Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 23	April 25 >

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 keep. Much improved! Mojo Hand (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Kress

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

Basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. PepperBeast (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable, what has she done since 2012? Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of citation. The one and only footnote, to the publisher of a book she asserts she wrote, is to a dead link. Keep as work has been done to cite and verify this article, which is of course always the best outcome -Markeer 23:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question I did some WP:BEFORE type work and discovered that if she's notable for anything it would be her writing or her invention of a new concept. Thinking about WP:CREATIVE could it be said she has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? There's a lot of commentary about her work, mostly in tabloid sources (Daily Mail etc) but some in borderline sources? CT55555 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now voting keep CT55555 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More citations have been added. The subject wrote a New York Times bestselling book, prompting a diet named after her book. The subject has been featured in both national and international magazines, including Woman's World, Daily Mail, Consumer Reports (requires subscription), Today's Dietician magazine, Evening Standard, Woman.ru, Now To Love (a New Zealand magazine), and News24 (an online news source in South Africa), plus authoring four books. Here is The New York Times bestseller list. These are evidence of notability, which satisfies notability guidelines. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on significant improvements by AuthorAuthor. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 17:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Knight

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. No significant coverage that I could spot. PepperBeast (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. PepperBeast (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage supporting notability exists. While the subject has received some journalism awards, they seem standard for members of the press. His coverage appears local. Fails notability guidelines for WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as his own website, pieces of his own bylined writing about other things, and a radio segment where he was one of the speakers — and even the one citation that appears to be third-party coverage, because it's credited in the footnote to "Ray Regan", actually turned out to also be written by Tim Knight when I actually Waybacked it. As always, the notability of a journalist is not established by sources in which he's the creator of content about other things, it's established by sources in which he's the subject of content created by other people — but there's absolutely none of that here, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 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 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 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. Ahmed Khan

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. References have mentions, but not significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PepperBeast (talk) 22:47, 24 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 (nomination withdrawn). – Joe (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur de Lis Ball

No reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks to me like the sources are out there. Debutante ball culture is an important thing in St. Louis. This is the less important/famous of the two major balls, but the other one has been the subject of several entire books[1][2] and extended media coverage[3]. As for this one: Here's a UPI story from 1981[4], a local magazine story[5], a Current Affairs article [6], another source[7]. Maybe someone can look at the back issues of the St. Louis Post Dispatch? The ball gets mentioned in the "Debutante" article of this encyclopedia [8], which also cites a couple of books that might have more info? There are several mentions in the NY Times in old marriage announcements[9][10], which suggests to me that it's useful to have an article for people who want to look up what these things are.--Jahaza (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and added the UP ref and one other. I don't know enough about the subject to do much more, but I agree there's likely enough somewhere. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to sources found by Jahaza. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Closing this discussion as Nominator. https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22fleur%20de%20lis%20ball%22&p_province=us-mo BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Torab

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

Historical scholarship in English language does not document, much less discuss, the existence of our subject except at this (p. 245) single line. India's subaltern response to colonialism, esp. working class revolts, have been studied extensively and for someone, who was (apparently) the first Bengali rebel against EIC and a hero in the history of Bengal, this absence is striking. (One Abu Torab, Fauzdar of "Chakla Bhushna", is mentioned in some sources but they are not identical; the Fauzdar Torab was killed by a Sitaram in around 1714!)

A couple of romantic historical fictions (Chowdhury and Shahidullah) in vernacular is cited in our article, alongside a newspaper editorial. One blog has been cited. A book on farmer revolts in East Bengal (Jalil) has been cited; this would have been significant if it were not published by a local press and authored by a lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. In page 17 of [Tempest: A Monthly Review of National Affairs] it says "Choudhury Abu Torab was also a powerful Zaminder who was the owner of Sandwip , Hatia and Bamani. He had a position in the royal court of Murshidabad . After the fall of Dilwar Khan of Sandwip Choudhury Abu Torab became its owner". [Cambridge South Asian Studies] - Issue 7 - Page 245 it says "Abu Torab Choudhury of Sandwip who opposed him was branded a rebel and killed in action , and his military commander Mulkan was publicly hanged at Verelst's instance". In [District Gazetteers - Volume 9 - Page 477] it says "Chowdhury Abu Turab Khan was the Zaminder of Sandwip , Hatiya and Bamni islands . He later on became a Zaminder of a Nizampur Pargana . He claimed descent from Bakhtear Mahiswar of Sandwip . His son was Ali Raza and Chowdhury Jamal Khan". He is also covered in the Hisory of Chittagong written by Syed Murtaza Ali and History of Banglesh by Sirajul Islam.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Tempest: A Monthly Review of National Affairs" is precisely the kind of source that we shall strive to use when writing an article on S. Asian History. Not RS for our purposes.

I did find the second source and mentioned it in nomination.

District gazetteers contain rank nonsense, written by career bureaucrats with no training in history. Not RS for our purposes.

Murtaza Ali was not a historian and his romantic sub-nationalist histories, drafted about fifty years ago, are not reliable for Wikipedia. Ten citations (acc. to GScholar), most of which are in articles on regional biogeography. Reviews of his other works are neither impressive. Not RS for our purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge It seems like the subject is notable enough to merit a mention. It may just be easier to merge the content into an article about the history of Bengal. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:13, 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!} 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:V, notability requires reliable sources which is yet to be presented. It's preferable to not have an article on the subject than reproduce a semi-mythological narrative as a factual one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge It is better to be deleted or at most to merge it in an adequate related article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:57, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunahar Zamindari

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

A non-notable aristocracy, which is hardly mentioned in any source. The current article is a glorified family tree. Nothing in vernacular media excluding ref 3 [ref 2 is a content aggregator; unreliable]. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am not in a position to judge whether zamindars are notable. The palace may be a notable building (I do not know). I very much doubt the marriages of daughters and jobs of descendants are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stedman (historian)

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

This article about a writer of history books has no footnotes and the external links are primary sources. Has been tagged as BLP unsourced since 2019. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any references to add, so do not think the subject meets notability criteria. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Pen and Sword is a significant publisher in the niche field of military history. He seems to have a significant output of such histories, mainly related to WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he has written a number of books on his field, but just because someone has written a stack of books does not make them inherently notable. We need some independent RS that indicates notability, and there is none in the article. He *may* be notable, but there is nothing here that says he is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure Pen & Sword is such a big deal, it doesn't seem to be an academic publisher and I've seen its books range from reliable down to questionable. That hardly matters here, though, since we appear to be severely lacking in independent sources for this BLP. Avilich (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Pen and sword are okayish I think. They are perhaps a bit better than Osprey publishing, they publish niche military books, I don't think they pay the authors much.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just publishing books is not enough. We do not have the reliable secondary sources about him that need to be the backbone of any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

55:15 Never Too Late

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

No independent sources that gives significant coverage currently exist in the article and I'm unable to find any. Chinese language Wikipedia reveals no additional sources. Would like an editor speaking Thai to conduct a search as well. Justi yaya 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does appear to have [11][12] on the zh-Wiki article but does not appear to give significant coverage. (used google translate) Justi yaya 03:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a nationally televised series. Has the usual coverage in Thai entertainment news,[13][14][15][16][17] though as is the usual case, it's mostly press releases. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C)
- Hi Dan Wescher, can you elaborate on your response? Perhaps reading WP:DISCUSSAFD might help with further contributions in AFD areas, thanks and happy editing :D Justi yaya 05:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because I like this idea. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 05:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satguru Mata Sudiksha

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are many religious movements and many leaders of religious movements. I aim unable to determine what she is notable for in a Wikipedia sense. That she appears to be a decent human being is excellent, but I cannot see that an article n Wikipedia is merited. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.

The article has more than the minimum threshold in both English and Indian sources and so should be retained.

There are many leaders of religious movements but those leaders do not necessarily have references in mainstream media and so would not be eligible for an entry into Wikipedia. ES (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As ES pointed out she does seem to meet WP:GNG. --WestCD (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination doesn't seem to advance any reason for deletion except that OP doesn't think this person deserves an article. But the SIGCOV is here and so are the sources. Atchom (talk) 02:22, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt White (minor league pitcher)

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

NN minor leaguer, fails WP:NBASE & WP:GNG. Only sources are his college player bio & B-R minors. Possibly notable via Gatorade Player of the Year awards, but could be redirected there. Bison X (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Bison X (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Francisco Giants first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no Olympics appearance, never made it to the Majors, 100 something games in the Minors. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding a good number of book mentions (Examples: 1, 2, 3) in addition to coverage from the Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Tampa Bay Times, as well as this feature story. I was also able to find this article from the Ann Arbor News from 2010. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 book mentions are not about White, but about Boras' use Rule 4E to manipulate free-agency for his client; these sources would be best in Boras' article or an article about the draft or the Devil Rays' early years, but not about White. The other 4 newspaper articles focus on the $10.2 million signing bonus, or his success in High School, but don't establish any notability in his own right (High School all-stars aren't notable, they're routine). The only article that is about him, is the Ann Arbor article about him being hired as the Wolverines' pitching coach. These accomplishments, even when taken on the whole, do not merit his own article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper articles are all focused on him. How is his unique place in baseball history because of the 4E rule not notability lending? Yes being a high school all conference or all state player is routine, but he was the National player of the year so that doesn't particularly apply. GPL93 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken, which is why I believe White's notability exists in mentions in those articles, but he himself does not cross the threshold to have an article (inherited notability). Conversely, you have made a case for which the article could be kept, which is a good thing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except with full length articles focused on him in at least 3 major US newspapers (the Baltimore Sun article goes into his high school accomplishments, relationship with Boras, the start of his professional career, his family background, and the 4E manipulation so not just some minor mention in a story about the 4E thing) and full length articles in the other two (the Joplin paper and Ann Arbor Times), subject isn't just a footnote and passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather easily passes WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage. Outside of the coverage found by User_talk:GPL93, I found this on Newspapers.com [18][19] Alvaldi (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added several sources to the article, both those mentioned above and others I found on Newspapers.com. There are now 12 significant sources from seven publications from a period of 14 years in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG easily. Besides the sources above there are newspaper articles about him from when the Giants drafted him. There is no guideline saying that high school athletes or minor league athletes are not notable, only that they need to meet GNG to be considered notable. And Matt White meets GNG with room to spare. Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 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 23:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information mapping

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

undue promotion of a registered trademark and copyright protected method associated with main author (Robert E. Horn)

[20]*[21] fgnievinski (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioral science and Education. XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The writing is terrible, in that marketroid way, and the term "information mapping" is used in many other contexts, e.g., How Information-Mapping Patterns Determine Foraging Behaviour of a Honey Bee Colony, Surface-Based Information Mapping Reveals Crossmodal Vision–Action Representations in Human Parietal and Occipitotemporal Cortex, Geomorphological information mapping of debris-covered ice landforms using Google Earth, etc. "Information map" is also used in various senses. I'm tempted to call WP:TNT on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This specific documentation technique appears to only have been written about by Robert E. Horn, who is the author of the citations here. I cannot find evidence that this particular technique was picked up by others. The term is used in other contexts, but this article is about this one specific technique which does not appear to have gained adherents. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making it official: dubious notability, writing that calls out for WP:TNT. I don't think the "registered trademark and copyright protected" status matters in this context (we have plenty of articles about books that are still under copyright...), but this article is just not worth holding onto regardless. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Science. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Library (TV series)

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

Zero hits on GNews, GBooks, or Newspapers.com for "Silent Library" "Zero Kazama", which is downright bizarre for a show that lasted four seasons. WP:NTV states that

However, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel.

And in this case, it seems Silent Library was too silent for the media to even notice. While I'm sending most of the short-lived MTV reality TV cruft to PROD, I felt this one needed AFD instead due to its comparatively longer life. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dowd, Rachael (2020-06-16). "Here's where you can watch All Time Low's 'Silent Library' episode". Alternative Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "From 2009 to 2011, MTV treated us to weekly episodes of Silent Library. The silent game show had contestants take part in various activities including eating weird food and having items shot at them through a cannon. Bands including Forever The Sickest Kids and Hey Monday appeared on the show. Now, as part of MTV Vault, All Time Low‘s full episode has been released. ... For contestants on Silent Library, their main goal is to get through a series of challenges without making a lot of noise. If the group succeeds, they walk away with a cash prize. Each round starts out with contestants flipping cards. When a contestant gets the skull and crossbones card, they have to take part in the next challenge."
2. Denette, Kelsey (2011-03-03). "MTV's 'Silent Library' Returns 3/28 with the Cast of Jersey Shore". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "MTV's over-the-top game show "Silent Library" returns for Season Four on Monday, March 28th at 7PM ET/PT, putting a new batch of contestants through all new challenges, created to test their will and restraint. Premiere week kicks off the season with a wide range of celebrity guest appearances each day starting March 28th with WWE Superstars including Chris Masters, Curt Hawkins, Dolph Ziggler and JTG who will step out of the ring and into the library to battle it out. "
3. Tanzer, Myles (2018-04-24). "Please reboot Silent Library already. A gameshow that's perfect for the internet in 2018". The Fader. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "I'm a fan of things that are simple and fun, and so Silent Library, which aired on MTV from 2009 to 2012, is pretty much a perfect TV show in my eyes. For those who never saw it, the game show, based off a segment from the Japanese hit variety show Downtown no Gaki no Tsukai ya Arahende!!, features a group of friends trying to win money by staying quiet during a series of bizarre challenges. A clip of the show, embedded above, reminded me of it and I have to agree that it deserves a comeback."
4. Altobelli, Lisa (2010-06-25). "Giants players appear on 'Silent Library'". ESPN. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Usually an ear bite has been more of a fighter's go-to move, as was the case with Tyson vs. Holyfield and the UFC's Matt Serra as a pizza boy back in the day, but New York Giants tight end Kevin Boss was recently on the receiving end of a long gnaw while filming the MTV show "Silent Library" with five of his teammates. ... And while the team didn't win many challenges since they weren't so adept at the "silent" part of "Silent Library," MTV execs said it was the best episode they've ever filmed and kicked in around $1,000 for each player in good faith to donate to their respective charities -- Boss's being the Alzheimer's Foundation out of respect for both his grandmothers, who suffered from the disease before they passed."
5. Tanzos, Tara (2009-06-24). "MTV's 'Silent Library' game show includes contestants from Wilson". The Express-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: ""Silent Library" (based off a Japanese game show) premiered June 15 on MTV, featuring one rule: be quiet. The game show, in watered-down "Jackass" fashion, revolves around groups of friends performing ridiculous stunts -- in total silence -- for cash. ... If the stuntman or observers make too much noise -- whether part of the stunt, laughter or screaming (which definitely can't be ruled out after watching some show clips) -- the prize money for that stunt is taken away."
6. McDowell, Bob (2010-07-20). "Six locals brave sick tricks for MTV". New Castle News. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Gross and painful were no match for six friends from New Castle who proved themselves on MTV’s “Silent Library.” The group could not talk about their experience prior to yesterday’s airing of the show where contestants perform weird and sickening stunts for — you guessed it — money. Now that their antics have been upchucked over practically everyone’s MTV, it’s safe to let the handful of people who didn’t catch yesterday’s 5 p.m. airing know that they won. The show is rebroadcast every half-hour today between 5 and 7:30 p.m. on MTV2."
7. Federico, Kelly (2010-02-09). "Kutztown U. students on MTV's 'Silent Library'". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Six students from Kutztown University will try their best to keep quiet at 6:30 p.m. today on the MTV show "Silent Library." "Silent Library" features college-age kids attempting absurd feats. The Kutztown students will eat a wallet made of beef jerky, endure a back rub with a hard-bristled brush and eat chicken fat out of a rubber chicken."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Silent Library to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good finds. Could you please add these to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could add them yourself. Do something useful for improving articles instead of focusing on trying to destroy them. Dream Focus 20:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has proven this passes the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage shared by Cunard appears to be enough to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So who wants to add them to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer Instead of asking, you can always do it. That's an option. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R. C.C.: Because I'm the only one in this discussion who has that capability, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to add it, for this AFD to be a BEFORE failure. User:TenPoundHammer please retract this poor AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NEXIST, the WP:GNG, and sources above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MaryJane Butters

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

Promotion, promotion, promotion. PepperBeast (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. PepperBeast (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the biggest WP:REFBOMBs I've ever seen, yet still saying nothing about why she's worth an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the refbombing is actually just duplicate refs. Clearly whoever started the page didn't have much experience with wiki syntax and conventions. pburka (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Or merge with WP:PROMO (lol) CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I'd be willing to change my vote is anyone is willing to do the level of work this article needs. I'm usually one to jump in and improve them, but this one is a bit over the top and seems like a great candidate for WP:TNT. CT55555 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2, OK, my first reaction was harsh. I'd support draftify and will support a keep if someone improves it enough before the AfD ends. CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am a relatively new (several months Wikipedian and this is my first AfD entry, though I have been reading and studying the deletion discussions for a couple of months to learn how things work. So forgive me if I don't get all the subtleties here, but this nomination has me totally confused because the subject of the article appears to be quite notable by Wikipedia's media-driven definition. I don't know anything about this person, but I am interested in publishing and environmental issues, so this caught my attention. I was moved to make my first Afd comment here because I truly don't understand how this is a candidate for deletion: It appears that there are tons of solid references that cover this person in detail, and that she easily meets notability for authors, and that (if what is written in the article is true), that she is notable and successful. The problem I see is that the author of the article did not give links to references. I think it would be easy to edit the promotional tone out of the article and delete the puffery and any exaggerated claims that are not substantiated by a reference. Less easy would be to fix the references by digging up and adding links so they could be checked. (There is a link to the More magazine series -- that was a major women's magazine in the US for many years.) But wouldn't those be appropriate issues to undertake in draftifying the article? Geophiliac (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally quick to jump in an improve articles. The problem with this one is that it is exceptionally promotional and it seems to me that it has been written by a single purpose editor (see WP:SPA for promotional purposes and I say that after looking into the activities of the article creator.

I hope this conversation does not discourage you from writing about environmental issues, which are of course not likely to be challenges as being promotional in nature.

Wikipedia guides encourage the sort of activity you are planning to do and discourage people who join for SPA type activity. CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I checked the history log for both the article and the creator and noted that the article was written by a seeming SPA -- but my understanding is that if notability is proved, that SPA is not in and of itself cause for deletion (if the issues can be fixed). Anyway, if the article survives Afd, and is either kept or draftified, I will attempt to edit for neutrality and add some missing reference links -- though I think culling all those references will be a multi-editor project because of the volume. I'd be interested in doing some of that just to get a little more Wikipedia mileage under my belt! Geophiliac (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and the tone problems can be fixed through editing. She was profiled in The New Yorker in 2004. The New York Times reviewed her book in 2008. And in 2021 Oprah Daily included her in a list of "food cultivators who are changing the way America eats." pburka (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other sources include: a San Antonio Current review of MaryJane's Ideabook, Cookbook, Lifebook in 2005, e.g. "offers a few insights and surprises, as well as some downright bizarre, banal, and perniciously bourgeois practices for everyday living."; Travel + Leisure coverage in 2011, e.g. "Butters’s B&B celebrates glamping (glamour + camping) [...] Butters claims a 2004 New Yorker profile on her was a search-and-destroy mission, and she may never recover from the article's most notorious line, "Butters is a farmer in the same way that Martha Stewart is a housewife.""; a 2003 Associated Press timeline profiling "The life of Mary Jane Butters" from 1956 through 2001, and a more detailed version compiled by the Lewiston Morning Tribune; Twin Cities Daily Planet coverage in 2010, e.g. "A chauffeur-driven black sedan arrived with farm idol MaryJane Butters. Butters is known as FarmGirl Sister #1 and is the founder of the FarmGirl Sisterhood [...] There are now 773 FarmGirl Sisterhood chapters in 48 states and seven countries." There are also mentions of her books as influential in Wisconsin Lady Glampers turn heads at campsite (WEAU13, 2020) and Vintage trailers a popular trend among multiple generations (The Columbian, 2017), and The Dickinson Press in 2014, e.g. "Butters is credited with coining the term “glamping.”" Beccaynr (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Idaho woman positions self as Stewart's rural successor (AP, 2003, multiple reprints exist), Spokesman-Review, 1998, Mary Jane's green dream realized; Following footsteps of Martha Stewart, organic entrepreneur launches magazine (Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 2002). Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue cleaning up - the article has been substantially improved during this discussion, and sources identified here and several in the article support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned up the article some but it still needs work. I agree with other editors that some of the sources point to notability, but the article definitely should be pared down. Those sources show notability. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Today, I de-orphaned article, my tiny contrib. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:26, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton's My New BFF

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

Sources are unreliable fansites or passing mentions. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Paris Hilton's involvement. While I found several hits on GNews, they're just passing mentions in otherwise unrelated articles about Paris Hilton and only confirm that it exists. Newspapers.com revealed only TV listings, and GBooks gave only false positives. The Dubai version had a minor lawsuit involved, but that is WP:COATRACK at best. Any salvageable content can be merged to Paris Hilton and/or List of programs broadcast by MTV Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 24 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?)} 20:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted, then the following sub-articles will need to be deleted as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Hilton's My New BFF (season 1)

Paris Hilton's My New BFF (season 2)

Paris Hilton's British Best Friend

Paris Hilton's Dubai BFF

Keep both per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sources for Paris Hilton's My New BFF:
  1. Lloyd, Robert (2008-10-02). "A surreal judgment of Paris". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "Tuesday night, MTV premiered its latest reality series, “Paris Hilton’s My New BFF,” in which 18 complete strangers vie to fill that empty spot in Paris’ life. ... Her show is not always as nice. In the first “challenge,” blindfolded contestants were nastily interrogated by Jeff Beacher, a Las Vegas impresario, as Paris and boyfriend Benji Madden looked on. ... The contestants represent a cross-section of types and styles and backgrounds, none as fabulous as Paris’. What they share primarily are a kind of mystical belief in the star and the hope that her reflected glory might make their own glory apparent."
  2. Kale, Sirin (2018-10-03). "'Paris Hilton's My New BFF' Was the Best Worst Reality TV Show". Vice. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "It's been exactly a decade since 2008 reality TV show Paris Hilton’s My New BFF was first aired. Like Jesus Christ or Kanye West's newest album, Paris Hilton’s My New BFF is great, but frequently misunderstood. Its producers contrived it as a postmodern satire on the absurd contrivances of late-stage reality TV, but no-one—not the contestants, some of whom approach Paris Hilton’s My New BFF with the intensity of Simone Biles nailing a dismount, nor audiences at the time—were in on the joke. But more on that later."
  3. Boychuk, Sarah (2008-11-10). "Busting rhymes; Hilton's latest venture is disturbing to watch". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "It's because of this that I found myself drawn to the latest reality-show offering by MTV Canada, in which the ubiquitous Paris Hilton searches for a new best friend. I expected the aptly named Paris Hilton's My New BFF to be a frothy look at the social life of a red-carpet staple: contrived yet harmless fun. What I found instead disturbed me more than I ever could have guessed. The show focuses on a group of catty women -- some who appear to have substance abuse problems and borderline-psychotic tendencies -- and one effeminate man as they compete for the best-friendship of the titular star."
2. Sources for Paris Hilton's Dubai BFF:
  1. Schneider, Michael (2009-06-01). "Paris Hilton pursues Mideast 'BFF'". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "Paris Hilton is taking her search for a best friend to the Middle East, where Lionsgate and Ish Entertainment have stuck a deal with a Dubai-based shingle to produce a new version of “Paris Hilton’s My New BFF.” Dubai-based Uniqon is funding most of the project, which will follow the celebrity heiress as she puts a group of young women — half from the Middle East, half from elsewhere but currently living in Dubai — through a series of tests to see who would best complement her lifestyle."
  2. Rai, Bindu Suresh (2011-05-02). "Paris's Dubai BFF search hots up". Emirates 24/7. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "Over a week has passed since the squeaks and the shrieks of the girls on “Paris Hilton – My New BFF Dubai” have fascinated many a viewer, and angered several in the sheer frivolousness of a reality TV show that sees the American heiress out on the prowl for a new ‘Best Friend Forever’. Two episodes, 13 eliminations and a migraine later, one thing is for sure is that the catfights and the drama are quite low-key compared to the international version. ... From 24 contestants, the first episode saw that number whittle down by half, followed by a catfight between Qatar’s Dina and Egypt’s Bassant, that resulted in Dalila from Morocco being eliminated."
  3. "Paris Hilton my Dubai BFF. Paris Hilton's Dubai BFF, the fourth season of the franchise, was shot in 2009 across the city for 17 day". Gulf News. 2011-04-19. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "Dubai: It's taken two long years but a Dubai segment of celebrity socialite Paris Hilton's hit TV series is now on air internationally, but not in the UAE, yet. Paris Hilton's Dubai BFF, the fourth season of the hugely successful franchise, was shot in 2009 across the city for 17 days. In the show, Hilton puts 20 wannabe BFFs or "best friends forever" through a series of tests to test their loyalty, and selects one lucky winner in the climax filmed in Los Angeles."
  4. "Paris to pick a pal in Dubai". Independent Online. 2011-04-20. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
    The article notes: "Just when you thought the reality TV landscape could not get any worse – Paris Hilton is out to prove you wrong. Paris Hilton’s Dubai BFF is the blonde heiress’s latest bright idea. ... The season starts off with 20 women battling it out to try to impress the spoilt American brat. Though the ultimate prize is becoming Hilton’s new best friend, no one knows what that really means. ... Perhaps this show is meant to be interesting because it is shot in the Middle East where the rules, especially against women, are somewhat repressive. Since Hilton is used to having things her way, it should be worth looking at how she settles in."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paris Hilton's My New BFF and Paris Hilton's Dubai BFF to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has proven this meets the GNG. Its great someone spends more time looking for sources instead of just rushing around trying to delete everything. Dream Focus 20:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both – Both meet WP:GNG: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Tanaka

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

The author is just not notable. His three works with articles lack notability and while his own article has some secondary sources, if none of his works are remarkable, I don't see a reason to keep the article as well. - Xexerss (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NAUTHOR since they have zero notable works. Strongly doubt they meet GNG either. Link20XX (talk) 04:27, 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. Sandstein 20:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's National School (boys)

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of:

WP:NORG (and WP:NSCHOOL) there is nothing to indicate that this school is any more notable than any other. It is not particularly large (480 pupils is similar to other schools in the area) and not particularly old (many Irish national schools date to the mid/late-19th century). The list of alumni is the only content. And therefore the only content that could possibly be used to assert/suggest notability. (And, if these entries were cited [and they are not], primary schooling has been compulsory in Ireland for over a century. Meaning everyone has to go to school somewhere. Including people who become notable after leaving school. Every school, eventually, likely has some notable attendees. Notability of pupils doesn't transfer to schools.)
WP:SIGCOV (and WP:GNG) there is no indepth or independent coverage to speak of. At all. We are relying on primary and ROTM directory-style sources to establish the basic facts (foundation and enrollment). And I cannot find any other sources to expand the text. (All we have are ROTM passing mentions in news sources. Like pupil hurt in schoolyard, politician used school as PR backdrop (x2), etc. Not enough at all, per WP:ORGDEPTH, that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the org".

In short: This is a primary school like any other. And schools do not have inherent notability. I have undertaken a significant WP:BEFORE exercise. To try and find enough sources to "write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". I cannot. As ORGDEPTH/SIGCOV isn't met. Guliolopez (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thoroughly-stated nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itoshi no Kana

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

The series does not seem notable. The article has one link from manga-news.com, but I don't think that that is enough to warrant notability and I can't find more secondary sources. - Xexerss (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG. No licensor outside of Japan and all the Japanese sources I can find are primary sources. Link20XX (talk) 04:25, 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 redirect to Monthly Afternoon#2000s. Sandstein 20:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mimia

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

The series does not seem notable at all and the only source that the article has is from the author's own website. - Xexerss (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monthly Afternoon#2000s per nom, fails GNG. No licensor in English, French, Italian, etc, and all the Japanese sources I can find are primary. Link20XX (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Link20XX.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Offerhaus

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

Article sourced only to databases; a WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were actually no bronze etc. medals given out at the Olympics until 1904. The 1896 and 1900 awards were not so designated, it is a later attempt to retcon the Olympics into their later form that causes such claims. However even if we ignore that problem, we need significant sourcing to justify any article, and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching in Netherlandish sources, I came up with his biography in the book Persoonlijkheden in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in woord en beeld aswell as these two sources [29][30]. I'm gonna keep digging, seems to potentially be more there about him. Alvaldi (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel he passes GNG with these sources, I've added them to the article and expanded it a little bit. He seems to have been better known for his work in the medical field and with the Dutch Red Cross than for his Olympic appearance. Alvaldi (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as a doctor. Schwede 66 18:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be notable as a doctor, not an Olympian. @Johnpacklambert: If you can change or strike your !vote, I can withdraw this nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Olympic participation was not at all notable, but his medical one was. This shows exactly why people should not create articles without fully investigating a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 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. Sandstein 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mycole Metcalf

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

Non-notable. Lots of small parts, some uncredited, but nothing very significant. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable, one mention in the Daily Beast about troubles with a boyfriend, all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is someone whose IMDB credits read: Lounge patron; girl kissing in the hall (uncredited); group meeting member. There are a few that are more notable but none that appear to be more than bit parts. News sources do not turn up anything what would support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Wohlman

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

No indication of notability/significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Massachusetts. PepperBeast (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 30 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. Sandstein 20:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DaVinci's War

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a review with Entertainment Weekly, but little else. The only other things I found were mentions it was released accompanied by a one line sendup of the film being direct to video, as well as an article where Vanity credits Sam Jones with her born again Christianity. Interesting tidbits, but nothing that would establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 24 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. Could also redirect to state treasurer if/when that article includes something about this organisation. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of State Treasurers

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

Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NORG; similar to recently-deleted National Association of State Procurement Officials and National Association of State Budget Officers. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I originally created this article from a redirect page to the similarly-named, but separate National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers article back in June, 2009, the article has unfortunately been heavily edited by editors whose usernames imply connections to the organization and should be deleted.--TommyBoy (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State treasurer, where it could take up a sentence or two. There is sufficient sourcing out there for that. Neutrality^talk 01:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travancore Engineering College

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

Fails all relevant notability guidelines. The only independent reporting is on a single event where the college was in danger of shutting down: [31][32]. Google ran out of results before I found anything further. Searching for the colleges name in Malayalam wasn't much help either, with no significant coverage of the college. The article was less promotionally toned in the past, but that's not the real issue here, since it isn't notable. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Higher Educational institution named 'Travancore Engineering College' is working properly as per the AICTE, New Delhi rules after faced a closure due to the old management representatives problems. The management of that college changed and now it us one of the main engineering colleges that started 20 years ago by the permission of Govt. of Kerala and can't be avoided in higher educational institution category in Kollam, Kerala, India. @Mako001@Spiderone Tibetanlama (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Educational institution named 'Travancore Engineering College' is working properly as per the AICTE, New Delhi rules after faced a closure due to the old management representatives problems. The management of that college changed and now it us one of the main engineering colleges that started 20 years ago by the permission of Govt. of Kerala and can't be avoided in higher educational institution category in Kollam, Kerala, India. Tibetanlama (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibetanlama: Could you please provide some sources to back up your claim of notability? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:22, 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. ✗plicit 06:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Simmons (author)

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

Was going to let this one go, as I found a review of Punk Marketing in Publishers Weekly, but then realised that this was deleted at AfD in 2014, and I can find nothing more recent than about 2011 for the subject. There are several people with the same name, so maybe I missed something. Anyway, this looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is just not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has indeed written some books, but they are in the discount bins at Amazon etc. The main book, Punk Marketing, was reviewed by Publishers Weekly [33] but that doesn't establish notability. (This is a genre that someone I know refers to as "business porn".) Lamona (talk) 04:26, 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!} 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifik

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

non-notable rapper, who despite the claims of being "a slept on gem" is unsupported by RS. CUPIDICAE💕 13:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for the notice! I do not realize most of these until I look it from another view the next day. If there is anything more that I am not noticing promotional, please show. Vastcast (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A fringe nonentity sourced from obscure websites; utter failure of the GNG and WP:BIO. Ravenswing 19:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 24 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 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night Rhythms

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

This direct-to-video movie fails WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 24 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 Lalit Narayan Mithila University#Constituent colleges. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marwari College, Darbhanga

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

This article has been blanked and redirected twice: by @Onel5969: "Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability"; and previously by @Muhandes: "No evidence of notability, boldly redirecting". The problem is that a redirect to Lalit Narayan Mithila University is confusing if "Marwari College, Darbhanga" is not mentioned in that article. I suggest deletion without creating a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lalit Narayan Mithila University#Constituent colleges. I don't object the deletion, but Marwari College, Darbhanga is listed in the article, under Constituent colleges, item #212, so I'm not sure why this is a WP:CONRED, and leaving the search term seems preferable. --Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find the entry because it's "Marwai" not "Marwari". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe that was a typo, see source. I corrected it. --Muhandes (talk) 19:39, 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 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Goldschmidt

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

Assistant prof, under 1000 paper cites according to Google Scholar, won an early career award in 2022. Seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. Happy to be proved wrong though. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete early career awards are not the things notability is made of. Does not pass any of our guidelines on academic notability as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this seems WP:TOOSOON, the publications are not widely cited and I do not find other coverage to suggest she could meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked her listed field topics in G-scholar. For "quantum networking" she is #10 in terms of citations but that category seems to be little used or very new. For "quantum photonics" she is #80, and the top 10 in that list are cited ~20,000-35,000 times to her 950. These categories are not pre-defined in G-S as far as I can tell, but in any case she does not (yet) appear to be a star in her field. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I wouldn't put too much credence in how well-placed she is in these categories. My impression is that a large fraction of Google Scholar profile holders choose their keywords to trade off specificity for high placement. So the people confident enough to use "quantum optics" rather than "quantum photonics" tend to be heavier hitters, and the ones who just list "quantum physics" even heavier. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, WP:TOOSOON. Two papers with over 100 citations each is a good start, but in a high-citation field it's not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1. The NSF Faculty Early Career Development award is also not the sort of thing that conveys notability. And publishing in Nature is good, but it's the impact of and citations to the publications that confer notability, not the publications themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, as discussed above. Alex-h (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. Cabrils (talk) 03:06, 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. Clear consensus that GNG is failed Fenix down (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bucksburn Thistle

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

No evidence of WP:GNG. From what I can tell from searches, this is a relatively new club playing in Aberdeen's Amateur Sunday League. No detailed coverage of the club located in Google News, ProQuest and DDG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources covering this organization.--Mvqr (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 author blanked. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote, only now realised the article was always blank, apart from the infobox! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:A7. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is barely and article, just an information box. Rylesbourne (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on one hand, the AFD is a WP:BEFORE fail, with the article being nominated minutes after it was created by User:Millions Miller, when it clearly wasn't finished yet. On the other hand, doesn't seem to be any references, doesn't seem to be in a league where any of the other teams have articles, and likely is a recreation of the already speedied Bucksburn Thistle F.C.. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim to notability for this amateur soccer team. Also appears to fail WP:GNG. The article has literally 0 references and I'm unfamiliar in this area, but article claims a foundation of 2012 whereas one source I've found (which could be a different team) notes a Division 7 Championship for the Aberdeenshire AFA in 1986/87. This, with what is potentially a common game summary, doesn't meet the WP:SIGCOV required in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though there are some occasions when amateur football teams in Scotland might be notable enough for an article this is clearly not one of them. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:52, 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 redirect to New Chronology (Rohl). The "keep" opinions are mostly not based in policy, but the redirect is an obvious alternative to deletion. Sandstein 20:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Rohl

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

Page seems to be to promote an amateur psuedo-academic and as a WP:Soapbox for fringe theories. This "Egyptologist" has only a BA, and even that is only sourced from his own CV. Apparent credentials such as former director of some "Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS)" appear to be fluff. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Egypt. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "academic" is no criterion for anything. The man is notable for his publications and pointing out flaws in conventional chronologies of the ANE. The discoveries of other archaeologists he shifts into focus are relevant and accurate. The circumstance that his conclusions are not convincing and sometimes outright wrong (often because of accepting religious narratives as sources), or that he has not published any new material in quite a while does not merit a deletion. If you want to point out errors and weaknesses in his work, then alter the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP You're argument is a fallacy of authority and a no true scotsman fallacy. David Rohl can read, write and think. Just because you're not an English major doesn't mean you can't use English. 2003:FC:3F05:7E08:5849:4F94:60FB:D74A (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication subject passes WP:GNG. Almost all of the sources are non-independent. Of those that aren't two reviews, one gives him just passing mention, the other is detailed but in a 'journal' that is closer to a newsletter of a group of hobbyists with very low circulation and no reputation for scholarship. I am not seeing notability here. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His ideas are fringe. I do not think he meets our criteria for including articles on proponents of fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, including WP:PROF#C1 which has much stricter requirements than just "multiple" sources, depends on independent reliable sources taking notice of the subject's work. Does either of the editors giving a "keep" opinion have evidence of this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While looking up this name in the JSTOR data base, I found an article written by him: Rohl, David M. (1992). "Some Chronological Conundrums of the 21st Dynasty". Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant. 3. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 133–141. JSTOR 23783700.. It seems to me that his work in the field of Egyptology meets the standard of notability and is worthy of Wikipedia.Davidbena (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing written by the subject can contribute to notability. It's what has been written by others about the subject or his work that counts. I note that Google Scholar only reports four citations to that paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as the person who devised New Chronology (Rohl). His chronology is controversial, but while that article exists (as it should do), it is appropriate to have an article on its author. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Chronology (Rohl). WP:FRINGE theorist not independently notable from his fringe theories. Unlike many fringe theorists, we do have mainstream sources properly calling this work out as fringe, preventing a WP:NPOV problem, but they're just going to lead to the same content here as at the chronology article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Strong Keep - Though un-PhDed so are a lot of other people. He is notable as a scholar, an author, a journalist, a lecturer, a television presenter, a musician, a music producer, and he is cited—if often to discount his ideas—in numerous articles, book reviews, and websites on biblical chronology, Egyptology, and the like. He appears in documentaries, e.g. Patterns of Evidence. He is thus notable by many measures. This appears to be a recent attempt to drive out views and persons considered WP:FRINGE by a user who started this nomination in a rather derogatory manner with some apparent malice: see diff. Though not welcomed by mainstream academia, his page here is cited, wiki-linked, and has been around for years now. WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia has room for such sourced articles of such figures as Rohl. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tuckerresearch. Also, plenty of RS here to justify the page (and I added 2 more). Cabrils (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- - Strong Keep -- This is a noted author and researcher who has made many salient points on his chosen subjects. To try and remove all references to a person, their work and influence because you don't agree with his viewpoints is censorship and a crime against academic principles. What are these folks afraid of? As his published work and the many papers, articles and persons supporting or criticizing his work are on the internet and not going away, any researcher, reporter or author will need this page to properly inform themselves or their readers facts about the person so they may consider his qualifications in reference to his work. Noneofubusiness (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Chronology (Rohl); we don't need articles on both the person and the one thing the person is known for. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 30 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 draftify. ✗plicit 11:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Casper the Friendly Ghost series

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

Draftify, too soon per WP:TVSERIES and article undeveloped so not suitable for mainspace, only announced and no indication of being far in development Indagate (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. The only sources available are just the routine repeats of the its announcement. As the show isn't even titled yet, this would not even work as a Redirect to the main Casper the Friendly Ghost article, where it should be noted that information on the announcement of this series is already included. Rorshacma (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/or even Draftify This article is WP:TOOSOON as the show has not been given a title yet. Pahiy (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Alex-h (talk) 16:09, 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 List of Punch-Out!! characters#Super Macho Man. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Macho Man

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

Most if not all of the reception section is made up of WP:TRIVIAL quotes from articles not directly about the character, with some being extremely tangentially related. Does not seem like a character notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Super Macho Man (the previous redirect target) or, alternatively, merge to Punch-Out!!#Characters (the related section of the series article). The character is covered in the given sources as an ensemble character and should be covered on Wikipedia as such. czar 18:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Super Macho Man per Czar. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: After some searching around on Google, this is all I could really find. Everything in the article right now appear to have sources that are all passing mentions, and per GNG, at the bare minimum, we need two sources of significant coverage on the character. With that said, I would like to note that I have no prejudice towards restoring the article should someone find more sources that actually discusses the character beyond passing mentions. But until then, this can be redirected to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Super Macho Man. MoonJet (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Super Macho Man per rationales provided by other participating editors. Not sure why this needed to go to AfD when a bold merge, or if disputed, a merge proposal would have sufficed since everyone seem to agree that the character is discussed by reliable sources in some detail. PS: Would have been nice if this AfD happened before I took the trouble to upload a picture for a NPP-approved article that looked like it needed one. Haleth (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was boldly merged several times already, looking at the article history, so I can get behind this being taken to AFD. As far as I can tell, there were no prior AFD or merge discussions on any talk pages for this character. MoonJet (talk) 05:26, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshquartet

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

Lack of direct notability; no references Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, nothing to really write home about. Even a Google search didn't produce anything meaningful apart from some YouTube videos and few stuffs Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources available in the Swedish article, but there's virtually nothing in English, so it's hard to confirm notability. ~~Delete~~ Neutral after discussion of Swedish sources below. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Fox: There's no requirement for sources to be in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. My Swedish is based entirely around Ikea packaging, so it's hard to gauge for myself if those sources are good enough to work with. Happy to shift to neutral however, based on the analysis below. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fläskkvartetten – en kärlekshistoria is a one-hour documentary about the band from Sveriges Radio P2, probably the best source that exists for music in Sweden. They got the "Album of the Year" award at the most important annual award for Swedish music in 1993. The Swedish article sources that are mentioned above are pretty good, the Dagens Nyheter article "Fläskkvartetten som sprängdes", is good, useful and definitely the kind of source we use and see as counting towards notability. The Symfoni article, though partly interview content, is interesting. Some others are listings, and but a search in the Swedish media archive points towards a wealth of articles, not least around when the band split, went to court around the rights to the name "Fläskkvartetten", and then continued playing. In short, they live up to WP:GNG, several of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music) for musicians and ensembles (1, 5, 8 (where the Grammis is specifically mentioned), 10 and 12). We explicitly don't demand sources in English (we only say that they are, all other things equal, preferable to sources in other languages). //Julle (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a little bit, adding a few sources so that at least a few of them should be present in the article as well, and not just mentioned here.

Also, they got the music award given out by Expressen (one of the biggest newspapers in Sweden) in 2002, so all the music journalists at the newspaper wrote about the band, for a total of 1750 words, so that could be used, too. (Not easily available online, but can be read by anyone who can access w:sv:Mediearkivet.) //Julle (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are also included in the major Swedish non-Wikipedia general encyclopedia, Nationalencyclopedin. //Julle (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly per Julle. I contested the nominator's prod on this: "has a national award, 2/3 blue-linked former members and assoc. incidental music for well-known television series" (ie Wallander, which has got to be one of the best known bits of Swedish television outside Sweden). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Julle and the editors improvements since nom. Fläskkvartetten is known in Sweden. Sources are ok. Definitely within WP:GNG. Article needs further improvements but AfD is not the venue for that.BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - shows and albums regularly reviewed in major swedish newspapers, but more importantly the band occasionally gets coverage even when there is no show or major release. Satisfies SIGCOV. I echo the above claims of notability. Dr Bowser (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree to keep with the new sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks better now.--Comr Melody Idoghor (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Malden, Missouri

(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? 10:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Malden, Missouri. While the list is not justified, a few items can be copied to the main article with sources. For example the first female mayor. As to why not keep: for me the proof is in the pudding. This list has no items with articles. The absolute low point of the list is the key with colors for tiny parties. Why not just write out the party? gidonb (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too much detail to merge, not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the merge should be selective. Only of a few details. gidonb (talk) 15:09, 18 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) 15:42, 20 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) 18:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 20:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of mayors from tiny towns in Missouri. Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN. If it had several notable entries then maybe notable, but otherwise no. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 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) Obviously there is no consensus to delete. Page was relisted 7 days ago, with no discussion since. While I could've closed as keep just going by a simple head count, only one of the keep arguments is a straightforward keep that actually makes any attempt to address the nominator's concerns, while the second and third seem to share the nominator's concerns on sourcing. All three keep arguments also raised concerns on one particular source (FilmThreat) and there is substantial debate even among those !voting keep as to which sources are sufficient.

Based on the actual substance of the arguments presented, that's why I'm closing this as no consensus and not keep.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Are All Men Pedophiles?

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

Other than the Jezebel and Buzzfeed articles, which interestingly enough are extremely and reasonably critical of the documentary, there isn't much else to establish notability. The rest of the sources (and even the additional sources I can find) are just listings of "x played at y festival", with those festivals largely being non-notable. Wrt the award by NVVS - it doesn't appear to be a notable award, so it also doesn't contribute to notability and the jurors/judges that awarded it don't appear to be notable names or known in their respective scientific/medical communities.

I've done a fair amount of digging and despite the two articles I mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage to support this article and certainly not to the extent that it's currently written.

I'd also point out that if there were more coverage, I wouldn't be afding this but the problem I have is that while the Buzzfeed coverage is fairly decent and the critique from Jezebel is as well, Jezebel is largely based on Breure's Buzzfeed interview so in my opinion, neither of this are significant enough to meet WP:NFILM as basically being one single major review. So on it's own, these two just simply don't establish notability and that's ignoring the fact that CUPIDICAE💕 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found additional coverage of the film here and here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked those myself but the Vancouver one is a staff blog, so while still more reliable than if it weren't staff, isn't endorsed by their editorial board and is a single sentence, not a review of the film but the filmthreat is of dubious notability and reliability (as I have opined in the past) because it doesn't identify who is writing reviews and is largely rehashed bits of other reviews. CUPIDICAE💕 20:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Sun source devotes three sentences to this film, not one sentence. Staff blogs by professional journalists are acceptable as sources. Accuracy matters. Looking more closely, I understand your concerns about FilmThreat which seems to have a "pay to play" business model but I see no indication that the reviewer did not actually watch the film. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One hit in GBooks talking about the film, it's a snippet view from where I am so I can't see how acceptable it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has gone through three nominations for deletion. It appears to have some okay sourcing and, while I wouldn't necessarily oppose it going away, I also think that this fight has happened before and the focus should be on improvement rather than deletion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The notability here is pretty razor thin. I added a book mention where the film is given about two paragraphs worth of discussion. The other sourcing is pretty thin, but just enough to establish notability. With FilmThreat, the site is generally considered to be reliable, but I hadn't noticed how obvious their pay to play service had become. This needs more evaluation at RS/N to determine which posts and reviews from them should be considered reliable. Anything that was paid to have reviewed shouldn't be considered reliable, obviously. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Rich (film series)

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

Draftify per WP:FILMSERIES, no comparative prose, just separate information on the two films with no reception for 2nd, redundant when have two individual articles Indagate (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two films is not a "series" and this conveys no information worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual articles are a better way to manage this information, as none of the cast or crew were the same between the theatrical film and the direct-to-video film, nor can their box office performance be compared (since the direct-to-video film had no box office results), nor can their critical reception be compared (since the direct-to-video film has no Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, or CinemaScore rating). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see there being some justification for a franchise page, as there are films and television shows, but two films isn't really enough to justify a film article. I'd say merge pertinent content into the main article for the comics but there not much that really needs to be added. I would maybe add the cast table, limiting it to just those characters that were in both films, but I'm not entirely sure that's really necessary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:04, 24 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. Sandstein 19:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashique Mostafa

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. The sources used do not show in-depth the existence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Might be too soon for a stand-alone article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:00, 17 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!} 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than some passing coverage, i didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Although he is not thoroughly popular to everyone, still his filmography looks convincing. Has directed and produced some of the best films of recrnt times. Since, Bangladesh has no official film database, It's quite normal that very well known artistes will have less information regarding them. Might be improved through adding Bengali news links. Abbasulu (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources: only a handful of articles that mention him in passing. Although he has indeed produced or directed several notable films, neither the GNG nor WP:NCREATIVE appear to be met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It may be "salvagable", but what matters is that hasn't actually been salvaged durings 3 weeks of AfD. We don't host self-promotion. Sandstein 19:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaji Alonge

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

This is advertising. No matter how notable his work may or may not be, the tone is that of a promotional brochure--to the extent that it might also be copyvio.

Since there is no evidence any of the exhibitions are significant, there's no basis for rewriting the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with DGG, this is a Promotional article on a Non notable photographer that doesn’t meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The sourcing is an absolute mirage and if requested I can draw up a table and dissect each and every source used and show how two-third(if not all) fail to meet WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, thank you for reviewing the article. The artist is well known in Nigeria. Additional references in national press have been added and others removed. Further improvements will be made very shortly to ensure compliance. Sandra Vermuyten (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted for review of additional added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the article seems to be salvagable. Aside from the introduction, there is lots of information that can be rewritten to be encyclopedic. Also, there is a lot of news press about him.Roostery123 (talk) 09:38, 17 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!} 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADMASQ - this is Alonge's brochure, not an encyclopaedic article. WP:BLP referencing failure. Might he pass WP:BIO? From this it is extremely hard to tell. Removing al the unreferenced material is a consideration, but removing it leaves almost no article. Better to start again from the ground up 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Scariest Movie Moments

AfDs for this article:

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

I've found several listicles citing "X was number Y on 100 Scariest Movie Moments", but no sources that are about the show itself. Previous AFD in 2011 withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 24 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?)} 04:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I kinda came here just to see if there was any way to save what I assumed was some awful quickly-slapped together cable TV thing from 18 years ago, but to my surprise found that this series is recognized as a legitimately well made and notable primer on horror movies. I've added a few refs in a quick scan. Looks like User:MichaelQSchmidt had it right 11 years ago on the last AFD, although no one had improved it as he hoped for. I hope to be alive when there are AFDs that are 50 years old and an article still hasn't been improved.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources added, I'm not convinced that "Bloody Disgusting" or "Screen Queens" are reliable sources. Also, the Brian Moylan reference doesn't even dedicate an entire sentence to the work. The Decider reference is valid, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Disgusting is an established reliable source for horror films and horror items as per its inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in Decider here and Bloody Disgusting here so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fix it. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:59, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Lights (video game)

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

As a topic, this video game lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article without resorting to original research. Its only extant coverage consists of brief mentions and primary sources. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as no related articles link here. czar 04:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. czar 04:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Realities

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

As a topic, this online magazine lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its current sources are mainly primary and unreliable. It had no meaningful hits for further sources in Google searches and databases. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 03:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, Internet, and Websites. czar 03:50, 24 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 List of programs broadcast by G4#Programming blocks. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Unleashed

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable block of shows. Zero sourcing found. Previously kept way back in 2005 so ineligible for prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 24 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?)} 03:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4#Programming blocks where it is already listed. There are no sources demonstrating why the block was independently notable, and there is no content here that should be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 00:27, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of medical abbreviations: A

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

This page does not meet the minimum quality and sourcing requirements for medical information. All 26 of the pages in this set should be treated the same way; presumably they will be tagged in a day or so if this isn't a SNOW keep. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of medical abbreviations and this article and all like it, all of them found in Category:Lists of medical abbreviations, should be kept. You can click on any link and find the information in the main article. Any medical textbook should contain all of this information as well. This is clearly valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 03:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a Wikipedia glossary that would benefit from wikignoming rather than deletion. Thincat (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure how deleting this would benefit anybody—seems like a way to make it harder to find information. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a glossary, not a dictionary, and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This serves much the same purpose as Glossary of medicine. Explaining what terms or abbreviations mean does not constitute WP:Biomedical information, so the stronger sourcing requirements for medical content outlined at WP:MEDRS do not apply. If there are quality issues, deletion is not the way to address them. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saying that AXR can be short for "abdominal X-ray" is not the kind of information for which WP:MEDRS comes into play. If the page said that such-and-such a condition is typically diagnosed by taking an abdominal X-ray, sure; this, no. The Wikipedia:Biomedical information supplemental page excludes Etymology and definitions from the scope of WP:MEDRS. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Omar (bowls)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brunei. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not fail WP:GNG, the person is twice an Asian Champion, which is pretty significant bearing in mind that he is a champion of an entire continent within his sport. He also competed in THREE Commonwealth Games and the World Championships. (Furthermore it is a stub). The sources include the Commonwealth Games Federation profile, the Brunei Darussalam National Olympic Council and the BBC. I cannot understand why the article has been proposed for deletion. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have indepdent, 3rd party sources just souces that are basically the awards granters themselves recognizing the award. Awards need to be sourced to sources other than the granting organization themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The BBC source lists him in a list of players and scores - not WP:SIGCOV. No other source meets WP:GNG either. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any instances of clear cut significant coverage about him. This article is the closest that I could find but it's barely more than a quick quote from him and is insufficient to build a biography from on its own. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate sportsperson database. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 30 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 Draftify.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:NFF, this film project has not received significant coverage by independent sources, move to draft BOVINEBOY2008 19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree it hasn't received significant coverage, it achieved a healthy amount of reporting when it was announced, and it has begun filming, meeting WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 19:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of this coverage is nearly identical and simply states cast and crew, essentially a reprint of a press release. Hardly independent coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 20:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the source given that states filming has begun is not a newsworthy/reliable source. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:38, 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 redirect to Silver as an investment. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junk silver

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

I boldly added content from this page to Silver as an investment (a small merge, you may say), and when I'm done, most content are either included there, or were not encyclopedic enough to remain (e.g. listcruft or excessively subjective original research).

Disclosure: I wrote a PAM for this page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that I forgot to put my opinion. It is "deletion". NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silver as an investment per nom and WP:ATD-R. JBchrch talk 15:01, 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.