Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 31	June 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azrul Nizam Muhammad

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malinche Entertainment

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

Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:NPOV. Multiple citations point to dead links. Self-promotional in tone and scope. Does not belong in an encyclopedia in its current form. Volcom95 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, and Software. Volcom95 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this article was whitewashed by a WP:SPA account prior to this nomination. Not sure if the version prior to it would fare any better, though. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like WP:PROMOTION and I saw a ANI discussion for one of the user for WP:COI Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 11:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Native advertising. Standing there with his games. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Multiple citations point to dead links" is not a valid deletion rationale, as those links were once not dead and can likely be fixed. "Self-promotional" is also not a valid rationale, as that can be cleaned up. Nobody has raised why the previous "keep" deletion discussion for the article is currently invalid, as the studio got 2 articles in Wired from different people on different years and a mention in a newspaper. I can see someone arguing this is too little, but nobody has made that argument, simply stating it has no sources, which is false. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and it doesn't appear that any exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom and scope_creep. Zxcvbnm brings up some points that have merit, but even if that is the case, it feels like this is an example of WP:TNT. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT how exactly? It's fully referenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the references might be OK for supporting facts/infomation within an article, we have different guidelines for establishing whether or not a topic meets notability criteria and this relies on finding at least two references that meet those criteria. None of these references meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. While it is true that "dead links" is not a valid deletion rational, the absence of any links to references which meets the criteria for establishing notability is grounds for deletion. Topic fails WP:NCORP. In addition, the article appears to me to be an attempt for the author to try to get their own Wikipedia page. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: The article is quite old, written by an editor who doesn't have any apparent relationship, and only recently whitewashed by an apparent COI editor. Also see below for significant coverage I found. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I found several hits for "Malinche" on Wired (cannot link to search) that appear to have decent coverage, or at least more than trivial coverage (hard to tell when Wired quicly obscures the article with a subscription modal dialog). The cited PhD dissertation also goes into some detail. That is sufficient to establish notability. And there should be no question whatsoever that the Asbury Park Press piece constitutes significant coverage of the company. Here's a clip. Here's the continuation. Similar articles by the same author have been published in Des Moines Register and The Daily Journal, among others. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Des Moines Register article relies *entirely* on an interview with Mr. Sherman. As per WP:SIRS, each reference used to establish notability of the company needs to meet all the criteria, so while this may be an in-depth piece and meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it fails WP:ORGIND as it contains no "Independent Content". The PhD dissertation provides a small summary and not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria is not merely "decent coverage" or mentions or listings. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Multan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chenab Park

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

No significant secondary independent references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multan. Even if the sources are reliable, it's not notable enough due to lack of deep and broad coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm sure the park exists thanks to the sources, but the sources are more about greater policy on parks in the city in general. I don't see what else we can say about this park other than it exists, which is not enough. Even a redirect WP:ATD-R seems like too much since there is no mention on the target page. I don't know what could go into the city article since the sources are really about the city policy than the park and don't say what might be important about it. - 2pou (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lyari Town. Valid ATD. Star Mississippi 01:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabol Park

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

No significant secondary coverage of the park. References have little or nothing to do with the topic. Fails WP:GNG — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source looks reliable. No Drug No War (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by No Drug No War (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lyari Town. Even if a source is reliable, it's not notable enough due to lack of deep and broad coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm sure the park exists thanks to the sources, but I don't see what else we can say about it other than it exists. Even a redirect WP:ATD-R seems like too much since there is no mention on the target page. I don't know what could go into the city article since the sources only say it exists and don't describe any importance. - 2pou (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civita (think tank)

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

organization with no reliable sources since at least 2008; I tried to find it mentioned anywhere even vaguely reliable and came up with nothing ~T P W 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hopeless nomination. This is Norway's Heritage Foundation. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph about them here: Lawson, R., Norton, S., Gwartney, J. (2008). Economic Freedom of the World: 2008 Annual Report. Philippines: Cato Institute.

A brief mention here: Christensen, J. (2017). The Power of Economists Within the State. United States: Stanford University Press.

There's a full article about them here: https://norwaytoday.info/finance/civita-proposes-50-billion-state-cuts/

This academic paper mentions them 37 times https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9477.12184

Seems notable. Leaning keep CT55555 (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's not a clear-cut case, but the last item listed by CT seems to be significant coverage. Some of the other sources are not as substantial. However, the paragraph on Civita in The Power of Economists Within the State, albeit short, offers enough analysis for me to lift them over the threshold of WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhrul Zaman

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAPS (software)

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

The sources that can be accessed do not appear to name this product, speaking in generic terms. A limited before shows no additional sourcing, but the software name does make electronic searches dificult. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. Slywriter (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — official web site is defunct, I can't find any sources (including those already listed) to speak about this software. This article has been tagged with the Notability tag for over 12 years, indicating a lack of reliable sources talking about it. It's time to delete it. White 720 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apparently defunct commercial software product, (formerly?) used in UK education sector (primarily secondary education). Looking at Google Books+Scholar, there are a modest number of discussions about it in reliable sources, but not a particularly large number, and all seem to be from 10–15 years ago. My overall impression is that while this is a real thing, and reliable sources have paid some attention to it, their attention has been insufficient in extent and durability to meet WP:GNG Mr248 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CSX Transportation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Express

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this topic. It exists, but it deserves a sentence or two within CSX Transportation, not a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CSX Transportation. Details can be covered there. Dough4872 22:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CSX Transportation per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Serpe

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Although the article has over 40 citations, this is a case of refbombing. Virtually every citation is either: routine campaign coverage, a primary source, a non-WP:RS-compliant source (e.g. YouTube, LinkedIn, non-notable website), or trivial coverage of the subject. I did a WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines and could not locate any significant coverage of the subject in sources that satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New York. Sal2100 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and my searches (with both spellings of her name) online, and the WP library, including ProQuest. The source quality on ProQuest is better, but not in-depth, e.g "PARTY'S GOT GREEN Underdog enviros push for upset of Vallone" (New York Daily News, 2009), event announcements, general election coverage, her work in New Zealand, e.g. "Princess Leia triumphs over Darth Vader in STV test run" (The Dominion Post, 2002, quotes from her, e.g. "Lynne Serpe, the national campaign organiser for the Electoral Reform Coalition, said..."). 2015 commentary in The Week finds her 'worthy of notice', but overall there appears to be insufficient independent and reliable secondary support for notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything I would call SIGCOV on newspapers.com either. Jacona (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this demonstrates neither that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy nor a credible reason why her candidacy was somehow more important than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidates for political office almost never meet WP:NPOL. Reads like campaign lit. Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heavy (Iron Butterfly album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possession (Iron Butterfly song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, with no in-depth coverage in the literature. Redirect to Heavy (Iron Butterfly album). Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Abbasulu (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heavy (Iron Butterfly album). Didn't chart or receive much attenetion. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAM Broadcaster

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

Non-notable internet broadcasting application, appears to be written by someone involved in its development which would as such fail WP:COI. Reliable sources covering this software were not found upon a web search; only WP:SPS, the software producer's own website, and this very Wikipedia page. The results that were returned strongly cast doubt on the reputability of this software and its developer(s). As such I firmly believe this article has no place on Wikipedia. Joyce-stick (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BEFORE search returns little in the way of WP:SIGCOV, with most of what turns up being passing mentions (eg. Popular Science, Entrepreneur's Guide to Second Life, Social Media Commerce For Dummies) and very little in the way of recent coverage. More coverage may exist in older offline print sources, but as it stands this is unlikely to meet the WP:GNG unless better sources are unearthed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ibbs

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 20:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and United Kingdom. ².O.^Boxing 20:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage required by the GNG.Sandals2 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and a boxing career of only 6 fights with no notable victories fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Marcos (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Mexico. ².O.^Boxing 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage that meets the GNG. He has won nothing that meets WP:NBOX. Sandals2 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. His record had a good start, but plummeted when he started fighting experienced fighters with winning records. Fight coverage and databases don't show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaily Priya Pandey

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

The sources available in the article do not satisfy WP:GNG requirements and the subject doesn't pass WP:NACTOR either. No significant roles in multiple notable movies or films. I tried a brief Google search but nothing good came around. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator noted, not enough (any?) significant roles and sources for those to show WP:NACTOR is met. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ummah College of Health Sciences and Technology

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 4 references given, 3 are to the school's own web site and one is to a listing of all organizations in Nigeria. I did a search and couldn't find any wp:notability-suitable sources. I'm normally pretty lenient on schools but could even find "to what extent do they exist? info like attendance. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and the relevant subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 21:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banzai Teriyaki

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

This restaurant does not appear to be notable, all sig cov is in local area. Bare mentions in anything else. valereee (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. valereee (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Penkina

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

Only coverage is in extreme industry-niche/local publications. valereee (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. valereee (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing here is entirely to limited-circulation niche trade publications rather than WP:GNG-worthy major media, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have wider GNG-worthy coverage. Also probable WP:COI, as it was created by a single-purpose account with no other edit history at all apart from this article and has since been considerably edited by a user named "KseniaChabria". Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been watching this article for quite a while and although the sourcing has improved it is still very industry-specific. I agree there is probably COI here. Curiocurio (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia High School (Lake City, Florida)

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

Fails WP:GNG, most sources given are not about the school. The Banner talk 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was a previous AfD in March 2007 where the decision was keep. This was hidden due to the article was under a different name at the time and the talk page XfD template predates direct linking to discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this school was founded in 1888. It has 20 alumni who have a Wikipedia article. Jacona (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack adequate sources that give indepth coverage to justify an article. Back in 2007 we operated on the pincipal every highschool everywhere was notable, we have since come to realize that is not a reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question @User:Johnpacklambert. Did you look at the article? Did you click "Find sources" at all? Jacona (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A bunch of sources about sports performance are not what we need to justify an article on an educational institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for responding. Jacona (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a US high school that is 134 years old, and has won multiple state championships is notable. The world doesn't end at the end of Google. High school athletics in the US are significant socially. The fact that the sources being found are about athletics is irrelevant. I agree, transactional sources about single games generally don't speak to notability, but sources about a high school's athletics programs are NOT less significant than sources about academics or arts. AfD isn't for clean up. 174.212.229.100 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not clean up, this is part of the deletion process, triggered by a lack of notability and independent in-depth sources. The Banner talk 00:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is the only "Columbia High School" in Florida. Disambiguation isn't needed. Should be moved to Columbia High School (Florida). 174.212.229.100 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found an AP article from the 1930's. I have not done a full check yet. I agree with the IP that it is highly unlikely better sources don't exist, considering its size and state championship titles. Here it is. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one at the regional level. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but that is about the sport-program. Not about the school itself. And independent in-depth sources about the school is what we need. The Banner talk 10:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Scorpions13256:has moved the page to Columbia High School (Florida). I will let an AfD regular update this page as necessary for the process. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 00:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not sure what edits to make to AFD though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a multi-page feature in Sports Illustrated. Here is an in-depth article from National Public Radio. Here's an article from the panhandle about the integration timeframe. Here are some other articles [1] [2]. There are literally hundreds more on gSearch, around 4600 on newspapers.com search. There is enough to meet WP:GNG many times over. Given that the school is over 100 years old and has around 2,000 students, information abounds. Jacona (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but that is about the sport-program. Not about the school itself. And independent in-depth sources about the school is what we need. The Banner talk 10:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of those absolutely were about the school, and they did not all mention sports. While you apparently don't like it, where is a policy or guideline that states that sources about sport are excluded from establishing WP:N? Jacona (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aha, there are the accusations.
    - But if you read the article carefully, you can see that it is about a school. Not about the sports-program of a school. So it is the school-notability that must be sourced. Sports or alumni do not prove the notability of a school. The Banner talk 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, not all of the references above mention sport. There are hundreds of other sources easily available if you bother to look at them. And there is no policy or guideline that says the sports-program of the school is not a part of the school. Jacona (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I repeat: the subject of this article is the school, not its sports program. The Banner talk 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It is evident you and I are not going to agree that there is a policy-based reason whether in-depth coverage by Sports Illustrated, NPR, etc. is coverage of the school. But why do you discount the non-sports-related coverage above, including this one? Or the hundreds of others on GSearch and newspapers.com? Or that one of it's buildings (Columbia County High School) [3] is on the National Register of Historic Places? Jacona (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry that I have to ask but do you have any ties with the school? The Banner talk 15:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry that I have to ask, but why will you not answer the questions I have asked above? Why do you refuse to address the sources that are not about athletics, and what policy makes schools and their sports teams unrelated? When you answer my questions, I will happily answer yours.Jacona (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Come on, that's a bad take to ask. – The Grid (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confident that sources exist, but the school has too generic of a name. Newspapers.com often gives me results from schools in other states that happen to have this name. This will make a proper WP:BEFORE more difficult. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing all 10 factors of my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Giuseppe

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

I'm only finding recipes for this. I don't think it's a notable cocktail. valereee (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack O'Brien (Gaelic footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not significant coverage, and the interview is a primary source and cannot count for notability.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.hoganstand.com/article/index/253360			text: "subs... J O'Brien for C Gillespie	✘ No
https://www.irishnews.com/sport/gaafootball/2015/11/24/news/donegal-squad-331780/			text: "Rory Gallagher has also added Jack O'Brien to the squad "	✘ No
https://www.donegalsporthub.com/audio-jack-obrien-says-donegal-under-21s-were-blessed-against-derry/	interview	? "Donegal Sport Hub – in association with the Radisson Blu Hotel Letterkenny – is a website dedicated to sport in the county."	? link to interview dead	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this is the wrong code of football. You want Gaelic football, not association football. Giant Snowman 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know they’re different, but this is the best could find in the deletion sorting categories. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Asi

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

Non-notable Islamist cleric. He was fired as imam in 1983 and since then has become famous for supporting Iran and making inflammatory remarks about Jews. He has an ADL profile and a profile on David Horowitz's "Discovering the Networks" which I doubt meets the criteria to be a non-biased source. Second citation is dead, third is his personal website, fourth is 2006 memri quotes, sixth link is dead, seventh is dead. He does appear briefly in the book "The Enemy of my Enemy". Many sources online are self-published. He does have a relatively unknown tafsir of the Quran, but I think he and the tafsir could be covered under the page for ICIT. Almost all sources on him are extremely biased and unreliable. They're either far-right Islamophobic or self-published, or anti-Semitic/pro-Iran/Hezbollah. Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A notable asshole is still notable, but in this case, I'm not sure the notability is there. ADL is the main source, and that is not a reliable source, so we have a fairly negative BLP profile largely supported by an unreliable source, and very poorly supported by anything else. So I don't see WP:GNG or any other criteria even nearly being met here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor

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

No evidence that this particular approach to fusion meets GNG. Little to no coverage in secondary sources - sources in article do not support notability of the topic. Appears to have been written by a single purpose account with a likely WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WARP core? A WARP reactor? Looks vaguely familiar for some reason. Did a search of various things - there's no coverage whatsoever anywhere, there's a single web page pushing this idea. The first source doesn't mention this concept, only mentions that a Zoom forum took place on the dates mentioned in the ref. The other sources appear to be a collection of concepts, with nothing to do with this as a concept. ~~In all, this appears to be 100 percent a hoax and should be deleted, speedily if possible as such.~~ Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this through again, I may have been a bit harsh about the hoax comment and have struck it; this is certainly likely to be a concept of its own, but it has gained zero traction in and of itself, and thus remains non-notable at this time. All of the references seem to refer to physics concepts, rather than to this as a whole. I am still of the opinion that this does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I have added more peer-reviewed articles directly related to topic for satisfying WP:GNG concerns. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% NOT a hoax! This is a real novel fusion concept which uses known physics to accelerate multi-mega-amp-level ion rings to relativistic energies for magneto-inertial-fusion, flash radiography and accessing new high energy density physics regimes. Please review all physics and scientific references before claiming hoax and pushing article deletion. Also, added more relevant references for novel invention. Thank you for your constructive criticism. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only top search hit that looks relevant is a stub webpage for the company. (the link to social media and email are "domain.tld/path") Searching scholar for "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch" returned zero and even without the quotes there didn't seem to be anything related to the article. I would have declined this at WP:AfC. --mikeu ^talk 17:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Typo later fixed. --mikeu ^talk 22:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review all physics and scientific references before pushing article deletion. Also, added more relevant references for novel invention. Thank you for your constructive criticism. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of areas that I contribute to at wikipedia is reviewing Draft: articles, a process that we call AfC. One of the things that I look for before moving an article to mainspace (as was done for this article) is: significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. For example: have newspapers written about the topic? is there an article about it in Scientific American? There is a difference between a topic that is notable versus demonstrating that it is by showing that it has been recognized by others not associated with the project. I would be willing to explain this in greater detail if you have questions about the guidelines that we use in these discussions, though we should probably do this on a talk page. You can also request advice from experienced editors on how to improve an article at Wikipedia:Teahouse. mikeu ^talk 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Added Peer-reviewed journal article. Thank you for your guidance. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the link to the commercial website is warp-x.carrd.co which contains a slogan ("Warping Spacetime") that is remarkably similar to the original author's username. WP:COI should also be considered here although I WP:AGF that this is merely an enthusiastic support of the invention. The addition of a patent, later changed to a peer reviewed article, both linked to the originator of the idea strengthen my contention that this should be deleted. --mikeu ^talk 23:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support is not against WP policy. The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion/keep article:~~ Per editors' guidance, added reliable sources via peer-reviewed articles along with US patent and conference presentation [1]-[3] for invention. All other peer-reviewed papers and online reports referenced in the article directly support notability of topic from dense plasma focus z-pinches and ion rings for magneto-inertial fusion and super-radiant x-ray/neutron generation to new high energy density physics regimes [4]-[13]. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote struck - rendered duplicate by a later second !vote from the same User, below. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more peer-reviewed articles directly related to topic for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% NOT a hoax! This is a real novel fusion concept which uses known physics to accelerate multi-mega-amp-level ion rings to relativistic energies for magneto-inertial-fusion, flash radiography and accessing new high energy density physics regimes. Please review all physics and scientific references before erroneously claiming hoax and pushing article deletion. Also, calls for this article deletion from others appears to be a conflict of interest since proposed concept is much more cost effective than other high energy particle physics programs which others may be associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarpingSpacetime (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unclear on the rationale for deletion. Whether or not is a HOAX is not germane to whether or not there should be an article on the topic. We have MANY articles on hoaxes. (See Piltdown man, for example.) What is important is whether the topic is NOTABLE, i.e., has been covered in reliable secondary sources. Before I nominated the article, I did review all of the physics and scientific references I could find on the topic, and there were almost none.

If you are accusing ME of a conflict of interest because I'm associated with a high energy particle physics program, well - that's an easy one to refute, since I'm primarily involved with medical cyclotrons in the 13-20 MeV range, and have no involvement whatsoever in fusion research.

The best way to preserve this article would be to add references to it that specifically refer to THIS particular fusion concept, not the concept of fusion generally. A search for "Wave Accelerated Pinch Reactor" turns up almost nothing that I can find. If you have other sources, please do present them.PianoDan (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reply was not directed at you. Nevertheless, I appreciate your comment and have added the requested relevant references to novel invention. Thank you for you help! WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the patent establishes that the invention (or at least the idea of the invention) EXISTS. However, what needs to be established is that the idea is NOTABLE, which requires coverage in reliable sources. See WP:RS. PianoDan (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Added refereed journal article. Thanks again! WarpingSpacetime (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you are adding still don't say anything about the specific device that is the topic of the article - they seem to simply be more background. In order to keep this article, there still needs to be demonstrated coverage of this specific device. None of these articles appear to mention the "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" at all. PianoDan (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep: With due respect, I disagree with your assessment to delete article. References [1]-[3] cover in great detail the WARP Reactor conceptual design with References [4]-[5] delving into the physics behind its operation. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please do not vote twice on the same AfD page.

2. Reference [1] does not actually appear to reference this concept at all, and even if it did, this type of conference website would not meet the definition of a reliable source.

3. Reference [2] is a patent. It does not establish notability, merely existence.

4. Reference [3] appears to talk about a fusion concept close to the one in the article, but does not use the language of the article. It might support the existence of a Wikipedia article on "Field reversed configuration fusion", but not on a "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor," since those words don't actually seem to appear in that order in the article. PianoDan (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the inventor's various peer-reviewed papers directly related to the topic and referenced in the WP article there is also the conference presentation titled "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch eXperiment (WARP X)" by the inventor and subject matter expert which meets the following: WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Material published by the inventor of an idea is pretty much useless for establishing notability of the idea. To establish notability, you need reliable sources that show that other people are discussing the idea. WP:SPS is about verifiability, not notability. An article on an invention needs both.--Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of WP: INVENTED. Only two sources are about the reactor itself, and both of them are written by the inventor. There's zero coverage in secondary sources. Tercer (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the inventor's various peer-reviewed papers directly related to the topic and referenced in the WP article there is also the conference presentation titled "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch eXperiment (WARP X)" by the inventor and subject matter expert which meets the following: WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above. When other people start writing about the idea in reliable sources, it may be ready for Wikipedia. Nothing written by the inventor can establish notability.--Srleffler (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The independent reliable sources referenced in this WP article [4], [5], [7] & [8] are peer-reviewed papers also written by other SMEs in the field which directly discuss idea and notability of this WP article topic. In addition to the above reliable independent sources above providing necessary evidence of the notability of this WP article topic are the the remaining independent reliable sources ([9]-[11] & [13], [14]) which further add to the notability of this WP topic and its applications. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To keep this article, we don't need to establish the notability of nuclear fusion or magnetic confinement fusion or any of the other things those references are about. We already HAVE articles on those things. We need to establish the notability of this exact thing, the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. To do that, we would need independent, reliable sources that use the words "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" in that exact order. If the source doesn't even MENTION the topic of the article, then by definition it doesn't support that the topic is notable, since it didn't take note of it. PianoDan (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS Self-published expert sources (See [1], [2]) may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access (See [1]-[14]) WP:N Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "If a TOPIC has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (See [4],[5],[7] for directly relevant to WARP Reactor ion ring pinch/compression, fusion and radiation topics; See [8]-[11],[13] for directly relevant WARP Reactor inertial fusion, high energy density physics and next generation pulsed power topics; See [14] for directly relevant WARP Reactor DPF/Z-Pinch topic). "The Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch (WARP) Reactor is a novel petawatt-class pulsed power machine . . which promises orders-of-magnitude increase in the generation and acceleration efficiency of ultra-intense high energy ion beams for magneto-inertial confinement fusion, super-radiant flash x-ray/neutron generation and the study of new Relativistic High Energy Density (RHED) physics". WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to explain this.

[1] and [2] may be RELIABLE, (or may not be) but they are not INDPENDENT, so cannot establish notability.

[3]-[14] don't use the term "Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor" anywhere that I can find.

You can't use articles about similar topics to establish notability for THIS topic. PianoDan (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is not meant to establish notability. [1] is just to appease the previous request for a reliable source with exact Article Title. Confusion appears to be between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s . . . Also, WP:NPOSSIBLE "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of sources existing even if none can be found by a search.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." WarpingSpacetime (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the rationale, as explained above, that publications on similar/related topics don't establish a need for an article on this topic. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again . . . WP:N Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "If a TOPIC has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (See [4],[5],[7] for directly relevant to WARP Reactor ion ring pinch/compression, fusion and radiation topics; See [8]-[11],[13] for directly relevant WARP Reactor inertial fusion, high energy density physics and next generation pulsed power topics; See [14] for directly relevant WARP Reactor DPF/Z-Pinch topic). Confusion appears to be between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s . . . Also, WP:NPOSSIBLE "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of sources existing even if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about fusion generally are not about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Articles about magnetic confinement are not articles about Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Articles about inertial fusion are not about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reaactor.

There need to be independent, reliable sources that are DIRECTLY about the Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor. Quoting Wikipedia guidelines at length does not change the fact that we can't find any independent reliable sources about the actual topic of the article. We don't need articles related topics. We don't need supporting information. We need coverage of the actual subject of the article. PianoDan (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to explain this. Reference [4], [5] & [7] discuss directly the WARP Reactor topic for ion ring compression for fusion and radiation sources. These are (along with all other peer-reviewed papers referenced in this WP article) independent, reliable sources DIRECTLY about WARP Reactor topic per WP guidelines. Not acknowledging the above nor the confusion between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s and WP:NPOSSIBLE seems to point to a lack of understanding or reading of the referenced directly relevant peer-reviewed physics articles. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly quoting the same guidelines with which we were already familiar before this discussion began does not make for a stronger argument. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed . . . repeatedly quoting the same exact WP guideline is perhaps not very useful assuming those participating in the discussion read the entire transcript. However, reading and acknowledging all WP guidelines as a whole is extremely useful. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Brzeziński

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only source is a database-type web site North8000 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO as written. WPNOTACATALOGUE of sportspeple. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly fails GNG. Honestly we could almost speedy this one under A7. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Garcia Leija

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Tagged for notability since early May. More power to them, but this is like an article I would write about my mother. No notability-suitable coverage in any of the sources, they are all just routine records kept of everyone. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Mexico, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish your family history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be an assignment for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Texas Woman's University/American Frontier (Spring 2022) Vexations (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless I'm missing something, I believe this would fall under A7. ETA this is the same educational project that brought us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Vera Davis; is there any way of stopping this happening again? It's a waste of everyone's time. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ian (Wiki Ed) so he is aware. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Cbuchkoski: My particular concern is that the subjects of these two articles are completely lacking in any discernable source of notability or sources that would contribute to meeting the general notability guideline. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article again, this is definitely an A7 candidate, since I see no actual claim of importance. It would be inappropriate for me to tag it as such as I've already !voted here, but I would not disagree with someone else doing so if they see it as such as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is family history research which belongs on Ancestry.com or Findagrave, not Wikipedia. Subject is not notable. Wiki Education Project needs better quality control before allowing student drafts to be published in Mainspace, and/or all Wiki Education Project drafts should be required to go through the AfC process. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:GNG, and Cielquiparle. In 2006, this might have been allowed, but everyone knows in 2022 what Wikipedia is or isn't. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Women in Media Association

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

A WP:BEFORE search shows no WP:SIGCOV in independent sources, only a couple mentions, mostly by members of the group itself. The sourcing in the article is a book where someone mentions being a member of the organization, an article that mentions someone was on the board, and a press release. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Before the article was heavily edited by the association's social media team and vice president, there were more references. However, the sources were either incidental mentions or primary. ~~ lol1VNIO🎂 (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 16:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article having essentially no content or sources, and my inability to find any on google. BrigadierG (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article fails WP:GNG due to lack of mentions in outside sources. It is a borderline PROD or CSD eligibile. Mario Jump 83! 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NORG, WP:SOAP, and WP:SNOW. While this has gotten some social media coverage, there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to call this a notable group. Since it's a religious group, it smacks of soap-boxing. I think the broad consensus in 2022 is that this isn't notable yet. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as withdrawn. Yes, I'm technically WP:INVOLVED here, but as I've been requested by the nominator to close this as withdrawn and nobody's advocating for deletion, I think a little breaking the rules is justifiable. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich Bog

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:RS, in addition to article, may be moved to Arcadia, New York Snowc776 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Snowc776 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Details: This article was previously created as Zurich, New York, as far as I know. No article currently exists for Zurich, so possible redirect to there? And Zurich NY is an existing city, and has a post office in Arcadia, which is nearby.

Snowc776 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like WP wont allow me to edit the comment with this one, so I have to leave it as is. Snowc776 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowc776: - What are you seeing that gives that impression? All the way back to this original content in 2008 this article has been about the bog, it's never had a name change, and Zurich, New York doesn't appear to have ever existed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry about that @Hog Farm I just wanted to see if this could be merged into Arcadia because Zurich is an existing village in NY. I have been to NY before and this wouldve been merged. I get your point about the bog not related to the city itself. So, can you close this and I will remove the AFD notice? Thanks Snowc776 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a federally designated National Natural Landmark, I would think notability is likely. Sources that provide coverage to corroborate this include [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. An alternative could be creation of the Bergen Swamp Preservation Society and merge there along with the organization's other conservation properties which include Bergen-Byron Swamp, another one of the 28 National Natural Landmarks in New York, all of which have articles or are appropriately covered in another article. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, this means natural landmarks doesn't need WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Verifiability? Snowc776 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry???? No, where did I say that?????? I see you've only been here for a week but AFD regulars may know I'm one of the more vehement editors saying that everything must pass GNG and there is no automatic notability. I said notability is likely for NNLs, not that they don't need to meet GNG. But then I provided 9 links that provide coverage indicating this location does pass GNG and verifiability. If you disagree that these are substantive enough I presented an WP:ATD because I think NNLs should still have coverage even if not warranting a stand-alone article. I can create clippings for the newspapers.com results if you can't access them. Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Reywas, which indicate enough to meet WP:GNG here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with @Hog Farm. Thanks for the information @Reywas92 Snowc776 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cheap Trick. RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daxx Nielsen

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

attempted to redirect but it was contested, so here we are. Nielsen doesn't appear to be independently notable of Cheap Trick, so I suggest delete and redirect there. He is not notable as a musician on his own and only has coverage as it relates to being in CT. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Since this article fails WP:GNG and WP:VERF, I would suggest redirecting to Cheap Trick Snowc776 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheap Trick. Except for some minor session appearances his entire body of work is with Cheap Trick and he has not received the necessary coverage is his own right that is needed for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus, and no reason to expect that further discsussion will yield a consensus. BD2412 T 02:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (born 1982)

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

Deposed monarch cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) There has already been a lot of deposed monarchy cruft deleted on Wikipedia, this is another example. This person was never officially a prince, he was born into a former royal family after it was deposed, he is not even a notable pretender. PatGallacher (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Members of the former ruling families of Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, France (Bourbon, Orléans, Bonaparte), Georgia, Greece, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Italy (Savoy, Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Austria-Este, Bourbon-Parma, Habsburg-Lorraine), Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony, Hesse, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Schleswig-Holstein, and even Hawai'i still (to varying degrees--the Hawai'ians and Habsburgs are less keen) use their former titles; in many cases "prince" and "princess", sometimes "duke", "archduke", etc.; even though the last reigning monarchs produced by their families died 100+ years ago. Not only is continuing to use a title once officially held by your family as a mark of recognition for their place in history not "simply not done", it's more common today than actually being officially entitled to such a senior title by virtue of a close, living relative of yours being a reigning monarch. Besides that, Alexander was in the line of the succession to the British throne before the rule was changed Source 1 Source 2. The UK officially recognizes him as a prince. --DragonFederal (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The line of succession to the British throne is believed to consist of several thousand people. However it's not clear that he is in it, as a Serb he is probably Greek Orthodox. Different views about whether they were in the line of succession was one reason why we decided to drastically prune the article on this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sourcing comes from tabloids. The article fails to demonstrate notability (actually, it's a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED); if there was a rule that we have to have an article about all members of deposed royal families, no matter what they have done in their lives, I must have missed it. No such user (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An insignificant person who has not done anything notable. I don't count dating Dunja Kusturica as doing something notable. As for being in the line of the succession to the British throne, so are millions of other people, including me. Athel cb (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to free Wikipedia from deposed monarchy cruft, and that is what this article is. Even members of ruling families are not default notable for existing, we need to have actual reliable source coverage about them. But to think that people from a whole slew of places that removed the monarchy decades before the person was born are notable enough to have an article for that fact alone is not justifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument. Second, besides the sources about him dating Dunja Kusturica 1 and 2 already present on the page, there are also other significant coverage of him elsewhere: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. These alone are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. StellarHalo (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --IndexAccount (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my usual standards for nobility. In this case, there's been more than sufficient coverage, primarily for who he's dated (woman, and, now it appears, men). Bearian (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:ITSCRUFT is only an essay, not a rigid guideline. IMHO "deposed monarchy cruft" is a valid argument, but we can discuss this further. Bearian's personal standards of nobility are only one person's opinion. Who someone might have dated is really trivial, Wikipedia is not a gossip column, may even raise BLP issues. PatGallacher (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it's not clear that this person does meet Bearian's personal standards of notability. PatGallacher (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "All sourcing comes from tabloids" is a non-argument. There is plenty of news coverage here, enough to meet WP:GNG. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everstone Group

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

This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, the vast majority are "Dependent Coverage" based substantially on PR and announcement. Others rely on interviews and have no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a totally unremarkable private equity firm. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = run of the mill private equity firm without significant coverage. This is bordering on spam. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shana Mahaffey

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:AUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the book nomination (though not sourced) (here:https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Fiction-review-Sounds-Like-Crazy-3281991.php] and this [13] where they discuss her book in a paragraph about how it deals with mental illness, might just be notable. Brief synopsis of the book in Publisher's Weekly, [14]. Not a primary source, but she's got an interview here: [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I edited the article a bit and added in one of the sources above. She has two independent reviews of her book Sounds Like Crazy plus a bunch of other interest in sources that are debatable, so I didn't add them in (blogs, interviews) as the two independent reviews is enough to satisfy the minimum bar for WP:AUTHOR. It's not the strongest example as the reviews are not big, but I think it meets the minimum. CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a good case where we need an article on the author's book, not on the author. Almost all of the coverage is about their book so convert this page into their book page and redirect the author name. WorldCat holdings are rather low. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:A1AB:12C4:EC87:8DE0 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the WP:AUTHOR guidelines are supported with sufficient sources, including #3, which includes a significant or well-known work in addition to multiple reviews. Her book is also mentioned as an example in Beware of the Other Side(s): Multiple Personality Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder in American Fiction (p. 374, a paragraph) and briefly in The Plot Whisperer: Secrets of Story Structure Any Writer Can Master (p.123, one sentence), but the book is not the primary subject and these sources do not add much secondary support for significance of the work. Independent and reliable support for WP:BASIC notability also does not appear to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 01:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roush

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

WP:MILL administrator of non-notable college communications school. Subject fails WP:ACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO. 5 and 6 of WP:ACADEMIC refer to "major academic institutions" and the Quinnipiac communications school fails to meet that category. The notable Quinnipiac Poll is unaffiliated with the communications school, which itself is not notable is only mentioned twice and in passing in Quinnipiac University, one of those times to describe how it shares a building with the engineering school. The article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, is thinly sourced, lacks adequate sourcing independent of the subject such as to establish notability, and appears largely self-written based on the article history and preexisting tag. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that dean (at Quinnipiac or elsewhere) is not enough for academic notability on its own, and his citation record looks nothing special. But his former title, Walter E. Hussman, Sr. Distinguished Professor in business journalism at the University of North Carolina, is a pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "block-evading sockpuppet" who created this article: they were a very prolific contributor of very-low-quality sub-stubs on people who were mostly clearly notable. This article looks exactly like this: initially a one-line stub saying that he held the distinguished professor title. It has been significantly expanded since. A bigger issue are the WP:AUTOBIO edits in 2019 by someone with the same name as the subject, but I think there have been enough other contributors to the article to keep any promotionalism at bay. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holding a distinguished professorship at any point at a major university is considered an automatic NPROF pass. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF. Current title notwithstanding (likewise, the relative lack of notability of current workplace), his resume makes it make sense. Keep.
Keep: Passes WP:NPROF as a distinguished professor at a significant university. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Mom (TV series)

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

Sources are a dead link to TV.com, a source so incomplete I can't even tell what it is, and a couple articles about the term "alpha mom" which don't mention the show. The article is trying to be about at least three different uses of "Alpha Mom" all at once. IMDb says that Preston Bailey was in the TV show, but "preston bailey" "alpha mom" turned up zero hits on ProQuest; a regular Google search for the same term turned up only IMDb, Wikipedia mirrors, and similar aggregators. The term itself already has an article at alpha mom, so I have no idea why other editors deemed it necessary to WP:COATRACK other uses onto this page; I found so little about the TV show that I'm almost convinced it's a WP:HOAX. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: While a couple of the sources about the term "alpha mom" in general might be worth merging to alpha mom, I'm not so sure that page passes WP:NEO either and will let other editors decide that page's fate. Either way, I'm about 99% convinced the TV show never existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unaired pilot. [16], [17], [18]. Doesn't pass WP:TVPILOT or WP:GNG. A mention in Alpha Mom could be warranted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) has found a couple passing mentions in television journals, but even she can't figure out whether or not it actually aired. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a hoax. It existed on NBC's pilot board. It is listed on the March 20 and May 15, 2006, editions of TelevisionWeek with this entry:

Alpha Mom. Studio: NUTS [ NBC Universal Television Studio ] Executive Producer: Kerry Ehrin A corporate mom juggles her career and home life. Single camera. Cast: Kevin Rahm, Alexondra Lee, Johnny Sneed, Scott Holroyd, Justina Machado, Michael Mosley

It is also mentioned in Variety on February 2, 2006. The name stuck around enough that another pilot at NBC was renamed Alpha Mom in 2011. It was of no relation: NBC's comedy from Emily Spivey (with Lorne Michaels on board as an exec producer as well) is now “Alpha Mom,” starring Christina Applegate, Will Arnett and Maya Rudolph.

However, NBC never picked up the pilot to series, it never showed up in any TV schedules, and the struggle we had to get sourcing indicates that this does not meet the GNG. Not all of their comedy pilots that year were non-notable duds, I might add... I wonder how Untitled Tina Fey Comedy did? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TVPILOT. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TVPILOT. Nate • (chatter) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It’s an unaired pilot; absolutely no need for an article. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Random number generation. Discussion about a different redirect target can occur on article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randomization function

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

Article on an ill-defined concept, that lacks references. Reasons for deletion:
- Article has no references and has been marked as Unreferenced since 2009. I was not able to find any references for this concept. It seems that the term 'randomization function' is not used systematically in literature.
- The article does not clarify what a 'Randomized function' actually is. If fails to explain how the concept is different from a hash function, a pseudorandom function family or a random permutation The articles states that while 'Randomization functions' are related to hash functions, their uses and requirements are different, but it does not elaborate on this.
- The example about quicksort is actually a nice illustration of the use of randomized algorithms. However, this is explained better at Randomized algorithm and Quicksort
- Only two pages link to this article (Hash function and Checksum). Plusminusone (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Random number generation or specifically to Random number generation#Computational methods. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is a real topic here, as in the field of randomized algorithms, how one goes about randomizing the problems matters--uniform vs nonuniform distributions, is it possible to derandomize an algorithm, etc. But I don't know that the randomizing process in that field is canonically called a "Randomization function". If it is a neologism, then the article should probably be deleted. But if this is standard terminology (my knowledge of the field stops at Motwani and Raghavan), then a redirect to Randomized_algorithm#Motivation which briefly mentions such functions, may be warranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how this article could make sense if it defined a randomization function to be 'a randomized algorithm that maps a problem instance to another equivalent problem instance' or something along that line. However, as far as I know 'Randomization function' is not standard terminology in the field of randomized algorithms. At least, I have not been able to find any references where the term is use like this. Plusminusone (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Random number generation. SWinxy (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Currently this page is 100 % original research. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kerry

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

Kerry was involved with a political party. It is unclear that he ever ran for office, ever held a clear office, or was ever more than a minor public figure. The sourcing we have here, a website basically trying to document as many people connected with this political movement as possible, is enough to show notability. The sourcing clear does not rise to the multiple reliable sources that are indepdent of the subject and each other, and secondary while giving in-depth coverage, that we need to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's sole reference is an unreliable source, and the article states absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV by a wide margin. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional deities

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

This list is unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST. An attempt to list all fictional gods, mostly from zillion works of fantasy, is unwieldy. While there are some listicles about "most powerful god in DC comics" or such, I couldn't find any reliable source attempting to replicate such a list (outside Wikipedia). Of course, the concepts of gods in fiction or such would likely be notable, as an analytical article (my BEFORE does suggest entries on "gods" or such exist in, for example, some encyclopedias of science fiction and fantasy), but a listing of all such entities seems to fail the cited policy (NLIST). I'll add that the previous AfD seems to have a numbe of people confusing this poorly referenced list with the aforementioned "gods in ficton" article, and voting keep, thinking that something could be rescued. Over a year has passed, nothing has been improved, and IMHO nothing here is salvageable (so as far as transforming this into an analytical entry, WP:TNT applies). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I watchlist this article due to an LTA who used to slam every character that was ever even remotely hinted to have "celestial" or "god" powers into it with long grandois titles. Keeping it from continuing to spiral out of control is the best I could do, fixing it is likely impossible. It's poorly defined (What is a deity? We have everything from outright gods to demigods to angels to Hercules-style characters). And even then, it is horribly woefully incomplete. I agree with Piotrus that a gods in fiction article may be something adjacent that could be sourced, however, this list isn't that. If someone believes it was meant to cover gods in fiction more generally, as at least one person stated at the last AFD, then TNT is required to get there. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not cite any sources, and making a complete list of all fictional deities is very impractical. User: Hemanth Nalluri 11 (Talk) 15:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't list all of them, just those that have a valid link to a Wikipedia article about them. Dream Focus 16:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The earlier AfD ended up as "Keep" and it really made no sense. Unless we are saying that "deities" are absolutely real unless they are found in movies, then only it would make sense but we know that is not actually sensible. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s time we kicked Wikipedia’s addiction to wp:indiscriminate zero-effort wp:listcruft and started covering these topics with actual articles like an actual encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just under two years ago, the same person nominated the article for deletion, and the 7 others that showed up to vote all said Keep. This is a perfectly valid list article, aids in navigation, links to related articles. WP:LISTPURP Dream Focus 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason why at least one of those voters, if not more, were topic banned from participation in deletion discussion. I'll note your own topic ban was discussed - but not implemented; I voted against it back then - but your "keep" vote with no argument pertaining to the article in question is hardly best practices. Please tell us why you think the article should be kept. You link to LISTPURP - fair enough, IMHO that guideline is not met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a clear reason. And what part of that guideline do you not believe is met? Also the list has more information than the category does Category:Fictional deities so is more useful for those seeking to find information about fictional deities. Dream Focus 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a purpose is not enough (per Wikipedia:ITSUSEFULL). Meeting Manual of Style is not sufficient to warrant keeping in article, when other policies (LISTN, SYNTH) are not met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the list was correctly kept two years ago on the grounds that it fully met the list notability criteria, and that the topic was (and remains now) certainly notable. I don't actually understand why editors should ignore a clear consensus of that type when nothing of significance has changed in the interval — it's close to an abuse of process really. The deletion reasons given above are incorrect and inapplicable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While a navigational list on the topic might be valid, there are just too many problems with how this is one is currently presented. First, many of the listed examples are not notable, and do not link to their own articles - not only are there many with no blue links at all, but many of the blue linked entries themselves are misleading, as they do not actually link to an independent article on the deity. Several of the blue linked entries also fail the actual criteria of the list, of "not include deities worshipped by humans in real life that appear in fictional works" - a number of these entries are, in fact, just "real world" deities that happened to have appeared in a piece of fiction. Second, without a single source being used to verify any of this information, the whole thing is filled with WP:OR - many of the entries here are highly debatable if they are, in fact, "deities", and there are some that I would argue flatly are not. Without valid sourcing, this would not be proper to keep even as a navigational list due to those WP:OR concerns. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an option you can unlock that makes blue links that are only redirects appear green instead of blue. Most of the blue links are in fact their own articles. Real life gods people once believed in have separate articles for their comics versions. Ares (DC Comics), Hercules (DC Comics), Hercules (Marvel Comics), Odin (Marvel Comics), Thor (Marvel Comics), etc. Dream Focus 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "DC" or "Marvel" versions of the characters still do not fall into the scope of the list, which is very specifically stated to be "deities exclusively for fictional works" that "does not include deities worshipped by humans in real life that appear in fictional works". As in, deities that were originally created for a piece of fiction, not "real" deities that have been adapted for a piece of fiction, in the way that the examples you brought up are. This list, as presented, is for "fictional deities", as in, deities that do not "exist", not a list of "real" deities portrayed in fiction, which is an entirely different topic. Rorshacma (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. It now clarifies: This is a list of deities exclusively for fictional works, organized primarily by media type then by title of the fiction work, series, franchise or author. This list does not include deities worshiped by humans in real life that appear in fictional works unless they are distinct enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article separate than the articles for the entities they are based on. Dream Focus 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now, can you show a single, reliable source that contains such a grouping, so that LISTN would be met? Let me help you with what is required: "accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: A single source? How about The Greenwood Encyclopedia, pages 349 and following. Daranios (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Err, what's the problem with this list again? WP:NOTCLEANUP is still a thing - if it's unreferenced, just add them yourself. Fictional deities is still a rather prominent category of characters in fiction that deserves to be listed, and most of the links in the list are bluelinks. Listing all fictional gods is unnecessary, just ones that have articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [19], [20], [21]. GNG is met, topic is notable, cleanup may proceed per normal editing process. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those are decent sources for writing an article on religion in fiction/culture, not a list of fictional gods. That's why we can have Cuckoo clock in culture, but list of fictional cuckoo clocks would a harebrained idea :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional cuckoo clocks aren't discussed as a group in reliable sources, while the topic of fictional gods absolutely is. That argument is merely false equivalence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Piotrus. None of these studies discuss specific fictional gods as a group. One is specific to Final Fantasy, one is specific to a single Virgin Comics line, and the last is about the very concept of fictional deities and building them out, rather than a discussion about a group of already existent characters. Good sources for a gods in fiction or similar, but does not appear to contribute to LISTN. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out above, mythical deities are discussed as a set in sources (User:Jclemens has sources right above me), and this meets NLIST. The list article itself is linking to notable Wikipedia entries that themselves have sources. Lists of Wikipedia notable subjects with articles often do not have sources in the list itself, as the references are in the listed articles, that's not a cause for deletion. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge everything that doesn't have its own article.★Trekker (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How is WP:NLIST met again? Where is a single source that attempts to list all (or even "important") fictional gods? This is fancruft and WP:OR. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I believe that the article can be recreated if needed but with a name like "Gods in fiction" as suggested by the nominator. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: WP:NLIST is not (only) met by secondary sources listing fictional gods, but rather by secondary sources which discuss "fictional gods" or "gods in fiction" as a "grouping or set in general". For such sources, see below. Daranios (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the possibility to create a new gods in fiction article, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply restrict to deities which are treated on Wikipedia somewhere, i.e. have blue links, to avoid it becoming "unwieldy". (Having the respective sub-lists also avoids this problem exactly the way WP:SALAT suggests we should do this.) I find this list very appropriate for navigational purposes according to WP:LISTPURP. As for this topic supposedly failing WP:LISTN: A number of sources have been pointed out which cover different parts of the topic, both here and in the previous discussion. Additionally, sources that discuss the topic as a set or group would be The Greenwood Encyclopedia, pages 349 and following, The Science-Fiction Encyclopedia, and arguably Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, p. 461 and following and the conference Fantastic Religions and Where to Find Them: Deities, Myths and Rites in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Daranios (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Excellent sources, some of which I mentioned before, for gods in fiction, a proper analytical treatment, different from a list of trivia we are discussion. The listing of all times fictional gods were invented in various works, most of which are not notable, is TVTropes material. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I think a gods in fiction article would be nice to have. It would be for discussion of the subject. That's no reason not to have a list, which is for annotated navigation between those deific characters which already have articles or article sections on Wikipedia. By this restriction, which in large parts is already implemented in the list as is, solves the problems you have raised. Daranios (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator's rationale. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Lots of blue links with a transparently rational organizing criteria. BD2412 T 01:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gods (DC Comics)

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

This is a mostly unreferenced de facto list, but it fails WP:NLIST. My BEFORE found only low quality listicles (ex. [22] or [23] which are not very reliable). As an article, it fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. While the concept of gods and religion in comics is likely notabe, a listing of god characters and even "events involving gods" (such a section exists in the article) seems like simple WP:FANCRUFT (and rather problematic, as it lists a number of entities that are fictional, like Atlantean gods, and such, plux many entries are just simple descriptions "The Mexican gods are a pantheon of both Mayan and Aztec deities.", not even confirming that Mexican gods indeed appeared in DCverse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not a single source being used outside of the comics themselves and some fan sites. The article consists entirely of in-universe plot information, and does not even serve as a useful navigational list, as nearly every entry just links to the article on the real-world version of the various pantheons. While some of the individual entries here (such as the New Gods) are notable on their own and have valid sourcing, there really is not any reliable, secondary sources that discuss the overall concept of "gods" in general in the DCU that would pass the WP:GNG. I suppose this could be Redirected to List of cosmic entities in DC Comics, which pretty much covers the same characters, but that list is pretty terrible itself. Rorshacma (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary-sourced fancruft that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Out of curiosity, how do you think it is worse then the general list of fictional deities? Here at least we have the listicles. For the big list, we have zip. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general list is a workable topic. And in fact has a more compact list of - bluelinked - DC Comics deities there already, meaning this page is totally superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm I don't get how is it workable topic, instead of an invitation to list each and every fictional god in existence (well, fictional existence...). It's no different from any generic list of fictional entities, really, given lack of sources attempting to recreate such lists outside Wikipedia (failure of NLIST). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe every fictional god should be listed. Only ones with articles, i.e. the ones in Category:Fictional deities. Categories and lists can coexist, especially since typical visitors will always want an actual list over a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there aren't any reliable independent sources to substantiate this article or its WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to be entirely WP:OR, which says if no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable secondary SIGCOV. LISTN is a failure, but even treating it as a non-list, it's a GNG failure. -- ferret (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The linkage between these mostly unrelated topics is pretty tenuous. Concur with everyone above. - 2pou (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all. Totally WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neonode

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

Poorly referenced and rather promotional, with most of the content about their products and not the company. I figured, being a 20+ YO listed company, there must be plenty of sources available to support this, but actually found nothing beyond the usual primary ones. Hence, fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Engineering, and Sweden. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1977)

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

Previously deleted article. Insufficient references. Whiteguru (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2012-05 undefined (closed as ✗ delete)

Logs: 2022-05 ✍️ create ← 2012-05 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD, so others don't need to go on a treasure hunt: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's Award for Enterprise (mass nomination) Star Mississippi 02:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Jurevicius

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

Written mostly by the subject, and appears to fail WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he's mentioned here in context of a film: [24]. Can possibly be notable with more sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scarygirl gets lots of coverage. Peleda is notable. He won an AACTA award. He gets a reasonable amount, examples about him and his work Mathieson, Craig (31 March 2005), "Sweet, scary stuff", The Age And Peri, Sophie (8 December 2012), "Scary girl who's just so popular", The Advertiser duffbeerforme (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Fayad (Lebanese footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG, as the sources are just passing mentions. Transfermarkt is also not a reliable source. Furthermore, he has not played for the Lebanon (senior) national team, as attested by the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Lebanon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esurient Communications

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG according to my searches in Google News and Google Books, all of which are just trivial mentions of the label. ProQuest has nothing at all. BNA has only one passing mention. Not one of the more important indie labels as per WP:NMUSIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Coldwater

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

Failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; insufficient independent & secondary sources; article reads like a CV (see: what Wikipedia is not) WikiEditor93B (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's on the edge, but I think the coverage in Reuters, the multiple mentions in an O'Reilly book on Kubernetes, and the several references to Coldwater as an influential Kubernetes and computer security community member put this into keep territory. I've cleaned up the cites a bit and swapped out some independent ones. I disagree that it reads like a CV, though even if it did that is a surmountable problem. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One mention in a hacker book, but it looks like an interview they did with this person. Not really much else found for sources, was a panelist at an EFF talk recently on LGBTQ issues, and the pronoun used is "They" as well. I can't find any coverage of the event itself. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable and the article should not stay because the guidelines have not been met. The interview does not help .IrishOsita (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Myint Tun

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

I can't find any coverage on this person using Burmese or Latin script. Google News and ProQuest have no relevant hits. Burmese script has even less coverage and none of it seems relevant at all. The current sourcing in this BLP is unacceptable and WP:GNG isn't demonstrated here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaung Myat Kyaw

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

The Myanmar Times source is only a passing mention of the subject; searches in Burmese script yield nothing of use at all. Searches in Google of his English name yield only news coverage of a criminal investigation and nothing about this footballer. Likewise in DDG. Can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have sourcing that rises to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endi Brahimi

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

Would likely survive PROD due to technically meeting the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline for a handful of games in the second tier of Albania. Sources cited are stats only and the article itself is a stats stub. Google News has no hits. DDG has only stats database, Wikipedia itself and social media. ProQuest has no hits and redirects the search to "ends Brahimi" instead. WP:GNG not demonstrated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are clearly not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Aizuddin

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE only turned up trivial coverage and statistics 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Cross

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

No significant roles or coverage. WP:COI issues (major contributions by User:Yelrahssorc). Promotional. – Ploni (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Ploni (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he has enough notable acting roles like The Believers, The Boy Who Cried Bitch, Perdita Durango and was a regular on two short-lived TV series Sister Kate and Dudley to meet actor guidelines. He has also received non-trival coverage in newspapers and The Hollywood Reporter to meet the GNG guidelines as well 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure how notable his post acting projects are, but it doesn't seem like they have received and independent coverage besides his involvement with the Mint company which got coverage from Business Week. The article could be rewritten to be less promotional and unverifiable statements could be removed altogether instead of deleting the whole article. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable enough. Just needs some rewriting to address the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" concern. Fifthapril (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent references in the article. The only reference cited from Business Week, seems to be deleted https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/smallbiz/content/jul2001/sb20010725_470.htm This itself is very suspicious. GoldenAgeFan1 mentions that he is cited in the Hollywood Reporter, but that is not cited in this article, and a google search does not turn it up. As this stands fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:PaulPachad I forgot to post the archived Business Week article, but yes, the original link no longer live on the Business Week website. 5 The Hollywood Reporter citation is the 4th link I posted above. It is not on The Hollywood Reporters website, like many older articles are not. I link I posted was from Proquest's archive. Would you mind checking out those 5 links I've provided my previous post and this one and see if you still think he fails the GNG? 05:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)GoldenAgeFan1 (talk)

Delete lacks secondary sources and SIGCOV. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is no consensus and lively debate has been ongoing during the relist period. Further discussion encouraged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources do not make a compelling case. IrishOsita (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte Holdings

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

The article "Lotte Holdings" is unnecessary to be available. Ridwan97 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Like the last AfD nomination by the same user, the rationale is clearly invalid. This time, it is also incoherent. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. --Jklamo (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics)

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

Like the related article Cosmic entity (DC Comics), this article consists entirely of WP:OR and does not prove that the topic meets WP:GNG. The lone source ia a Polygon op-ed that speaks of a "cosmic universe" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but not of cosmic entities. The associated list, which is also included in this AfD, seems to be more coherent than its DC counterpart, but is based solely on primary sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR.XavierItzm (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR that might be hard pressed to sell even at fan wiki. Marvelpedia calls them cosmic beings, I think: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Glossary:Cosmic_Beings and that's where they belong, given failure at WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a huge fan of most of the characters on the list, but there's very little tying them together outside of "they're powerful and live in space." Argento Surfer (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - Unsourced outside of primary books, poorly defined, and huge amounts of WP:OR. The list and article don't even seem to agree on what a "Cosmic entity" is in Marvel comics, which just demonstrates how little of this information is actually based on any kind of reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. This is a perfectly valid list article, aids in navigation, links to related articles. WP:LISTPURP. Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities exist. Anything that shouldn't be on the list or that doesn't have an article linked to, can be removed through normal editing procedures. Dream Focus 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://collider.com/thor-love-and-thunder-trailer-marvel-cosmic-entities-explained/ https://www.cbr.com/marvel-strongest-cosmic-entities/ calls them "cosmic entities" and list some of them. Dream Focus 03:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 18:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both In this case, the articles are fancruft that fail WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both neither article has reliable independent sources to verify the WP:NOTABILITY of each topic. They may even be WP:OR as no reliable sources have established this as a concept, indicating that it was WP:SYNTHesized by the editors who made these articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:LISTN. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Lack of reliable secondary SIGCOV. The main article fails WP:GNG, the list fails WP:LISTN. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dronebogus (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both As per ferret's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per all. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Higdon

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

Appears to fail WP:NWRITER. Sources given are the subject's website, a press release, a local news article written by the subject, etc., etc. Ploni (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's a running genius. <g> Article is/was a mess but he's notable. I added NYT and Runners' World. Will come back to this if time allows during the AfD. If I don't, can closer please draftify this for me? I can clean it up. Star Mississippi 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - material provided by Star Mississippi above seems to push things into the notable side. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and sources added would establish/have established that. Maybe the lead and wording can be fixed to highlight why he is notable rather than what he has done most recently. IrishOsita (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hertneky

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

Fails Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST. – Ploni (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pennsylvania. Ploni (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Wikipedia Library is finding an entry in Contemporary Authors 2018, p192-193, but I can't access it. Also an interview in Poets & Writers Magazine (Vol. 44, Issue 6, November-December 2016). A few more reviews of his single book, plus some routine coverage of talks he's given. If there's not enough on the author, we could perhaps rework to his book, which has plenty of reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doruk Dora

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and insufficient significant secondary coverage so fails WP:SPORTBASIC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Turkey. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he played in the top league. Kadı Message 17:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with rsjaffe 🗣️ no independent credible sources and fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty weird to see that NBASKETBALL only covers US leagues (I mean, there are some EU leagues that don't suck). I did find this short piece about him getting a surgery, and this interview with Eurosport, but that's not enough to pass GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sazolie College

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

WP:MILL institute, no evidence of notability per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Redirecting to Nagaland University is an option, but I tried that and the redirect was reverted. Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Muhandes (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whatever we do with this should probably also apply to Pfütsero_Government_College which appears to be a similar organisation with similar status, also linked to Nagaland university. It would help if we had input from someone who understands the Indian educational system; there is no exact parallel for this sort of degree-awarding mini-University in the UK, so I have no feeling for how notable they might be. Merge-and-redirect would be okay, provided the link between Sazolie and Nagaland is strong, and the information on Sazolie (and Pfütsero) sits well in Nagaland; at the moment, a search of Nagaland's own website brings almost no hits for Sazolie, which argues against. Elemimele (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think discussions on the article talk page can begin on both whether the article should be renamed or the article merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination based on hair texture

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

This article's subject (discrimination allegedly based on hair texture) doesn't seem to actually be a 'thing'.

Much of the article is unsourced. What is sourced fits into two categories, either: 1) it's a sub-set of racism (afro hair etc), as stated by both the article and sources, thus should be discussed in Racism; or 2) is misrepresentation of the source. Like the example in the "Jamaica" section is (per the source) blatantly not "discrimination based on hair texture" but rather it is (quoting the source) discrimination based on religion.

Googling "Discrimination based on hair texture" finds sources that discuss the issue in the context of racism.[25][26] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A very difficult AfD. The discrimination is cited. It's just not clear to me if the discrimination is about race or hair texture and to reach a conclusion on that would seem like original research, or opinion. So I don't want to do that. I think deleting this would be a step too far, so I'd start off by discouraging that. As for an actual !vote, I'll pause and see if people have better takes than me.... 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to racism, or have a subsection on it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content, but perhaps rename to something like "Discrimination against Afro-textured hair" or merge to Afro-textured hair, reflecting the actual content. Discrimination against African hair is definitely a real thing and a distinct encyclopedic topic, amply covered in many sources. But "discrimination based on hair texture" would suggest grouping this with, e.g., general anti-curly-hair prejudice and whatever other texture-based discriminations may exist, which wouldn't really make sense structurally. (Side note: it would be great (but a lot of work) to have an umbrella article on hair discrimination, which currently redirects to this article.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or shorten and merge into a broader article on different types of discrimination. I don’t think the topic is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oh dear. Yeah, it's a thing. It's an extremely well documented and studied thing and absolutely should not be redirected all the way up to racism. The two main questions are: (1) the extent to which the topic is broader than discrimination related to Afro-textured hair. That I'm not as sure about. If not, the approach is to move/rename it. (2) the extent to which it's notable outside of the US (given the existence of a separate article on Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States). It took seconds to find a whole lot of sources about this discrimination elsewhere. Just in the UK: BBC, Huffington Post, Huffington Post again, Independent, Independent again. These are from the first page of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly Merge. Agree 100% with CT55555's initial comment - this is a tricky one. Looking at the comment above from Rhododendrites, is it possible that we could merge the content from Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States into this article? I know that may be beyond the scope of a typical AfD discussion, but this particular one seems really thorny. There's obviously plenty of coverage on the topic even outside the scope of the US, and the very article we are discussing here is pretty well cited. I definitely don't see any case for deleting it altogether, but what exactly we should do with it is much harder to determine. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with keep by analogy to Discrimination_against_people_with_red_hair, where we had an extensive deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_against_people_with_red_hair, as the discrimination does seem to be documented. Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites. -KH-1 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a notable and increasingly important aspect of anti- discrimination law and norms in many places, although I'm agnostic about the exact title. Regarding the US, see also CROWN Act of 2022 and CROWN Act (California). Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG, and would not be against merger of the two named articles. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — numerous sources exist to demonstrate notability, and there are many more sources that exist and that haven’t been cited yet. White 720 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Mana'o

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and added sources including the 2018 Associated Press article on the return of the American Samoa women's football team to a FIFA Women's World Cup qualifying tournament for the first time in 20 years, which was widely syndicated to publications including NBCSports.com. The AP article includes a quote from Alma Mana'o, who was co-captain of the American Samoa squad, and also holds the record for number of caps for American Samoa (7 total, 1 more than her sister Ava). To be honest, I'm not sure if Alma's sisters' and cousin's Wikipedia articles would survive AfD on their own, but out of four of them, Alma has just enough coverage to justify keeping hers. Given the challenges in finding coverage on Oceania teams and athletes, I think this is one that just manages to make it over the line thanks to the AP, and perhaps the Women's Football Task Force or the Oceania projects would be able to uncover additional sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single source and quote are not enough for WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is arguably a little more than that now in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good expansion work by Cielquiparle. EternalNomad (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following article improvement. Did nominator even attempt BEFORE? Giant Snowman 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle Mujinga (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elcy Lui

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushalii Kumar

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

Fails per Wikipedia:Notability. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. From what I see, she's never had a starring role, and her body of work is not substantial. Ping me if you find something more. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly fails notability. ManaliJain (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion needed more engagement to establish a consensus about whether the coverage is substantial or trivial/routine, but unfortunately there were no further comments after the two relists. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Wales–St. Sebastian's Cricket Encounter

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

This article was deleted via a PROD and was restored. The reasons behind the PROD remain. The article is about an inter-school cricket match, which although played since 1933, lacks wider historical significance. The article is largely based around WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA, so lacks any depth in writing to establish notability and the sources correspond to this, being all pretty much WP:ROUTINE. As school cricket is considered minor cricket, there would have to be a historical significance to satisfy WP:NCRIC; in this case, I can't see any. Matches such as the Eton v Harrow match meet this requirement, and the Royal–Thomian match is probably the closest Sri Lankan match to meet this requirement. It might be better to expand the Big Match article to detail all these matches there, using reliable sources and stepping away from a long list of stats and trivia. In their current form, all (with the exception I believe of the Royal–Thomian match) fail WP:GNG. This article also uses incorrect terminology: Test and ODI matches won't be played by a school cricket team!!! StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is poorly written in places, and bloated with trivia and statistics, as the nomination states. However, the match appears to get decent coverage in the Sri Lankan national press each year, plenty enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough here for a GNG pass, although large amounts of the article could be shortened or removed entirely. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When talking about WP:NCRIC, cricketers who have played in this tournament from both sides have represented the game in Sri Lanka national cricket team, including 1996 World Cup winner Romesh Kaluwitharana and Sri Lanka Captain Duleep Mendis. The current players representing Sri Lanka include Oshada Fernando, Vishwa Fernando, Avishka Fernando, Praveen Jayawickrama and Amila Aponso, all of whom are from St. Sebastian’s and Kusal Mendis and Lahiru Thirimanne are from Prince of Wales'. And other players who have played for the SL national team are mentioned in the article itself. And Amila Aponso will be played in MLC. And for WP:GNG as fellow Wikipedian Harrias said this tournament is getting decent coverage in the Sri Lankan national press each year. And in the recent years, matches are showing live on satellite tv service Dialog TV channel 140 in Sri Lanka, and it's live streaming on thepapare.com and on the ViU streaming app worldwide. (Please see this news article if you need any verification). Userpwc1 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)— Userpwc1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Just because notable people have played in this tournament, it doesn't necessarily make the tournament itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userpwc1 you've misunderstood NCRIC, just because an individual has gone onto play at a higher level, it doesn't mean the cricket club, match, or league they might have played in is notable. My local cricket club had the Lillywhite family play for them, but the club doesn't have an article because it isn't notable in its own right. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is just WP:TRIVIA. No prejudice against an unevolved editor creating a new article in the future if they can demonstrate notability, but this current article is junk that doesn't prove it passes WP:GNG. Best to delete it and start again. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 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)} 02:37, 23 May 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)} 02:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda Program on Cancer and Infectious Diseases

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

So this is a true for discussion as I'm not sure how to best handle this article from the 2010 backlog. I can find no sourcing beyond confirmation that the program existed and operated for several years. I contemplated a merger to Makerere University but the medical school that houses this program is not mentioned there. Uganda Cancer Institute is a possible redirect, but it's a joint venture (or was, unclear if it's still operational, website is now selling aromatherapies). It's not mentioned at Mulago_National_Specialised_Hospital#Mulago_Hospital_Complex, although UCI is mentioned there but noted as separate. Thoughts? Ideas? A merger could be done wouldn't be super helpful as there's nothing to merge beyond its existence. Star Mississippi 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Uganda. Star Mississippi 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some citations that confirm some of the facts that needed citations, and suggest notability, I need to reflect if they confirm it, the mentions could be too brief. I thought I had hit jackpot here but the authors are affiliated and it's not peer reviewed, nonetheless it's published by Harvard so I don't fully discount it. "Closing the Cancer Divide: An Equity Imperative. (2012). United Kingdom: Harvard University Press." clearly talks about the centre in chapter 6, but I can't get access. There does appear to be substantial coverage here https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/lifestyle/2009/10/27/liv-553349-shtml/14619484007/ and here https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/93905/uganda-new-facility-concentrate-cancer CT55555 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep based on:

The sources I've added and mentioned above
Admittedly some WP:LIKE combined with some desire to see wikipedia having better coverage of issues like cancer care in Uganda, which I value, compared to a lot of the popular culture articles that seem overall to prevalent, but of course my personal views on that should probably be discounted, please forgive the rant. CT55555 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 21 May 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)} 02:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the [[WP:RS}|sourcing]]. I've seen much worse. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brightly.eco

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

WP:SERIESA. WP:GNG. Not notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete My searches didn't find much more. And the sources are mostly trivial mentions or non-independent coverage – aren't enough to meet WP:NCORP's requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Worldsolarpower (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SERIESA is applied correctly here. FalconK (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles about it. Fails GNG. Samanthany (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tapovan Maharaj

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keep: Appears to meet WP:NBASIC notability guideline. Has at least one bio (Krishnakumar, 2007), plus is mentioned in varying levels of depth (none in great depth, but level varies) in numerous other publications, such as by scholars on Himalayan scene; for NBASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." --Presearch (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an in-house biography; not a RS. Who are "scholars on Himalayan scene"? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against restoration to draft if additional sources can be found to support notability. It is correctly pointed out that there is a paucity of sources supporting inclusion of this subject, which is consistent with an absence of notability. BD2412 T 02:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daman Sood

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

WP:BLP of a sound recording engineer, making no claim of notability beyond the fact that he exists and citing no sourcing beyond his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One non-trivial mention in a book: [27] and a few mentions in GNews, first one looks notable, [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The BCI" is an organization, not a GNG-eligible media outlet, and that hit is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable’ Veteran sound engineer, article needs to be build upon. Media sources would be scant, some work would be required thus. Incidentally found it while searching for him. So I believe worth saving. Let’s work on it . Indian cinema and Indian music task force can be notified --Ekabhishek^talk 05:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" and "media sources would be scant" cannot coexist. Notability is specifically a measure of the quality and depth of a person's media sourcing, and thus inherently cannot be achieved at all without media sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 25 May 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)} 02:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree that there is a contradiction in saying a subject is notable and that sources are hard to find. IrishOsita (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela J. H. Slutz

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

The coverage is not independent of the subject and the coverage in independent sources is insignificant. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I have started adding in coverage of her work. She has received a number of notable awards, although I have only found an independent source for one of them as yet. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she has received awards from the presidents of Mongolia and China, but I am having trouble finding WP:RS for those honors. Unfortunately my language skills do not extend to the necessary languages. Hence, I base my change to weak keep on the presumption that someone else will fare better in finding the sources needed to support those honors. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Helpful addition of citations by DaffodilOcean. I've also deleted two of the award sentences which remained unsourced and frankly aren't needed to establish notability and really come across as COI padding. (However, those two sentences are "parked" for now on the Talk page in case anyone wants to find sources for them in the future.) Yes, overall the article could use a bit more work so it sounds less like a CV, and yes, even more sources could be added, but I don't think those are reasons enough to delete the article of this notable career diplomat. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made further updates, including additional citations and clean up. I think this is a pretty uncontroversial "keep". Cielquiparle (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloke kicks ball for large city team for one match - notable. Person represents her country at talking to VIPs about global issues is maybe notable?? That would be very silly. Ambassadors are de facto notable. All this stuff about sourcing and coi is irrelevant. This is an afd not a discussion about sourcing. Victuallers (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following recent work on article Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists, too little participation to establish a deletion consensus for an article that is not eligible for soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Kisio-Skorupa

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

This woman does not have any causes of encyclopedism. Sources provided in this article describe only vagueness and non-important facts and information. That person is only a small polish influencer who isn't known besides the circle of her fans. She is not all-polish-known celebrity. She's running only yt channel and not so big Instagram profile. She's most recognisable due to the fact of having a daughter actress who additionally isn't so much recognized polish actress. In Polish wikipedia article about her was repeatedly deleted and she comes back over and over again due to trolls, probably psycho fans who wants her to be visible in wikipedia. However, they don't have any rational argument proving her encyklopedysm. The Wolak (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Wolak (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, News media, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What little SIGCOV there is is limited to Polish equivalents of gossip websites and taboloids (WP:DAILYMAIL-like). IMHO fails WP:NBIO. PS. Deleted at last once from pl wiki, now forked (both forks about to be deleted), seems like a case of persistent spam. WP:SALTing might be worth it, just in case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC) PS. Deleted from pl wiki, where a sock has created this article under several alt names too. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izabela_Kisio-Skorupa&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izabela_Kisio&action=edit&redlink=1 . If this is SALTed here (as I recommend), please also salt Izabela Kisio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion contested on the talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the one argument made is on policy - relisting for further policy discussion from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Liedel

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

Fails WP:COLLATH and WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant independent secondary coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Michigan. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most players in division 1 college men's basketball are not notable. Even fewer in divsion 1 college women's basketball. I am willing to guess that no one anywhere is notable for playing in division 2 college women's basketball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like she has two sources that discuss her as an individual from Yahoo News and Monroe News. Its true that it's only division one, but WP:COLLATH says its notable if they have national coverage. PaulPachad (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no national coverage, which still needs to be sustained. The Yahoo article is just a local newspaper article reposted so we really have two writeups in Liedel's hometown newspaper and not much else. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 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)} 01:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Non-independent coverage from sources affiliated with her, such as her school, do not count towards notability. The only other significant coverage I found was from Monroe News. Per GNG: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. More independent, reliable sources of signifcant coverage is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azreen Zulkafali

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage, only brief mentions and statistics 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time for Wikipedia to stop having sports stat table entries masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Webb

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

Per WP:NCRYPTO, When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject. In light of this, the sources in the article do not establish that the article subject has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources, as the current sources are (in order of appearance):

The crypto project's website;
A crypto-specific news site;
The crypto project's website (again);
A second crypto-specific website;
A TedX bio;
A now-deadlink that is a raw interview;
A website for a Slack-like company;
A crypto-specific news website;
A crypto-specific news website;
The same crypto-specific news website as the previous one
A crypto-specific news website;
A whitepaper from a Venture Capital firm's crypto-specific website;
A crypto-specific new site;
A Forbes contributor source (see WP:FORBESCON.

After searching online, I am unable to find mainstream coverage of this crypto project that covers it significantly, independently, and comes from a reliable source. As such, I think this should article should either be deleted or be redirected to Thomas Webb (artist), the project's founder. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Cryptocurrency, and Internet. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the angle of being a video game, WP:VG/S's custom search has a single hit, CNET. This isn't enough to pass GNG. At least as a VG, it doesn't look like it was seriously considered by any VG outlets. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have even been noticed outside the crypto echo chamber. Even inside the cryptosphere, it doesn't seem to be getting much attention beyond the fact that it exists, and there's some number of dollars involved. Which is pretty routine coverage for any new token. ApLundell (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most sources are either unreliable or don't provide the significant third party coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another promotional crypto game article. As stated above by everybody else, none of the sources establish notability. Merko (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRYPTO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, most sources are from unreliable crypto news sources, and heavily self promotes the subject in question to the point that it sounds like a press release. Most search results for 'Worldwide Webb' lead to crypto websites, the game's social media accounts, 'news' websites that seem to advertise the game, business websites about the game creator, and crypto value tracker websites. Overall, the subject in question is not notable and is only covered by crypto/video game websites or given few mentions on a CNET article on projects that utilize the metaverse and cryptocurrency. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This extremely recent project has spent a great deal of effort getting paid coverage, such as the citation to AP which is actually a piece that PR Newswire was paid to carry, syndicated. There's no notability at all here, just passing mentions. If in a year this is still even around and has received some independent press, consider again. FalconK (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are updated press articles from reliable sources and sources independent from the topic. This project has been included in independent press for years and received notable recognition to pass WP:GNG with these additions. Argueably, it has more reliable sources than some of the other articles featured in Category:Blockchain games. Lvlyxl (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvlyxl Claims of suitable reliable secondary sources require proof. Where are they? The nom has already explained why the sources above are unsuitable. Where are the crypto-independent sources? -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has since been updated since nom's assessments. Full article about the game in Berliner Zeitung. Nomination for technical achievement award in video games at the Webby Awards - along with many more sources of credibility added to the original article. Lvlyxl (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Berliner Zeitung is about the earlier project, "Exercise in Hopeless Nostalgia", not the 2021 project, as is the Webby award. A related but separate topic in the end. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are both the same project, game and engine - as mentioned by the founder and curators in multiple sources(pg.13). The article is following the same convention of documenting iterations and updates of the game as used in other video games such as Minecraft. Please give proof to suggest that they are separate projects. Lvlyxl (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these sources are significant coverage independent of the subject, and are on reliable. My "delete" suggestion is weakened. Merko (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Webby nomination is not in-depth or notable. Even if WP:NWEB applied here, it requires winning the award, not being nominated. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by NBCSN. ✗plicit 01:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fanarchy

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I wasn't able to turn up anything more on DuckDuckGo or ProQuest. Available coverage is limited to routine "new show announced" coverage, press releases and blog posts speculating about what the then-unreleased show might be like. As it stands, it's not entirely clear that the show ever actually aired. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sports. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my prod and redirect were both contested, but I still stand by the reasoning given by both my original prod and by the nominator. There is a lot of "this show is about to begin" but literally nothing afterward. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird, a similar "coming soon" that never came. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by NBCSN I do remember this airing a couple times, but outside of that, the network in that era had a lot of failing shows that lasted a few weeks. Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is proof that the show actually aired, I don't see any point in a redirect. So far, no one has been able to prove that the show even aired at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is not enough coverage. Fails GNG. Samanthany (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by NBCSN (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow editors to do a selective merge to the target article and to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. I verified that the show has aired. Here are two sources (the first source says the television series will debut on 7 June 2009 and the second source published on 17 July 2009 says that Zach Selwyn is "currently the host of Fanarchy on Versus"):
1. Levine, Stuart (2009-05-11). "Versus to launch 'Fanarchy'". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: "Sports cabler net Versus will launch a weekly show that will give fans a chance to speak their minds. “Fanarchy” will debut at 11 p.m. Sunday, June 7, but will subsequently air regularly at 10:30 p.m. Tuesdays."
2. "GeekDad Interviews the "Engineers of Destruction" from Catch It Keep It". Wired. 2009-07-17. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes (my bolding): "Zach Selwyn meanwhile, is an actor/singer-songwriter and the host of Catch It Keep It along with the aforementioned Mike Senese. Zach recorded the theme music for the show and has released five CDs with his band "Zachariah and the Lobos Riders." He is also currently the host of Fanarchy on Versus."
Cunard (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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