson. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 09:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. This article is quite small and the limited amount of information there is to say about the protests is fine in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization#Reactions. However, this article will probably need to be recreated if the protests continue, or increase in scale or intensity (which will presumably happen if Roe actually gets overturned). For now though the article is not needed. Endwise (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Keep. With the passage of time, there is now enough to say about the topic to warrant its own article, so it should now be kept. Endwise (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now – I don't think these protests are big or loud enough to require a separate article. It could be recreated depending on how the situation progresses, but it's not needed right now. Guyfromearth2 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it seems so for a "Guyfromearth2" but not to a "woman in the U.S.". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now. I feel that the subject has not yet garnered enough notoriety that would permit it to be a separate article. I do not doubt that people could come to the reasonable conclusion that there are major protests, but this topic could be revisited if something major happens as a result of the decision. --Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (disclaimer: page creator). I've added quite a few more cities to this list this morning, and there are many more to add. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. There are opportunities to flesh out the list into prose, describing crowd sizes, demonstration locations, organizing groups, etc. Additionally, there was violence in LA and arrests in multiple cities. More protests are being planned, including by Women's March. There's enough content and detail to create an entry similar to Impeachment March, Not My Presidents Day, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Argubly, this is great content for Wikinews, not Wikipedia, due to the question of whether these protests gave legs or not. Wikinewd is great for coverage of breaking events without worrying about long term influence, but here on WP, NEVENT must be met. --Masem (t) 16:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We'll have to agree to disagree. Wikipedia should have entries for notable protests and this series of demonstrations has clearly received sufficient secondary coverage, IMO. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. These protests could definitely warrant their own article in the future, especially if and when the Roberts Court officially reverses Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But for now, I don't think these protests warrant their own article. StuckEarlier (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support protest are inevitable in an issue controversial such as this. Nothing overly notable has happened as of the time of this edit, and per WP:NOTNEWS it doesn't seem as if this article is doing anything of encyclopedic value by just listing off venues where protest have occurred. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merge for now. This is an encyclopaedia, not a US current affairs site.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify In agreement with others here. Too soon to know if these protests will have lasting notability, especially given that pro- and anti-abortion demonstrations happen all the time with varying levels of media coverage in response. These is good material here, so I think drafting and waiting a few months would be the best option. KidAd • SPEAK 19:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. This is a largely irrelevant aspect of a largely inconsequential event. Let's keep it encyclopedic. Innican Soufou (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is just the beginning. There will be lots of protests to come. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. But they have not happened yet and there is no way of telling what will happen. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL is what we are not. If these protests become notable then we can reinstate this article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the time being. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, it's a little WP:TOOSOON for this to be a standalone article, but there is potential for future developments that may warrant one.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/keep I think just with the large continuous level of reporting about the current and upcoming protests it would be good to keep it as an article, as there have been other Wikipedia articles listing protests such as for BLM. Additional information is being added for each protest, and potentially the article could be renamed for a Response to the leaked draft only, as multiple news anchors, politicians and lawyers have weighed in about the leaking of the draft, implications of the draft, reaction laws to the potential reversal etc.Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It can always be extracted into its own article if and when the protests have notability independent of the actual SCOTUS case. Predictions that this will become independently notable are just predictons. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this be closed as a WP:SNOW merge? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't try to rush the process. Besides, the article's growing by the hour and there's much more to come. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge\Defer - While the leak has resulted in international headlines, the protests have not been newsworthy outside a minor reference to violence. 人族 (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge\Draftspace This is gonna be a doozie only because of both the obvious policy violations but the probable inevitability of this page. Assuming this is a 'set-in-stone' decision/final outcome, this will likely precipitate in fairly wide protests this summer. Either merging it with the aforementioned Dobbs page or shelving this in the draft space would be appropriate. The prose is a nightmare as is and unless something greater happens, the page can't stand on its own merit. Etriusus 02:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When nominator says "A lot of things receive national-level protests, but they don't have their only articles" it is unclear what those "things" are and why a major protest that has received more than significant coverage in a multiple number of reliable, independent sources doesn't rise to the level of having it's "only article" whatever that means. Kire1975 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure it was meant to read "own article". The volume of reliable coverage is currently high, but it's too soon to know if the protests will an an WP:EFFECT on anything, or be a temporary response to the proposed redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I've corrected my sentence to say "own article." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is both notable enough and documented enough to stay. Just because a situation of this caliber is developing or in its infancy doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. Rooves 13 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is this going to get bigger, but there are protests in cities nationwide already. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protests, while happening because of the Politico leak, have clearly grown into a notable entity in their own right. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may or may not have an impact on the outcome of the Dobbs case, or may become more significant if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I say keep for now as stories develop. Can this be linked to the Dobbs page as a related article, or the main article for the related protests only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotchOnTheRocks (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Seems to be the result of WP:RECENTISM right now. Should wait as it currently fails the WP:10YT. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I'd say the page should be presented as a stand-alone list for now instead of a full-fledged article; these protests are clearly receiving significant national coverage but at the same time there really isn't much to this page other than documenting the places where the protests happened. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I tend to think Wikipedia shouldn't rush to cover current events, and err on the side of not assuming something will receive lasting coverage when it's unclear. This matters more for some kinds of events (crimes, for example) than others. In this case, it's so obvious that it will receive sustained coverage that it's a clear keep for me, even if yes, perhaps we should've waited a little longer. Rename it though, because the name makes it sound like it's a list of anti-abortion protests. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had created the page at 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States, but another editor moved to the current title, presumably because there are both pro-choice and pro-life demonstrations. Open to other page titles, of course, but that's a discussion for the article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a bad move. The protests are over abortion rights (for or against). If moves during AfD weren't messy, I'd just move it back now, but that should definitely happen when the AfD is closed (if it's kept), and send the proposed move to the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident the page will be kept, so feel free to start an informal rename discussion on the article's Talk page if you think that's helpful to do ahead of a formal or manual move. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. We can undo a bad bold move after it closes, and then that person can start a move request if they so choose. That said, although the current title seems completely ill conceived and unlikely to find support, it would be worth considering "reproductive rights", too, since some of the conversation has broadened, too. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - yes - agree - seems a better article name may be worth considering - several possible names (at least for starters):
"2022 demonstrations for abortion rights in the United States"

"2022 demonstrations for women's rights in the United States"

"2022 pro-choice protests in the United States"

"2022 protests rollback of reproductive rights in the United States"

"2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States"

"2022 protests suppressing pro-choice in the United States"

"2022 protests suppressing reproductive rights in the United States"

"2022 protests suppressing women's rights in the United States"

"2022 rallies for abortion rights in the United States"

"2022 rallies for pro-choice in the United States"

"2022 rallies for reproductive rights in the United States"

"2022 rallies for women's rights in the United States"

"2022 women's rights issues in the United States"

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you weren't aware, the page was moved last night from 2022 abortion protests in the United States to 2022 abortion rights protests in the United_States. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference while editing, is the consensus on Wikipedia that abortion is a right or is it still something we are neutral on? Dialmayo (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per others. I'm also thinking of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and I don't know the benefit of listing every single city that's had a protest. Maybe if this develops into a larger, protracted series of events akin to George Floyd protests a split + list like this would be helpful, but I'm not sure I see the need now. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Dobbs article, or to a future article about the Politico leak if eventually a decision on the Dobbs article to split that off. I don't see a reason why all of them should be sorted by year, when some protests are held annually and some will be following the eventual ruling. This isn't the way the past abortion protest related article have been set up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I note that the delete !votes citing recentism and not news(PAPER!) are misapplied. Those policies are meant to apply to trivia such as who Kim Kardashian is currently dating, or what was the weather report in Tucumcarrey. Not to apply to events of such historical magnitude as this (which it is on its face - a human right that's been constitutionally protected by law for 50 years - the long term enduring coverage and notoriety of this doesn't require a crystal ball!) And, lastly...and please understand this is not a personal attack against anyone of any kind, but a mere statement of facts. Facts that would be irrelevant for most encyclopaedia topics, but for this one I think cannot go unaddressed. I think it is uncontroversial to guess that the question of notability of this topic would yield drastically different results amongst males vs amonngst females, no? And none of us is truly capabke of being purely removed from our personal biases. It is well known that editors here are > 90% male. Knowing that the overwhelming proportion of the effect of this issue is on women, and Knowing that women are severely underrepresented amongst the editors here, is this not effectively the notability of a women's topic being decided exclusively by men? And if all the aforesaid premises are true, AND are taken into consideration, and the notability is still deemed insufficient...is that not basically male Wikipedia editors declaring that the opinions of women don't matter, or that women are not fit to have a voice on matters that concern them? I am sorry for getting soap boxy, here, and I will stress again that I assume NO bad faith at all. I know none of the !delete voters had likely considered this, and that is not to be held against anyone. I would urge all to whom it concerns to consider these points, though. Best wishes to all SirTramtryst (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Editor was blocked for sock-puppetry. Striking per WP:STRIKESOCK Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - yes - *entirely* agree with those above supporting the article - re a worthy historical event - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I don't think just the protests alone are notable enough for their own article, although the broader reactions to the draft opinion leak definitely are. I think the article should be expanded to include other reactions to the leak, which have received widespread news coverage all week. Renaming the article to something like "Reactions to the Dobbs v. Jackson leaked draft opinion" might also be better. Blocod (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC) On second thought there is more than enough coverage of solely the protests to meet notability standards. Blocod (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Well sourced and notable. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. I would say if the protests last for 14 days and (stresses as a requirement) if anything else significant/worthy occurs it is worth keeping.
I think what harms the article the most is that it has not got enough information at this state, and it is very hap-hazardly formatted and therefore does not look equivalent to other well written articles similar to this: basically it is undercooked and therefore looks like shit/garbage compared to something like the George Floyd Protests article. May put my hand at fixing it tomorrow if I have time.

If this was to be better synthesised/assorted, I would suggest having (something along the lines of) a "part of 2021-2022 abortion rights in the us" thing, because there has been significant enough change in abortion law around this time period; and when/if this is done we can do an article on the leaked supreme court draft itself, and then responses to the draft (which this would fall under). This would not work as a merge yet as there have been too little responses to it, and because redirecting it to anything else feels like its just shoving it in there with hard-to-discern or not great, correlation.

Then on that note it also feels like there should be an article series on abortion, or abortion rights (and/or then on abortion in the us, which I think there is plenty to make an article series on. )

(ask me to elaborate further on my talk page not here on why id do it)

TL:DR: keep for now because we dont know how it will develop yet; but i do think significant re/organisation is needed for the protests and the general topic. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. A lot of these protests seem to be springing up and an activity related to these protests came up today in Portal:Current events. --2600:1700:D500:C6D0:101D:C60D:BC84:5D17 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— 2600:1700:D500:C6D0:101D:C60D:BC84:5D17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This is only the first week of a year-long protest that will undoubtedly be the biggest influence on the midterm election in November 2022. I can't believe some of the comments here from editors who don't think this is an impactful event. These comments remind me after George FLoyd was murdered how some editors thought the killing was no big deal and a local event that shouldn't even be covered on Wikipedia. I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but the cluelessness displayed here just demonstrates to me again how much of the editorship here is disconnected from subjects that directly concern the lives of women. This AFD discussion might lead to the deletion of this particular article but articles on this subject will exist in the future because the subject is incredibly notable and easily well-referenced since every news organization in the United States is covering this topic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The outcome of Dobbs v. Jackson, judging upon the leak from the US Supreme Court, will be felt by many for decades to come. Not only is it attacking abortion rights, the leaked judgement also is calling into question the cases that established gay marriage (Obergefell v Hodges) and homosexuality (Lawrence v Texas), per The Human Rights Campaign. I agree completely with @Liz: that this will be one of the major US political events of this year, and will unquestionably have an impact upon the midterm elections. I would also suggest that perhaps all those who have supported Merge that they review the state of the article now, versus both when it was nominated for deletion, and when they made their comment. At the point at which it was nominated, the article content was 10,378 bytes. As of the time I'm writing this message it is now 113,181 bytes, and so may be well outside the territory where a merge is even feasible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. just in the news today, protesters starting to target homes of individual justices, Kavanaugh was named. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been and will very likely continue to be more protests regarding the leak, enough so to warrant its own page. And if the unlikely case of the protests petering out were to occur, THEN we should delete the page.Unkie mark (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to be reliably sourced and covers significant nationwide protests. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Doesn't need to be merged into the parent article either, as it is starting to grow quite a bit. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRC Music

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

Non-notable music group, does not meet WP:NBAND. Group of otherwise unrelated musicians that released a single album and dissolved shortly after. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could possibly be redirected to Kinshasa One Two as the only release by this music collective? Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 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!} 04:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I don't think there's an obvious redirect target either. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Herning

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

There are references, but they are essentially all the sort of self-serving "interview" where the person says what they please about themselves, or notices about their brands. The contents of the article is a list of investments and brands, enhanced by marketing platitudes. If by any chance this should be kept the next step will be to merge in the articles about his companies, which say essentially the same thing DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources to establish that WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are sources, but they are not sigcov once non-independent sources are excluded. The overall WP:BIO is just not satisfied.
Delete Ref bombs for basically, not much. Looks like press-releases or a few lines here and there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Yasar Dogu Tournament – Women's Freestyle 50 kg

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

Non-notable event; fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234, are you saying that the 2022 Yasar Dogu Tournament as a whole is non-notable, or is it simply the notability of these individual events that you're questioning? Apologies if it's meant to be obvious, just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding. --GGT (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, the individual articles are not notable, normally WP:SPORTS standards allow for individual event articles for World Championships or major MSE events. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. In that case I do concur (including based on Turkish-language searches) that there aren't enough sources for these events to pass GNG. GGT (talk) 21:02, 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Yasar Dogu Tournament – Men's Freestyle 57 kg

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

Minor event; fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:47, 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 13:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Bathwal

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

Non notable dietatian with minor passing mentions and interviews in some references. I did a WP:BEFORE search but nothing better was found. Some positions mentioned in the article are also non notable positions or non-notable organizations. Some claims couldn't be verified also. Nanpofira (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local level representative of a government program to increase fitness. This is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Health and fitness, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding other references from reliable resources the topic shows significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources hence passes WP:GNG. Also the subject is the author of school textbooks for CBSE, approved by NCERT, Government of India and author of various podcasts, hence passes WP:NAUTHOR. JoyStick101 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) SOCK Strike[reply]

The references you have added are all self promotional materials which do not contribute to notability. Please see WP:SPIP. I have removed those references as those aren't reliable. Please see WP:SPONSORED. Nanpofira (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoyStick101:, would you be kind enough to show wherefrom you came to know that she is an author of NCERT books? I couldn't find any references that satisfy such claims. - Nanpofira (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor mentions, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existing and newly added sources:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/is-silicone-cookware-safe/photostory/78388898.cms https://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Home/ShareArticle?OrgId=131f36370fa&imageview=0 https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/is-the-black-water-or-alkaline-water-a-health-booster-or-just-a-gimmick-video-90305376 https://recipes.timesofindia.com/videos/watch-top-5-nutrients-to-prevent-hair-fall/videoshow/81784615.cms https://zeenews.india.com/health/exclusive-what-food-items-help-in-preventing-seasonal-flu-or-virus-celebrity-dietician-and-nutritionist-swati-bathwal-explains-2432998 https://ndtv.in/food-lifestyle/best-diet-for-managing-pcos-how-to-control-pcos-know-here-foods-suggested-by-experts-2854709 https://fitindia.gov.in/fit-india-ambassador?page=6 https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/business-news-deal-or-no-deal/397706 https://english.jagran.com/lifestyle/how-climate-change-can-impact-human-health-10041720 https://www.ibtimes.sg/author-swati-bathwals-successful-journey-public-health-expert-climate-change-activist-64233 https://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-nutritionist-swati-bathwal-explains-foods-to-uplift-your-mood-2899277 https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/state-editions/you-have-to-be-best-friends-with-your-dietitian--swati-bathwal.html https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/48358 https://www.nescoexhibitions.in/worldofsports/ https://www.firstpost.com/9-months/season-5#about https://english.jagran.com/lifestyle/onlymyhealthcom-announces-1st-edition-of-healthcare-heroes-awards2020-10017230
JoyStick101 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

Can you please select WP:THREE best sources that you think cover the subject in depth? I'm asking you since you are the author and know the area best. As it stands, I agree with Oaktree b that the coverage isn't the kind suitable for an article here. Hemantha (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a close look of all the references and as per WP:HEY, the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Most of the references seem significant and independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

Delete - There are two articles that could be considered significant - IBTimes and Daily Pioneer. WP:IBTIMES is considered unreliable. Both the articles are highly flattering ("A multi faceted person", "renowned dietitian" etc) and are mostly made up of quotes; thus neither appears independent. Search hits are quotes or PR content. Hemantha (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source Analysis:

1 - Hindustan Times considered a reliable resource as per concensus. It is independent of the subject published in secondary source and meets WP:SIGCOV.
:2- Times of India article written independently by on a generic topic generally consider reliable as per discussion and it is used as reference on millions of Wiki articles.
:3 - Zee News: An independently written article by an editor Ritika Handoo. She writes about fashion, lifestyle and health. Normally considered as reliable reference used on many articles.
:4 - Another reliable reference is from NDTV independently written by Aradhana Singh who regularly writes articles on health, fitness and Foods. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
:5 - Fit India Movement website, an Indian Government entity generally consder reliable as per consensus. This is a list of Fit India Movement ambassadors. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view passes WP:LISTBIO as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:SOURCELIST.
:6 - International Business Times, Independently written by Chris David. The website used as reference on many Wikipedia articles. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
:7 - Outlook (Indian magazine) a reliable resource, an article which is independent of the subject written by Sneha Kanchan. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
: The above references are enough to passes WP:THREE. DMySon (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HT - two quotes in a recipe article
ToI - quote in pure churnalist article
Zee News - straight away says interview. Please review WP:BASIC which says primary sources (which interview are) don't count towards notability.
NDTV - a listicle of five foods suggested by the subject. Has nothing on the subject herself.
FitIndia - a simple list of people
IBT - already said in my vote that it's unreliable and extremely promotional.
Outlook - again only quotes; hence primary and doesn't count towards notability.

Not a single one of the above is even barely WP:SIRS. You've simply dumped a list once more without engaging in any of the points raised in previous comments. Hemantha (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the socking surrounding JoyStick101 and DMySon, would like more uninvolved input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to the following:

1. Insufficient coverage. No sources found in books. Turning to news sources, I am not satisfied these meet the standards of significant coverage as the articles do not address the subject directly and in detail. These articles merely describe the nutrition advice given by the subject and I find this to be trivial mention of the subject, the focus of the material is actually on the nutritional advice.

2. Even if (which I do not believe) the sources could be reliable, they cover nutritional advice given by this person only. So the articles focus on a single context. Other than the advice given in these articles, the subject is likely to remain a low-profile individual and so a biographical article on this individual is not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

3. I really find the news sources available are not a valid route to inclusion on Wikipedia, the real test of notability is whether anyone independent of this topic has or even could publish non-trivial works of their own and I do not consider this the case.

4. Wikipedia is not a place for ones resume, or to advertise or promote. This article really reads like a resume in essay style, appears self-promotional (although I have no evidence this was written by the subject so happy to just say promotional instead).

So for these reasons, I think there is a strong cause for deletion. I do not normally go into such detail on AFD, and I do apologise in advance if anyone thinks what I have written is Wikilawyering. I do trawl through AFD looking for cases that need an extra consideration before closure. I see this one was re-listed for further consideration and so read through a few policies to truly establish whether this article warrants inclusion. On balance, I feel it does not and it ought to be deleted. - Such-change47 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the source analysis as above. Many sources, few if any help to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Hudson

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

The notability here is questionable. WP:GNG and WP:BIO seem to militate generally against considering him to be adequately covered by reliable secondary sources. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are suspect, although Newsweed, tee hee. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that the sources are not necessarily reliable, Are his books at all biographical? Otherwise, no notability Uncanniey (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Vice News sources seem to be WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS, while many of the other sources seem to be WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY and do not themselves establish notability of the subject.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV. He is covered by the Boulder Weekly, Vice News, and many others that were not cited in the article. Hudson also created the Marijuana Games. Sendero99 (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- People cannot read your mind. Please cite these uncited sources and tell everyone else what they are. Presumably you are excluding the Vice articles that are cited on the (correct) grounds that the first is an interview in the first person and thus autobiography and the second is by the subject rather than about the subject. Uncle G (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having reviewed the sources listed they do not appear to constitute sig-cov and hence notability is not established, warranting deletion - Such-change47 (talk) 08:04, 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.