Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 21	April 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me and the Mountain[edit]

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

Non-notable band PepperBeast (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable, and a relic of a time when Wikipedia's notability rules were much looser. I should also note that rock music had already begun its decline in the UK, at least in the singles chart, by the time this band were around: five years earlier they might have got enough coverage or chart positions to make them moderately notable at least. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has a promotional tone, and the references don't demonstrate significance or notability. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no proof of coverage existing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Pullman[edit]

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

Lack of third party reliable sources. Unsure if it passes WP:GNG. BriefEdits (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From an analysis of this article's 29 total sources, virtually all of them are either unreliable (blogs, press releases), unsuitable (Spotify, SoundCloud), or directly connected to her. A further search didn't turn up much of use either. Delete per WP:BIO. -🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 16:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of her music career is described in the context of this 2017 Paste article focused on her husband's music career. She is also noted as a director of a music video for his band by Broadway World in 2022. In 2018, Atwood Magazine refers to her as Aria Pullman Ostrander and AO in an article focused on her, a debut single and a music video. Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ The Atwood magazine plus the It's all inside piece are two reviews of her work, possibly meeting WP:ARTIST that said, are they independent? The both quote her. She's also mentioned in The Deli Magazine (not exactly the New York Times) and very briefly in elsewhere for her directing of a music video, more of a passing mention than a review. So my ability to defend my keep argument is flimsy, I see that. But I'll go with !keep for the combination of all of the above. CT55555 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the quality and quantity of sources in regards to her discography is not enough to establish a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work." in Wikipedia:ARTIST. Most other mentions are passing in nature. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair critique and I think agreement with most of my justification, except I think my final conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find the arguments from the delete crowd to be persuasive. I'm changing my !vote to abstain. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There might be a case for seeking more detailed sources but those given appear adequate for at least establishing general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the original links in question. Keep. Aoaomusic (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be insufficient support for notability based on independent and reliable sources for this vanispamcruftisement. Since the AfD began, I searched for sources and after reviewing the editing history that preceded the AfD, tried to clean up promotional content. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not demonstrated. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bikkhov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM by WP:NFO. No reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. Perhaps Bengali-language reviews by known critics in Bangladesh could be found by locals? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:17, 15 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!} 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly this can be re-created if there is substantial coverage of the film after it is released. The Bengali-language Wikipedia has no additional coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poran (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM: by WP:NFF - no notable production; WP:NFO - if it is even released. Couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE search, as by going thru the references, [presumably only] Bengali language ones are available. Perhaps locals could find more sources? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:24, 15 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!} 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails verifiability. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SoundPLAY Productions[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Norway. PepperBeast (talk) 19:12, 15 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!} 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should be a non-controversial deletion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar Ul Haq High School, Beerwah[edit]

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

This school fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There's no significant coverage that could help the school in establishing its notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dsek.nic.in/Misc/424.pdf Gowhar Nabi^TALK 13:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir,

Greetings.

School is one of the oldest schools of INDIA which was established 13 years before the India got Independence from Britishers. Just Google the name Mazhar ul Haq High School Beerwah. There are thousands of results in front of your screen. Thank you for the time, https://www.google.com/search?q=mazhar+ul+haq+high+school+beerwah&client=firefox-b-d&ei=Q2ddYra6Kau_3LUPsuml4Aw&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwj258HH2533AhWrH7cAHbJ0CcwQ8tMDegQIAhA6&biw=1227&bih=551&dpr=1.3 Gowhar Nabi^TALK 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing for Google is helpful. What the article needs is sources that help it to pass WP:N. The sources need to be reliable and independent that discuss the school significantly. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:36, 20 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!} 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in general, there aren't stand-alone articles on primary schools unless there is a substantial amount of independent coverage. That standard isn't met. The sources appear to be directory listings. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Matar[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is a run-of-the-mill Emirati bureaucrat and academic. There's no independent secondary coverage of her aside from ridiculous puff pieces by UAE propaganda outlets about one of their own bureaucrats. She does not appear to satisfy the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Keep '~~Being the first women government minister in a country with such major gender imbalance makes her seem notable, so I took a quick look on google books which confirms (in addition to the sources in the article already). Some examples that I quickly found, I could find more, but hope you'll reconsider:

Pineda, V. S. (2020). Building the Inclusive City. Germany: Springer International Publishing.
Forster, N. (2017). A Quiet Revolution? The Rise of Women Managers, Business Owners and Leaders in the Arabian Gulf States. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

I'm not saying these two mentions are the slam dunk WP:GNG more saying that there's loads on her out there and we should be looking to improve any deficiencies we see in the article, not deleting it. CT55555 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is not a cabinet position or a ministry, but a government agency set up in 2008 called Community Development Authority. The assertion that she is the first X is sourced to her self-written bios. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first book mentions Matar off-hand at two points in the book. The second book mentions Matar in a long list of people. This is not substantive RS coverage on which a WP article can be built on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, with reference to WP:CREATIVE she has played a major role in creating a major body of work, specifically a daily radio show (as one of the three hosts) and that show has been the subject of more than one independent review about it as evidenced here:

https://www.albayan.ae/culture-art/culture/2022-03-31-1.4404702
https://web.archive.org/web/20220401201350/https://www.albayan.ae/culture-art/culture/2022-03-31-1.4404702 - last week, about her daily radio show

In addition to the above, going back to my WP:GNG assertion, here is more coverage:

https://www.hiamag.com/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1/1351761-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA

https://www.albayan.ae/health/2022-02-01-1.4359927

It seems like I could spend all day copying and pasting articles about her that can easily be found by searching for her name in Arabic in google news. CT55555 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not independent sources. They are published by UAE state owned outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is state funded, but we accept it. Do you know the editorial standard of each of these publications? Can you share more? CT55555 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS clearly identify the UAE is an authoritarian state where free speech and free media are suppressed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose they have fabricated these articles about her? I don't dispute the poor press freedom, which would be important in terms of political contentious reporting, or lack of reporting. But it seems a bit much to discount everything they print, because if we did, I just wonder if Wikipedia would be completely absent of all Emirati content. I see to have provided what you said was missing. She's all over the news, she's in books, she's in magazines, she's a radio personality known for a daily health show. I've considered your disagreements and remain keep. CT55555 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the articles you've linked to, they are generally vapid puff pieces. There's plenty of RS coverage of Emirati politics and culture, which usually covers Emirati politicians and elites in starkly different ways than the UAE's own press releases. If Wikipedia just mindlessly repeats press releases from authoritarian regimes about the accomplishments and greatness of regime members, then surely the articles fail WP:NPOV? It would be like accepting Breitbart News as a RS for US politics in a situation where most other US news outlets had been banned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too have strong feelings about certain governments in the region, but I think if we are to try and be neutral, we need to put them aside. Saying "regime members" suggests otherwise. Whatever our thoughts about why she is notable, the conversation needs to center on if she is notable. There are lots of people who are notable because they got there through means other than democratic process. I think the Breibart comparison is unfair because I think Wikipedia has a specific ruling on it's quality and (I could be guilty of assumptions here, I've never read it) I don't think it profiles scientists. CT55555 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only coverage of her are off-hand mentions in RS and then puff pieces by non-independent media. That does not indicate notability, unless the rules get thrown out just to make it easier for UAE elites to get WP pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do actually find that last bit of your point compelling. Currently reflecting... CT55555 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I find your argument persuasive. I've scored out my keep and am abstain for now. I'll see what others say and may recast a !vote CT55555 (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started adding in coverage of her work in the media. In addition to the coverage of her awards, she is widely quoted in talking about a range of health/medical topics. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is sufficient coverage of her and her work on genetic diseases in independent pieces to allow her to meet WP:GNG. The best sources are the two-page article in Emirates Woman from 2020[1] and The Arab Weekly.[2] Her work on genetic diseases has been covered in Gulf News,[3] the article by Sarah Townsend in The National (Abu Dhabi), and the article by Asma Ali Zain in The Khaleej Times. Her image in the Zay Initiative is additional coverage.[4] DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 15 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!} 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article qualifies for speedy deletion as a hoax. There appears to ne no mention of the subject anywhere except where it is copied from this Wikipedia article, whereas mentions most certainly would exist for such a Nickelodeon series. JBW (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jimmy Lightning episodes[edit]

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

I'm completely bewildered by this one. Not only can I not establish notability, I can't even verify that it ever existed. PepperBeast (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. PepperBeast (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Brutsman[edit]

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

What little coverage I could find was from local newspapers. Most of the acting gigs are trivial one-shots or non-notable works. Deprodded with addition of local news coverage and primary sources, which do nothing to establish notability outside his hometown Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Minnesota, and Wyoming. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 9 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!} 23:42, 15 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!} 23:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am fairly sure that WP:ENT guidelines are not met. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of people executed in Indiana. ✗plicit 23:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Johnson[edit]

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

Known for murdering someone and being executed. Nothing else. The 2005 AfD somehow resulted in keep despite no substantial media coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people executed in Indiana per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 07:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This shouldn't be an article title. Also, if it is a redirect, it should be a "delete-and-redirect", not a "blank-and-redirect". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every person who is executed is notable. The coverage here is way below what we require for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be noteable you have to have 3 independant reliable sources with significant coverage on the topic and judging from the 1 citation this is not true for this article. Krystal Kalb (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrutkirti Sawant[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, sources present in the article are mostly unreliable Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD is not cleanup. The article needs cleanup, but there is sufficient coverage in The Times of India for me to presume notability at this time. On the other hand, if there isn't additional coverage, this would likely be deleted in the future. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

力 Please note that the reliability of Times of India is disputed per previous concensus at RSN especially for individuals in the film industry. The subject of the article clearly does not meet WP:GNG since it requires that individuals be featured in multiple reliable sources. Cheers Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 20:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the sources in the article and an online search, there appears to be insufficient support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actress. Only one role in a noted TV series. Doesn’t have reliable news coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR.

IndaneLove (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENewsRoom[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEB Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Websites. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A one-sentence stub article with reference bombing, and no claim of significance. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amil Ćorović[edit]

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

A non notable Youtuber who doesn't meet WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 21:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Serbia. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 21:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is currently a BLP1E. No prejudice against re-creation if there is additional coverage in the future. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Malachi Walker[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Previously a redirect but reverted. Been on cat:nn list for more than 10 years. Four refs are all dead. One is an advertising site. No encyclopedic value. No coverage apart from social media. scope_creep^Talk 21:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is just nothing here that meets WP:NMUSIC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlamalik Williams[edit]

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

non notable artist/musician, no in depth coverage, no major awards. no meaningful coverage anywhere to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have created this page, and added a lot sourches. So u can delete what is not independent from them. and keep the page. Rma17 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are all primary or self-published. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this doesnt concerns to this artist. Ahlamalik Williams is the dancer of Michael Jackson. Rma17 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all. i have created this article. Ahlamalik Williams is one of the best famous dancers in the World. one user PRAXIDICAE wrote me on my talk that he thinks i am paided. And moved all my pages. If i was paided, then who pays me for editing dance styles on wikipedia?Looks like Drm310 his second page. Restore my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rma17 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Previously I moved it into the draft but creator moved into main space without providing the significant coverage. DMySon (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it because, i wanted users to improve the page. i have created basics for article. Rma17 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had declined this through AfC after it was moved back and would keep my same opinion that it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i have added there enough sourches, u can delete what doesnt meets. and improve Article.... look at the list of dancers here on English wikipedia.... im choreograher for 14 years i didnt heard about most of them.... Why World Wide famous dancer cannot be on Wikipedia? Ahlamalik William name allready on Wikipedia without link. Rma17 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
watch again the page. u readed not about musician, but dancer. Rma17 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote but an info: Parts of the Yellow Press say ML Ciccone discarded him from her private favour. This rumo(u)r does not increase encyclop(a)edic relevance. ^[1]--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no any information about his personal life. Rma17 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ German TV: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/leute-heute beginning at time 02:42

Keep: It was hard for me to find something about him 'cause of his personal life articles. I have created this page without enough information expect Wikipedists will finish it. But he is enough famous person for World Wide. People can search about him on Wikipedia. Thats why i have created this article. It will be respectable to keep it. Also see category dancers. They are short articles, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rma17 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Kerekes[edit]

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

No indication of passing the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL from Soccerway or HLSZ. No relevant hits in Google News and the only source in this Hungarian source search showing more than a trivial mention is Komlo Media, a blog and not WP:RS. Also, interviews with no independent analysis are often considered to be not the best indicators of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. If deleted then the more notable Zsolt Kerekes (figure skater) should be moved to this destination. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, fails GNG. Giant Snowman 08:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources for GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject appears to lack the required WP:GNG for a standalone article. Furthermore, also agree that the figure skater referenced above should be moved into this page upon completion. The figure skater was the only subject of the two I could find sources for. GauchoDude (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balder Onarheim[edit]

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

Unable to find anything approaching independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a cookie-cutter nomination, more or less the same and with the same flaws as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Maciejovsky. But unlike that case, WP:GNG seems to be the correct notability criterion, because Onarheim has stepped away from academia, leaving a citation record (in a very high-citation field, neuroscience) that is not adequate for WP:PROF-based notability. The sourcing is also inadequate to support GNG-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eppstein. Noting that lack of RS on the page is not a reason to delete but rather a reason to improve the page, I also could not find any RS via Google, and would seem unlikely to. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. Cabrils (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy G. Robinson[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Also, 23 pageviews in 30 days does little to encourage us to believe them to be notable. Edwardx (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor, author, TED speaker, UN delegate = highly accomplished. Let's continue to find ways to celebrate the accomplishments of under-represented groups to overcome the Racial bias on Wikipedia. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per WP:TNT at best. The page is almost entirely self-sourced to the subject's webpage, and I didn't find better sources for GNG. There's a possible case for WP:NAUTHOR, but this would require reviews (which I did not find) and generally more than one book to avoid WP:BLP1E. No sign that I can see of WP:NPROF. Will follow this discussion in case anyone uncovers better sourcing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO, at best WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find any RS. And let's leave irrelevant comments to the soap boxes. Cabrils (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid Daryabadi bibliography[edit]

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

no reason this largely unsourced biblio can't be included in the original redirec target. It doesn't appear that these are all independently notable, so it's basically just an addendum to the already CV like article. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abdul Majid Daryabadi. I don't see a single work besides Daryabadi's tafsir that's got so much famous, that we require a standalone list of his works. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bibliographies are just a standard part of biographies; especially unsourced there is no reason why they should be standing alone as articles. The redirect is also unnecessary and would be redundant, because no one is going to specifically search for the person's name with "bibliography" written at the end of it. May as well just delete it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iskandar323. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mawrid[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2016, and maintenance as far back as 2009. Doesn't seem notable. Previous AFD closed as "keep" in 2006 due to WP:ITSNOTABLE, but in its current form I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, as Al-Mawrid is principally this individual's personal life project and half of the sources, what few of them are semi-reliable, are more about the man than about the detail of this organisation/website in particular. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. Fully agree with the rationale given above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Iskandar323; no clear notability for the organisation separate from the individual at this point in time. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W3Schools[edit]

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

Completing nomination by IP 209.82.165.136: W3Schools should be deleted because it has no rep. refs. SN54129 17:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Websites. SN54129 17:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be the most obvious and high-ranking repository to learn how to code on the web and is in every search I've ever done when looking up how to clean up my Javascript. The nomination is not only malformed but I don't really understand it; this is a WP:SOFIXIT case. Nate • (chatter) 21:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But definitely needs expansion. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few articles "voting" before improving because it is so well-known. StrayBolt (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. The article needs work, but wow. There is so much WP:SIGCOV for this it boggles my mind that it's at AfD. I could provide some refs, but why should I? Why should anyone? This is probably the most obviously notable article I have ever seen nominated for deletion. Wow. Jacona (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an excerpt of some books used in a previous AfD in 2016 (In which all the !votes were keep). All these books are still there, and there are now lots more. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's Greco-Roman 55 kg[edit]

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

Not notable enough, fails Wikipedia:Notability Asian Championship is a 3rd tier tournament (behind World Champs, Olympics and multisport events like Asian Games) having separate articles for every single event doesn't look like necessary. we have less than 10 competitors in each weight. I made this nomination to know wikipedians opinion about this. I tried to find a solution with the user who created all these pages but it didn't work. personally I suggest merging them all together that's why I created this page. also I have to say we had similar discussion long time ago. Sports2021 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, Wrestling, and Asia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for redirects and housing the results on one page as per nomination is fine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe all nominated pages must be AFD-tagged for them to be considered here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the rest of the pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some of those pages were created (and added to this list) later. that's why they weren't tagged before. Sports2021 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A poorly constructed set of pages. The weight-class pages all have one reference (no good) and the main page has the full set of references. Agreed, these pages are not necessary and can be merged into one page for the event.--Whiteguru (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavitra — Bharose Ka Safar[edit]

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

Article moved from draft space by creator despite multiple declines, but since we can't move them back, this is the only option. Article is a clear failure on notability, the sourcing is not in depth coverage, just pre-release publicity, show landing page and casual mentions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as to whether this should be kept or merged. With no one but the nom arguing for deletion, this does not need an additional relist and whether/where to merge can be solved editorially. Star Mississippi 15:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of bullion coins[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. I'm not seeing a source that discusses the coins as a unit, and not just individually. Oh, and if kept, the inclusion criteria need ascertaining. Certainly we could list all bullion coins ever produced, but such a list would be overwhelming, since bullion was much more common throughout history. Perhaps I've missed something, and the list is only those bullion coins currently in production. But in that case, it still appears to fail LISTN, or be a directory style amalgamation of info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I have the following comment to make:

First, what that page have is nearly entirely taken from the Bullion coins article; in fact, I have shortened some materials when I created the List of bullion coins page. I will admit it: I added nothing new when I split the bullion coins article into the list.

Second, you have perfectly encapsulated what I see as the greatest issue with Wikipedia articles on numismatics: they go off-track and fancruft too often. I sincerely believe that a few pages need serious splitting to avoid coatrack - at one point, most of the Platinum coin article pertain only to Russian coins, or to coins that already have their own WP page - and the bullion coins page, before my creation of the list, is no better.

My list (yes, I have read WP:OWN) being challenged is proof that, had I kept the content of the list intact at the bullion coins page, it would still be unsuitable for inclusion. But the readers, the editors, they just leave it there for years!

My vote (I have also read WP:NOTVOTE) is: Endorse deletion, do not G7 or merge.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are here, CaptainEek: is an RfC a good way to determine what should be included at numismatic pages? NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say an RfC is a good way to determine inclusion criteria. And thank you very much for the explanation of the page, I knew there was something about the page I was missing... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back from whence it came [10] Not all the information was brought over from the main article. This is a valid navigational list if it only list things that have their own article. But in this case I believe it works better where it was at before, that article rather short without this in it. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose your suggestion, as the one who performed the split. Assuming, arguendo, that my list fails WP:LISTN, it wouldn't miraculously pass it if my list's content were merged back from whence it came. Even if my list turned out to pass WP:LISTN, it doesn't mean Bullion coins should focus on listing bullion coins; instead, it should focus on discussing bullion coins (e.g. what constitutes a "coin", what metals are used to make them…) instead of a coatrack of a list. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Bullion coins. There could be a navigation-style list of this title that lists all the stand-alone articles on bullion coins, such as the Krugerrand. There is a lot of extraneous information in the current article that shouldn't be on such a list, but would be acceptable in the bullion coins article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this must be done, then I would think we should link to a category of bullion coins, from which readers can look for coins. Please see my comment starting with "I would oppose your suggestion, as the one…". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how it fails WP:LISTN, as bullion coins are both a notable topic and most of the links in the list are bluelinks to actual pages for notable coins. A list is also better off as its own page given its size in comparison to the article's actual content, which could use expansion. This seems like a total misinterpretation of the list notability guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bullion coins. Not ready for stand alone article yet. NavjotSR (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Beings[edit]

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

Article written in advertisement tone C933103 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just how? In any case that would be an invitation to either slap on the appropriate tag or to strip out the muck oneself. Me, I love removing guff.TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be far more concerned about the skimpiness of the sources, brw.TheLongTone (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. source analysis refutes claims of NAUTHOR and there's no indication Berry passes NACADEMIC Star Mississippi 13:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Carson Berry[edit]

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

clear COI, SOAP etc. insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Acous mana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his works: [11] [12] [13] which means he passes the notability criteria. However, material not supported by sources need to be removed. --hroest 21:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BEFORE (books) brings multiple works. WP:BEFORE (scholar) gives 174 citations and multiple articles in Online Journal of Music Theory. As above, passes WP:AUTHOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's be careful on our citations. Berry's publications are in the Online Journal of Music Theory of the Mid-Atlantic (Better known as Gamut). This is a peer-reviewed journal, but not as prestigious as Music Theory Online, published by the Society for Music Theory. As far as I know, there's no such publication as Online Journal of Music Theory. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: WP:AUTHOR claim, please cite reliable sources that support any of the following:

[?] The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
[?] The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
[?] 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 an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
[?] The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Acous mana 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I don't think Berry meets WP:AUTHOR. His book is an annotated bibliography with 41 citations. For that type of reference work, I'd expect to see a lot more citations to claim notability. So we're back to looking at WP:NACADEMIC.

Berry does NOT meet criteria two through eight that I can see, so the only grounds for inclusion would be number 1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And... I think he's close, but no cigar. 41 citations for his book in 18 years doesn't do it - even in the low cite field of Music theory. He has a Google Scholar h-index of 8, which is borderline. His university profile only lists 9 peer-reviewed publications. Just doesn't quite reach the bar. PianoDan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — like the above, its close, but I can't see any of the requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC being confidently met. In addition, there just doesn't seem to be enough substantial and independent coverage on Berry himself. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Water (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer. Nothing like significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Florida. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one reference is reliable. Rest are 404 or primary. WP:BEFORE (web) brings nothing but water authorities, state water commission, regional water authority, state rivers and waters commission, like this. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man Na[edit]

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

Unsupported, mass-created Geostub. No references other than Wiki-mirrors and a single fiction book found in my WP:BEFORE, fails WP:GEOLAND as no evidence of legal recognition or GNG pass. Probably based on GNS data which we know to be unreliable for whether a place was populated or not. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Dexter, Missouri[edit]

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

List of not-notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete list of non-notable small town politicians. Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Durindaljb (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate listing of information, which this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilla Hermann[edit]

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

The notability of this person is not substantiated, and the tone of the article is quite unambiguously promotional (self-promotional?). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources aren't really sources, not independent, not reliable, just bio listing types. No indication of notability, just another corporate cog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it looks like much of the content is unsourced (ie education and professional activity). Coolcactus04 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge Seems to be notable per Forbes list of wealthy, we should drop the article down to bare minimum, and engage someone who can contribute from the hungarian language community, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who appear on these Forbes rich lists are often notable, but ultimately we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources to clear the notability threshold—not just a mere mention in a list. I've done a fair bit of searching (including for "Hermann Kamilla", which is the standard order under Hungarian naming conventions), and there doesn't seem to be any GNG-qualifying sourcing: I found a few passing mentions in the press, non-independent sources, and the like, but no reliable sources seem to discuss her in any depth. Her company hu:Indotek Group may well deserve an article, and if such an article is written Hermann might merit a mention in it, but she does not seem to be sufficiently notable for an article of her own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Came across the article in the new page feed, there is some interesting elements that can help towards GNG. But I really don't see enough. Agree that the page is very promotional, puffy, there are other sources online, but I really don't see enough to qualify for an article at present. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional fishing boat[edit]

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

Fails WP:SYNTH, as no reference presents it as a coherent topic outside of the history of a specific culture. Some references, such as Ref. 1, mention some variant of the term in passing without clearly defining the or presenting it as a coherent topic; that reference distinguishes it from motorized vessels, while Ref. 37 (already a dubious source) and Smylie (2013) use it in the context of a specific culture, and Ref 33 does not use the word traditional at all. Similarly, the vast majority of the contents of this article are a mishmash of various boat types and some WP:OR, and it does not really provide a coherent definition of the topic. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_30#Category:Traditional_boats, which has similar concerns. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Transportation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This really is an article that needs discussion. I visited it, quite expecting to !vote delete. But what I began to see was a sort of fleshed-out list article of a sort that works very well in an encyclopaedia. It is not synthesis to present a whole range of small fishing boats from across the whole world in a single article. In fact that is almost a definition of encyclopaedic: an inclusive overview. Had the article stopped there, I would happily have gone for Keep. But having declared at the top that the article would be an overview of "boats used for fishing that are or were built from designs that existed before engines became available", it fulfilled its remit beautifully (and with references) down to Catamarans. It then wandered rather, and started to describe the constructional characteristics of boats, ropes, planking etc., which had it stuck to traditional pre-engine fishing boats might have been okay(ish) - except it couldn't resist the temptation to wander off into boatbuilding generally, and by the end of "Planking" was wiki-linking the diesel-engine, which is hardly in the spirit of ".. before engines became available". It then lost the plot completely, in "European boats", which abandons all pretense at restricting itself to fishing boats, and covers the Viking longboat, cargo boats, decked schooners and more or less anything else it felt like.
My recommendation is therefore Keep up to the end of Catamarans, ~~and Delete the rest of the material, which has nothing to do with an encyclopaedic overview of small fishing-boats the world over.~~ If any of it can be usefully Merged to other articles, fine, but it doesn't belong here. And yes, that's three decisions in one AfD response, completely illegal and no doubt a headache for the bot that has to assess my viewpoint, but my defence is that the article itself is so mixed up, it requires a mixed-up response. Elemimele (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Elemimele: your view seems strange and unbalanced to me. The evolution of fishing boats cannot be put into any kind of perspective without appreciating something about the technology and evolution of rope, hull consruction techniques and methods of propulsion. In turn, much of this evolution was driven by what worked for fishermen. Further, if you read the final section on European boats again, you will find it is almost wholly about traditional fishing boats. I cannot imagine what you are seeing there that could lead you to think otherwise. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epipelagic: then the scope and arrangement of the article need redefinition. The scope is deliberately and explicitly restricted at the top to designs that existed before engines became available. Implicit in the article's arrangement (the fact that it begins with a set of sections dealing with coracles, canoes, reed-boats, rafts etc.; and the emphasis on undecked, open boats, with a statement that most larger boats have engines) is that the article is restricted to small boats of the sort used by indigenous peoples. This is a reasonable scope, because if you extend it to include all types of boats that could be used for fishing, it becomes a list of all boats. That's precisely what's happened in the European boat section, where we start with two paragraphs on Viking longboats, of a sort rowed by 30 men, probably not a routine fishing vessel - but these boats gave us the constructional techniques that evolved right through to 20thC fishing boats. The distinction between fishing and other boats, in Europe, is a bit artificial, because innovations in one sort of boat naturally influenced the building of boats for other purposes. If we then add details of the evolution of constructional materials and techniques, the scope of the article becomes "the entire history of boats and boatbuilding". In some way we have to restrict this article to a manageable field. That's why I'm suggesting trimming it to just the indigenous small boats as was probably the original intent. The history of boat building is pretty important, but we can't cover everything here. Elemimele (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele:: You seem to want to restrict the article to small boats of the sort used by indigenous people. You claim that "was probably the original intent" of the article. For what it is worth I am the original author, back in the mists of time, and I can tell you that confining the article to boats used by indigenous people was not the original intent. The original intent was to cover traditional fishing boats generally, including European boats. That is why the article was called "traditional fishing boat" and not "indigenous fishing boat". Your claim that "the scope of the article becomes the entire history of boats and boatbuilding" is just not true. The article is an overview of traditional fishing boats, and naturally includes some acknowledgement of relevant contruction techniques. The article contains 4,171 words, way short of what is regarded as a long article on wikipedia. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epipelagic: thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think the scope of the article is too big and ill-defined for its current title. I'd suggest removing the reference to fishing from the title. Look at the section on canoes and kayaks; it acknowledges (rightly) that they were used both for fishing and transport, it mentions canoe clubs, who don't have anything to do with fishing, and it mentions large historical canoes that were probably intended for 18 people, where we honestly have no idea what they were for. The European section mentions Viking longboats, which aren't generally associated with fishing. This has happened because it is impossible to separate the history and construction of small fishing boats from the history and construction of small boats for all other purposes; the same people were building all sorts of boats, for all purposes, using the same constructional techniques; a person who lives on the edge of a river might use their dug-out canoe to fish, to get to the other side, or to convey stuff downriver. In its current form, the article is analogous to Small cars used to convey children to school, an article that would inevitably get confused with Small cars used to go shopping and would much better be renamed Small cars and allowed to get on with the job. I'm not an enemy of the current article. But at the moment, it doesn't deliver what its title says it should, so either the article needs to be cut back to the subject matter of the title, or the title needs to be changed to reflect the subject matter of the article. I'm sympathetic to a change of title, because WP currently doesn't seem to have any other overview of the construction of small boats across the globe. Changing the title doesn't, of course, stop the article from discussing how the construction of small boats was driven partly by the need for fishing vessels. Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele:: I gather you think the article should be deleted because all that is needed is an article called perhaps Traditional boat. The article Traditional fishing boat was written specifically to complement the article called Fishing vessels. It is not intended to be a list as someone suggested below, but a brief historical account of the evolution of fishing vessels. Following your reasoning, we should also delete the article called Fishing vessel – we need only an article called something like Aquatic vessel since fishing vessels float like other aquatic vessels, and there can be some overlap between them. If we continue to reason like this, we should be able to shrink the size of Wikipedia to one tenth of what it is today. Then all that will remain is to get rid of the rest. "Traditional fishing boat" is a coherent concept that is widely used, with 1.58 million entries in Google Search. According to Google Books the term is also used in 6,830 books, and according to Google Scholar in 929 academic publications. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SYNTH is irrelevant. WP:PLOT could of been argued but that wasn't brought up by the OP. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Actually this article needs some improvements otherwise it is meeting notability on a generic topic. But i just checked Copyvio and detected copyright violations, it is 80% copied from https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielmennerich/31297639612. If the issue can be resolved, I will change my vote. Jeni Wolf (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeni Wolf: the link you've supplied seems only to contain the text on coracles, and was posted to flickr long after the text appeared on Wikipedia. Here's the WP article, for example, on 8th March 2015: [14]. The Flikr article is dated October 15th 2016. Flikr should have credited taking the text from here, but there's little point in fighting this sort of thing, it happens all the while. Elemimele (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the Flickr url on the basis of this report. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the two texts are near identical. But so far as I know, that tool merely looks for similarity, it doesn't check who copied who. You'll see at the top of the report, a comment "Be aware that other websites can copy from Wikipedia, so check the results carefully, especially for older or well-developed articles". In this case, it seems to me that the Flikr text appeared after Wikipedia's suggesting that Flikr copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. But I'm not an expert on this, so if anyone else cares to comment... Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be you are right, the tool is not always right. Jeni Wolf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per above discussion i am changing my vote to Keep. Jeni Wolf (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge -- This would make a valid list article, which should be kept short, mainly existing as a means of finding the "main" sub-articles. It certainly should not have so many photos. Their presence upsets the balance of the article. This right place for them is in the main articles. About one photo per item would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article should be kept as it is. It was originally written about 13 years ago to complement Fishing vessels, and could do with some updating. A section on catamarans and outrigger boats was added about 4 years ago. I have deleted the section, since it was not really about fishing boats and may have been the source of some of the claims here that the article itself was not about fishing boats. – Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epipelagic: That deletion is, I think, perhaps a loss, because catamarans and outrigger boats have been used as traditional fishing boats. You've said above that I think this article should be deleted; please don't put words in my mouth. I think the article's scope's got a bit out of hand, but I think every single word of it is interesting and encyclopaedic. The only question in my mind is whether its title should enlarged to include all the interesting stuff it contains, or whether the information in the article that isn't about fishing boats should be moved to a more general overview on the history and construction of small, traditional boats. I really, really am trying not to pick a fight here. The aim isn't to win anything, it's to end up with a better encyclopaedia. I do, however, apologise that the way I expressed my views in my first comment was untactful and overly forceful. Elemimele (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC) (to make this clear, I'll strike the word delete in my original flippant 3-way decision Elemimele (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that deleting an individual article is the way to address this. If changing the structure of articles on boats and ships is needed then it would be better to have a discussion about that, probably at a Wikiproject, rather than a deletion discussion about just one article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep . Hibernian (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi Lambda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been kept as recently as 2008, but WP:ORG is very different since them. I am unable to find independent, reliable source coverage to meet CORPDEPTH. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep I don't understand why this article has been tagged with this unnecessary AfD, after twice winning the argument. Notability does not diminish over time, according to WP rules. It's far more helpful to FIX apparent gaps in references versus rush to delete. I hope there is no animus against the few societies that emphasize Christianity, as the OP just PRODed two such Christian groups. About notability: Fraternal and Sorority groups normally reference the seminal reference on the subject, Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years. Sigma Phi Lambda clearly meets this standard. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that model as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines. There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which get tracked by our Project. This particular group has chartered 43 chapters and is over 40 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters. It has a functional national headquarters and website. It certainly does not merit deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs)
- As I mentioned in the other discussion, that's not a speedy keep criteria and Baird's criteria has no bearing on Wikipedia's. after twice winning the argument certainly explains why you seem to be approaching these in such a manner. Our organizational notability guidelines have changed significantly in 14 years and just because something was kept doesn't guarantee future keeping. I'm going to ignore your ABF on the rest of this as I have no intention of getting in a back and forth with any voter. Star Mississippi 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, assuming good faith, let me explain. Please understand that over the past two weeks, after months of no AfDs, seven religious-based fraternity articles had been PRODed, one of which (an innocuous trade association of the groups) was outright speedy deleted without even the courtesy of an AfD discussion. One might conjecture animus toward these, because of the suddenness and what might appear targeting of these specific groups. Why would someone do this? Perhaps because the several OPs were anti-Christian, anti-religious, or anti-Black. It wasn't MY perception; I had been assuming good faith. I decided not to fight three of the AfDs, because they lacked references, lacked a Baird's notation and even a university portal, and I was unable to confirm further info as their websites were down. One of the AfDs I did fight, and I'm pleased to say was closed as Keep when a number of editors voted in its favor.

Strangely then, two more, similar articles were PRODed today, by you. I am concerned over the sudden focus on these particular groups - are you saying it is coincidental? As you know, it's easy to kill articles, and more difficult to improve them, but that is what experienced Wikipedians are extolled to do. I prefer to improve articles on valid, non-controversial subjects, instead of salting good work with random and harmful AfD PRODs like this. This rush to delete seems arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". To pick at one or two, and waste time in an AfD debate is, I think, ultimately harmful: Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes. Finally, I note that the rules regarding Deletion require subject competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." (I'm not saying you are too lazy, as a volunteer with such a long track record of helpful work.) Simply that subject matter experts are helpful here. I am an SME in this little corner of the Wikipedia world. Thus, Star, Notability for these two organizations was reached long ago. You explained that notability guidelines have changed; yes, these changes are reflected in how the F&S Project limits the list of groups we support for articles: There have been perhaps 100,000 local chapters, regional, and national groups, but only a fraction of those, maybe 1,500, are notable enough to merit an article. I recognize you are an admin with a long tenure of service. I certainly could switch my vote to simply "Keep". But I hope this explains why I voted Speedy Keep, here. Jax MN (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context and background @Jax MN. Super helpful and I apologize for some slight harshness in my response. I cannot speak to the other seven you mention as I have been on and off line and didn't see those discussions. While I do monitor the AfD logs, this is not an area I frequently edit in. As for how I came to these two? I edited an article about Christian sororities and fraternities after it came to me via SuggestBot and/or one of the backlogs I work through and noticed these when I was cleaning up the table. I definitely think this subset of the fraternity & sorority (F/S for shorthand going forward) world is a notable one as there's a reason Christian, Jewish and African American groups had to establish their own F/S orgs. Unfortunately I think some of these articles were created without regard to what makes them notable, which is why we have the current run of deletion discussions. I have no intention of nominating any of the others in that table as they assert why they're notable. A few need clean up and other editing, but do not merit deletion. In my opinion, these two did not make a case for why they should exist as articles nor did some early AfD discussions on a variety of topics. If you (collective, it's no one's responsibility to do it all) can find sourcing that establishes that, it's wonderful. AfD isn't cleanup, but I think we both have the goal of a better encyclopedia than when we began our days.

You're welcome to leave your speedy keep. I think that's a narrower set, but not going to quibble is at your !vote itself is backed in policy. As an aside, I saw you fixed the table on the other AfD. Mind a look at the one on Christian sorority (fraternities and sororities) if you have a chance? I tried to fix it, but table formatting is not my strength. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, thanks again for the engagement, and your review of several subsequent articles I've worked on. I believe my recent updates have answered your concerns with this page, and that of the AfD voter, below. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I found one RS mention in a Christianity Today article (paywalled), but there's not enough independent RS non-incidental coverage to show notability. To be honest, even given the small number of chapters, I'm surprised we're not able to surface more student newspaper coverage at least, but even that seems pretty sparse. --Jahaza (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. After the addition of the citation to Torbenson & Park, I'm revising to neutral. The article, however, is way to long and crufted for the amount of verifiable information available.--Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza, thank you for the tip on the Christianity Today article. I cited it, and found numerous other references to add, along with other cleanup just now. Virtually all chapters are linked by their universities as official student organizations, and I have added several of these portals to the page. Our Project group normally does not link these pages directly to chapter-owned websites, as these are not considered RS. University sites undergo far more scrutiny. As to your comment, indeed, fraternities and sororities are typically not mentioned in newspapers very much, unless they are involved in some misbehavior or scandal. For the Project, an organization of 35 years tenure, with 44 chapters easily meets the standard bar of notability used for all such organizations here. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've revised my vote to simply Keep, striking Speedy for the sake of the discussion. The article has been updated to meet the concerns raised. Jax MN (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Christianity Today article and reliable book sources pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on whether current sourcing satisfies notability guidelines would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why this has been nominated for deletion. It is thorough, lengthy, and on a notable subject: there is a list of chapters of this sorority across the United States. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're questioning my nomination's good faith despite the fact that I did in fact explain why it was nominated, I should point out that there's nothing in your argument that's policy based. Star Mississippi 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lantana Usman[edit]

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

This article has been PRODed and I did consider a G11 speedy request, but on balance, I think this needs an AfD discussion. Promotional article, that likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Nigeria, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:PROF per WP:MILL. Her h-index is 7, which indicates an ordinary mid-career academic. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article is all primary sources, so I understand why it was AfDed. But searched on Google books show that she passed WP:AUTHOR on the basis of reviews of her work. As follows:

Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in Asia/Pacific and Africa: Perspectives on Development, Education, and Culture. (2010). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan US. includes detailed analysis of her writing in page 10, of the quality of review that WP:AUTHOR calls for, this is the first of the two reviews needed to satisfy the WP:AUTHOR criteria.
YUKSE, A. Haluk. "Using Learning Technologies." Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 3.2 (2002). also includes an academic review of her writing. CT55555 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out my initial vote after seeing good analysis below. CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not at all convinced of a WP:NAUTHOR pass on any of the four criteria, and certainly not on those two reviews - the second especially is both brief and poor quality (and is about a chapter she wrote, not a book!). Her citations seem low for education, which I understand to be a reasonably high-citation field. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the only references in this article are for her publications, but there are three sizable paragraphs about her - regarding the actual content of this article as it stands, this is essentially a BLP with no citations. There are some dubious claims in here too, like "the first Northern Nigerian woman to earn a PhD degree at the Department of Educational Policy Studies, at the University of Alberta" (if you drill down far enough into subcategories, "first" isn't particularly meaningful) and "during her graduate studies, she was awarded ... grants" (I would be surprised to find this was uncommon at UofA). "Prof.Usman is the first Black woman to obtain the position of a Tenured Full Professor since the founding of UNBC" is demonstrably false, unless the university's own website is in error: [15]. -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555 has got the wrong end of the stick. That 2010 book, ISBN 9780230111813, is an edited collection, and, as is par for the course with edited collections, its introduction, written by the editors, is basically a chapter by chapter summary of what each contributor has written for the collection. It's not a review. I cannot find that edited collection reviewed, which isn't unusual. An actual academic book review would look like JSTOR 26419922. Or indeed like CT55555's second source, which is a review of an earlier edited collection for which this person has contributed a chapter. Reviews of edited collections are usually pretty thin for Wikipedia purposes, and this is indeed the case here. The article's creator is AstridMitch (talk · contribs) who has a deleted article about a literary agent, and the article's other major contributor 50.69.240.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocates to the same place as this article subject's university. So it's fairly obvious where all of this unverifiable biography has come from. This is not independently and reliably sourced. This is autobiography, either direct or indirect. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further analysis. I find this persuasive. I've scored out my "keep". CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your PC Protector[edit]

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

Early 2010s malware that appears to be non-notable as no significant media coverage sufficient to meet GNG exists as far as I can tell. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 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!} 06:01, 15 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!} 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one mention, in a list of programs in a book, and a WWW site of unknown byline, but that does name its editors, most of which is generic malware removal instructions however. The article is sourced to the latter, and (of all things) a WWW forum post of pseudonymous authorship that states its author's inexpertise outright. This is hugely insufficient and bad sourcing. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oomba[edit]

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

Startup that does not seem to have ever reached a scale to meet WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 04:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The Icarus-like rise and fall of Oomba appears to have picked up enough reporting here and there to justify a Wikipedia page, in my opinion, although a lot of editing is required as of right now. It's worth noting that the likes of The Verge found the company's woes worth covering. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:14, 8 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!} 04:28, 15 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!} 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete rationale withheld. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's stuff about the CEO and his obsessions but there's no significant in-depth references that deal with the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and HighKing. - Hatchens (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks[edit]

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

Non-notable show, no sourcing found. Apparently prodded in March according to main editor's talk page, but I couldn't find the prod in edit history Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 8 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?)} 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found something in Google Books: The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows mentions the program and also notes that "It received an Emmy nomination in 2007". The same Google Books search brought up something that seems to be an Emmy nomination list that mentions the show. I've also found a review on the DVD of the show published on CHUD.com, so, I think the show actually might be notable. Soglasun (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb says it was a daytime Emmy nominee. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of this show's DVD releases also seemingly got an iParenting Excellent Products award in 2009 according to the Animation World Network website. Soglasun (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a notable award though. The emmy nomination maybe, if we can find a non-IMDb source to corroborate it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Brandissimo (one of the companies which produced the series) published on the same website also notes that it was nominated for an Emmy award: "On TV, their Harry and his Bucketful of Dinosaurs aired on Cartoon Network and their Emmy-nominated Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks aired on Discovery Kids". Soglasun (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another mention of the show and its Emmy nomination is in this article on Motor Trend: "And a whole new generation of monster-truck fans has made the Emmy-nominated "Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks" one of the most popular shows on The Learning Channel". However, it isn't related to children's television whatsoever besides this mention. Soglasun (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on Animation World Network (the same website we talked about before on this page), there's also seemingly an article that mentions it alongside other 2007 Emmy nominees, thus making it a non-IMDb source that mentions it being nominated. Soglasun (talk) 21:45, 16 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!} 02:48, 15 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!} 04:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Allan Havey. ✗plicit 12:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night After Night with Allan Havey[edit]

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

Very short-lived TV series. Zero sourcing found. Deprodded with a very WP:NPA edit summary claiming that IMDb is enough for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:52, 8 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?)} 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Allan Havey. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 9 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!} 02:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to see if there are more opinions out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Northamerica1000.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sungai Klang Expressway[edit]

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

Sungai Klang Expressway

This is a planned, not completed, highway, and does not satisfy general notability or road notability. As a planned highway, it is too soon unless there is significant coverage of the planning process (e.g., controversy about whether to build the highway), and no such coverage is shown. There is only one reference (not properly formatted), which is the web site of the builder of the highway, and so is not independent. This article was moved to draft space by User:Imzadi1979, but moved back to article space. Because it is too soon, this article should be in draft space (but another unilateral move to draft space would be move-warring). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—normally I'd say that we should draftify this, but the author won't heed advice that the content is not ready for main space. This started as a draft, that was then a copy/paste move to an article, for which we did a history merge, after which I moved it back to draft space and asked the author to get more sources. Instead, the draft was moved right back, and now we're at AfD. So I say delete and let's move on. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines at this time. Should not be recreated until and if that changes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Uggdf (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Pakistan[edit]

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

I redirected this article to List of heads of state of Pakistan as I believe that as it stands it is a duplicate of that article. Everything is there already. Is there enough of a rationale to have this article as well? Presidents unsourced. Really doesn't merit a stand-alone article, where majority of them have a tenure of one or two days. Could be merged to president of Pakistan and List of heads of state of Pakistan. Uggdf (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Uggdf tells us that you have never edited either article, and its edit history tells us that list of presidents of Pakistan has never been redirected. Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of heads of state of Pakistan, purely on the grounds that the list is too small to be useful: there are only three of them; their list can much more efficiently be presented in the parent article. Other than that, troutslap the nominator for a clearly frivolous nomination. The notability argument is obvious bogus – of course these figures and the institution they represent are notable, quite possible just because they are so contentious (i.e. non-recognized). Nipson has simply been on a POV rampage to eradicate as much of our coverage of the political institutions of the Pakistan as he can, for transparently tendentious reasons. Uggdf (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Absolutely. It's a legitimate list ~ no matter an individual's political position on the legitimacy of the office. Recognition by us, or others, is not relevant - merely it's notability. And I'll suggest that the internationally reported divisiveness over its legitimacy is itself sufficient support for its notability. Deletion would simply be political censorship brought about by gaming the system, its notability - and verifiable supporting ref's - are undeniable. We can, and eagerly do list appearances made by unknowns on low-rated cable tv sc-fi serials. We should, and must if we are to stay true to our mission, list internal leadership of large swaths of disputed territories. Uggdf (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. Top-level political leaders in political entities without international recognition are still notable. Uggdf (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Niels Feijen. ✗plicit 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feijen[edit]

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

The article does not provide relevant information on the surname as such. It is merely a very short list of people with this surname, and only one has an article on Wikipedia. It looks more like a disambiguation page but with only one article there is no need for disambiguation. On the dutch and german sites a "Feijen" disambiguation page exists but a surname page cannot be linked to a disambiguation page on Wikidata. As it stands, there is not enough information for a surname page and no need for a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Buitelaar (talk • contribs) 2022-04-22T03:15:26 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Niels Feijen as an {{R from surname}}, given he's currently the only notable individual by the name. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For information, de:Feijen and nl:Feijen both list Loek Feijen [nl] and the latter also lists Stef Feijen [nl]. From a quick look around I can find no indication that the lives and works of the entomologists have been independently documented, for biographies to be written. Nor of the materials scientist. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niels Feijen. This is trivial. AfD was not needed. Thanks for caring nevertheless! gidonb (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems useless to keep as a dab unless interlanguage links to the other Wikis are inserted—no opinion on that, nor apparently is there a guideline for (or against) that practice. Otherwise, redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing to a disambiguation page based on Nlwiki links. There is too little quality there. gidonb (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Julia Urania. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD closure was contested and I did opt for the redirect option that was proposed. But the consensus is to Delete so I'm altering my closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bodina[edit]

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

Obscure freed slave that fails WP:GNG. Article cites no reliable sources, and none of the online sources I found show sigcov. Deprodded without explanation by Ficaia: perhaps he can explain why? Avilich (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might be worth redirecting to Julia Urania, as Julia Bodina is mentioned prominently there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that article is appreciably closer to WP:GNG than this one. It's longer, sure, but... -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure why we need an article on a slave from ancient Rome, sourced from an inscription somewhere. That's the reliable source? Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the one cited in the article is a SPS, but yes, all I found is a few other sources simply mentioning it. Avilich (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only information we have is a funeral inscription. I can give you RS for that, but it doesn't change the fact that we have a funeral inscription and nothing else. See pg 318 here: [16]. I can get a hold of a copy of the book that is citing if anyone really wants it (or if they want to do a WP:BEFORE on Julia Urania), but I don't see how it would be necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Julia Urania. If that article gets AfD'd too, then so be it. But it's not up for AfD atm.~~ Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because she seems not notable and there is an absence of citations. CT55555 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Julia Urania, as Bodina's claim to notability is as the provider of evidence about the latter, a Queen. PamD 08:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep -- A freedwoman is unlikely to be notable. No objection to some merge/redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not everyone who had a funeral insription found be archeologists is notable. That is the standard we would need to employ to justify keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Goss[edit]

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

Probably not notable. TV roles are just a brief stint as a game show announcer, most of it being substitute work. Radio roles are not notable either. Zero sourcing found. I created this article ages ago but feel it's too far past its original form to warrant a G7 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and per WP:GNG. Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, any additional coverage would likely be standard in field. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need indepdent, 3rd party sources providing significant coverage, not the subject's own website and the non-reliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] German TV: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/leute-heute beginning at time 02:42

[1]