Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 12	May 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Davies (author)[edit]

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

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

Adam Davies is an author; that's legitimately all I can find about him other than primary sources about him or his books. I am also nominating his book for the same reason; not only can I not find any significant coverage, but the alleged 2011 film does not appear to have ever been made. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, United States of America, and Kentucky. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's reviews of The Frog King in Publisher's Weekly here; in the Baltimore Sun here; and Kirkus Reviews here. There's reviews of Goodbye Lemon in Willamette Weekly here; the Observer here; the Portland Mercury here; the Chicago Tribune here; and KSL here. There's reviews of his book Mine All Mine in SFGate here; Publisher's Weekly here; and the Review Journal here. He's read at Coastal Carolina University here. There's coverage on the author in Sarasota Magazine here; the Herald Tribune here; and the Oklahoma Gazette here. I'm actually pretty confused about this nomination. --Kbabej (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The topic seems notable but it is not cited with any reference. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JoyStick101! Sources just need to exist, not necessarily be present in the article (although the latter is preferable long term). Per WP:CONRED, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 22:17, 4 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!} 23:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kbabej has provided all the evidence needed; there's nothing more to add. Both articles are stubs, and neither are great, but neither need TNT and I don't think redirecting one into another would be of any help to anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add: the mention of the 2011 film is indeed very strange and the IMDB link goes nowhere, so I've simply removed it. If someone wants to add it back in with a source, by all means do so. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kbabej won me over. — Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep albeit weakly Star Mississippi 01:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Auster[edit]

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

I don't believe he is notable, the article is heavily based on unreliable sources (mainly his own blog), and I don't think there are enough reliable sources out there to fix it. Hence given the paucity of reliable sources to cite, I feel he is not notable and the article is better off deleted. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources on the page are mostly just his own website, but there's a lot more out there that could be incorporated. In the book Huddled Masses, Muddled Laws, author Kenneth Lee states Auster's Path to National Suicide "has gone on to become a cult classic among restrictionists", and Peter Brimelow from Forbes compared it to Thomas Paine's Common Sense (seen here). He is described as a "prominent immigration scholar" in the book Refuge in the Lord by Lawrence J. McAndrews (seen here); Michael C. Moynihan wrote about Auster's ideas in Reason (seen here); there's a 2019 review of his book Our Borders, Ourselves that appears on Countercurrents.org (seen here); VDARE wrote a remembrance of him a year after his death (seen here); and his work is referenced a few dozen times in books if you Google search it. While not the most comprehensive of sourcing, I think it meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 6 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!} 23:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep—I concur with Kbabej on his estimation of the sourcing. There's a number of journal articles (The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science), public issues magazines (New Republic), and book coverage (in rightwing press like National Review, and otherwise.) I didn't find some meaty profile or something that would be a slam-dunk for coverage, but the length of sustained mentions and number of sources I think still pushes him over the threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes[edit]

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

Having revisited this after some months, I just don't see that this is really a valid topic. The problem is that the zip code system doesn't work this way: small groups of zip codes are served by Sectional Center Facilities, as determined by the first three digits of the zip code. That mapping is the one that matters; there's no mapping of prefixes to towns, and only barely to states. It has been suggested that it be merged with the SCF article, but when the spurious cities are eliminated, there really nothing there that isn't in the SCF article already. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Yes, in fact, the ZIP code system does "work this way." The prefixes are strongly correlated to territories that they serve and not just to the SCFs. This page focuses on the former, and merging it into the article on the latter would be highly destructive. Contrary to the statement above that there is "barely [any mapping] to states," in fact no ZIP code prefix crosses a state boundary to my knowledge, though they may be served by a SCF in a neighboring state.

Although Mangoe has pointed out some errors in this page, these hardly constitute a fundamental flaw. There is a rock-solid source for this topic, and the page could be spruced up to follow it more closely. This page is a great piece of work in terms of coding up a table that is easy to understand and learn from — much more so than the source, I might say. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the USPS link for the very case that drew my attention: the Southern Maryland SCF, which services both 207 and 208 zip codes, as our SCF article says. The chart in question assigns 207 to Annapolis Junction, which is untrue. In fact there is no way to give a name to the area it covers without simply listing all its zip codes, and even then (as the post office says over and over) zip codes are not entirely geographical. The earliest version of the chart in fact listed the prefixes by SCF, not by town, but as we already have the same list in the SCF article, except accurate, we don't need this one. Maybe someone would like to reformat that list in a more tabular form, but this list would be duplicative if the information in it weren't wrong. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference to Annapolis Junction is incorrect and should be changed. What goes there instead could be the name and/or location of the relevant SCF, and/or the listing in the source I cited above. In the case of 207, that is mostly "Southern Maryland," though it might also be helpful to include the location of Capitol Heights MD. If something can be said about where ZIP codes with this prefix lie within the SCF's territory, as the current article does sometimes with accuracy, then that would seem legitimate.

It seems a gross over-reaction to point out inaccuracies in an article and propose to delete the article instead of fixing them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Azuredivay (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The listed cities may no longer correspond to the current SCFs, but this table does an excellent job of laying out the underlying logic of the system, and the geographical areas represented by each prefix. I would suggest that an additional line be added to each cell, noting the SCF currently responsible for processing mail from each zone. This would be much more intuitive than the current SCF article. Ursus.arctos (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a subtle but sufficient difference from the SCF article: this table lays out the ZIP Code organization, that article is the physical sorting facilities. They are intertwined, but distinct topics. The identity of each prefix needs verified to be sure, using the 207 example, but correcting those does not need as drastic a step as canning the entire table. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not usually a fan of big tables but the presentation on this page is much easier to understand than on Sectional Center Facility. I might even merge some of the content from there to here, as User:Ursus.arctos suggested. -Apocheir (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobb'e Says[edit]

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

Previously deleted via prod and then restored. Non-notable show; too short-lived to have gotten any press. Suggest deletion or redirection to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- added two sources to the article. matt91486 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is completely paywalled. Could you please add a quote from it to verify how significantly it covers the show? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an LA Times subscription and it is not completely paywalled for me. It's a ten paragraph article. An excerpt is here, in which I've combined two paragraphs into one for condensing. "On “Bobb’e Says,” though, without the razor-sharp writing of the “30 Rock” or “Human Giant” staff, or any other actors to play off, Bobb’e flounders a bit; he’s also evidently reading from off-screen prompts, a blow to this show’s spontaneity. Nevertheless, in the narratives that explain these jokey clips, there are occasional flashes of humor. Describing a video of a lanky guy kicking a thin tree over, only to have a neighboring tree land on his head, Bobb’e J. says, “If a guy karate chops a tree in the forest with no one around, will it make a sound? Yes. It will sound like stupid!”" matt91486 (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more opinions on this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage of this short-lived show. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete went for a longer trawl, and just found glancing mentions from Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and the like (along the lines of "this show is a thing".) Nothing that meets GNG; I think if there's a notable topic here, it's the actor, not the show. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times article covers the show quite extensively, and with the Common Sense Media review (which is accepted as a RS on these topics), that does bring us to two independent substantive sources in addition to the, as you mentioned, glancing mentions. matt91486 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by matt91486 (talk · contribs), whose analysis I agree with.
1. Caramanica, Jon. "Loudest kid in show biz". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.
  The review notes: "Last month, his Cartoon Network show “Bobb’e Says” (Wednesday, 8 p.m.) made its debut, an “America’s Funniest Videos"-like combination of blooper clips and “Jackass"-style stunts accompanied by voice-over commentary. In the Bobb’e J. oeuvre, this is weak stuff, more Bergeron than Saget. He probably tossed off a few episodes’ worth of chatter in an afternoon of studio work. When it’s funny, it’s largely because of anticipation: When will Bobb’e J. say something off-color? Or at least off-script? That those things don’t happen doesn’t mean that the Bobb’e J. shtick is up, necessarily; only that it has become such a fixed idea that he can hardly hope to escape it. ... On “Bobb’e Says,” though, without the razor-sharp writing of the “30 Rock” or “Human Giant” staff, or any other actors to play off, Bobb’e flounders a bit; he’s also evidently reading from off-screen prompts, a blow to this show’s spontaneity. Nevertheless, in the narratives that explain these jokey clips, there are occasional flashes of humor. Describing a video of a lanky guy kicking a thin tree over, only to have a neighboring tree land on his head, Bobb’e J. says, “If a guy karate chops a tree in the forest with no one around, will it make a sound? Yes. It will sound like stupid!”"
2. Ashby, Emily (2022-02-24). "Bobb'e Says TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.
  The review notes: "Between Thompson's grating self-satisfaction and the show's fairly monotonous content, this series -- while technically age-appropriate for teens -- certainly veers into obnoxious territory. After spending most of his life in front of the camera, Thompsons' natural ease with the spotlight is undeniable. But in this case his trademark wit and charm come across as egotism, thanks to repetitive comments like "If you want to roll like Bobb’e ... and be as cool as Bobb’e, you have to do what Bobb’e says." And if you’re tempted by the promise of funny home videos and think those segments will make up for the rest, you’ll be disappointed to discover that the show spends more time replaying each video (four to six times apiece, on average) than it does introducing new ones. Though the show's format is unique and Thompsons' advice bytes (like "Pain Is Your Fault") are sometimes dead-on given the unfortunate video clips, ultimately you’re left feeling that the lackluster content was stretched to its limit to fill each 30-minute episode."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bobb'e Says to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manzil (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as the article completely relies on press releases. I'm not able to locate any reliable source that has independent and significant coverage on this company. Looks like the article creator is one of the co-founders. M4DU7 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Islam, and Canada. M4DU7 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article went through the draft process and was moved to main space by editors other than the creator. Why second guess the content now? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there isn't a single source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources used in the article are announcements or press releases issued by the company. See WP:ORGIND. M4DU7 (talk) 05:15, 9 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!} 23:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does seem as though almost all of the sources listed are just announcements from partner companies with very little sources from any reputable news sources. A lot of the links lead to Error 404 pages, and at least 5 of the listed sources have the exact same content. Source 12 is also a direct link to signup with company and could be outright considered as promoting the company. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, found no sources that met WP:SIRS. Jumpytoo Talk 18:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4 (Canadian TV channel). Redirects are cheap, and it's mentioned there so viable AtD. Star Mississippi 01:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent (TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As written, this is based almost entirely on the show's own self-published content about itself (even directly quoting its own press release and website), with absolutely no evidence of any media coverage about it shown at all -- but even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google because the show aired 15 years ago, all I found was some more of its own press releases, and still no evidence whatsoever of any non-trivial attention being paid to it in any sources independent of itself. As always, TV shows aren't "inherently" notable just because they existed: they have to be shown to get over WP:GNG on sourcing that externally validates their significance, but I just can't find any such thing here. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4 (Canadian TV channel). I can see the odd mention here and there in the media - including a 2008 Montreal Gazette article and a 2006 Globe and Mail bit. Nfitz (talk) 00:54, 8 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!} 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Show was standard CanCon filler using others to provide it and otherwise completely unnotable. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmi Saputra[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable entrepreneur, also was deleted in 2020. AmirŞah 23:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Indonesia. AmirŞah 23:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:GNG, due to he has received significant coverage in multiple RS in English and Indonesian language as a founder and CEO of a cryptocurrency company an other businesses. Mahdiar86 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It might that he is a founder and CEO of a non-notable company, but I believe the subject is notable and passes WP:GNG, based on the independent sources covering him significantly. —Natalie RicciNatalie 01:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to say keep at first, as there appears to be some coverage of the subject, but looking at some of the sources, it's clear that several of them are paid for or are just press releases: see [1] versus [2], and this one from The Jakarta Post, marked as an Inforial, "a term used to describe article containing advertisement". Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per citations for his activities in field of cryptocurrency and NFT project in Indonesia including [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and others, has received significant coverage in Indonesian language, however citations in English could be press releasing or not.Nassimela (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do agree with Nassimella and according to provided sources, he passes Wikipedia general notability guideline, as provided coverage.ZanciD (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others have stated above it it passes WP:GNG and has received significant coverage. Samanthany (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -no verification,no article. Star Mississippi 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thome Rodrigo (prince)[edit]

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

The citation here (which doesn't seem super reliable) is only a single passing mention of the subject and I did not find any other coverage on Google or Google Books. He was involved with the Convention of Malvana but sources there do not mention him either. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source I can find is karava.org, which is the history website of the Karava Caste, and it is known for its skewed, biased narrative. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source. Chanaka L (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't want to perpetrate hoaxes, and dubiously-sourced people can easily be that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 11:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the name Thome Rodrigo was the Portuguese nickname given to the Karava prince who signed the convention. Will contact the source's site and find their source. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a basis to keep, you need sources first. Nickname or not, I don't see why he'd be notable without substantive coverage beyond knowing he was (potentially) one of eight people who signed this convention. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Contrarian Media[edit]

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

"Online Magazine" seems to lack notability justifying an article within Wikipedia. The vast majority of all publications on The Contrarian website appear to be written by one individual Casey Rae - who also appears to be the creator of this Wikipedia article. In summary, The Contrarian appears to be more akin to a personal blog than a notable publication. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and Spirituality. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:45, 6 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!} 23:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Emata[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Other than listed as climbing Mt. Everest, no significant secondary independent coverage. Most of what I could find are copies from the Wikipedia article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My apologies for abandoning this article for a very long time. I will edit this in a bit to conform with Wikipedia's notability standards. I think Erwin is notable as he was conferred with the Order of Lakandula because he was the second Filipino to reach the summit of Everest. See this for the references. [10] [11] Please judge this article after I edit it. Thanks. --Jojit (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I already edited the page to conform with Wikipedia's notability standards. I think the 25 sources cited are enough to warrant the article's notability. --Jojit (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article now conforms with notability standards. The feat of the subject has also been recognized by the President. for which he was awarded the Order of Lakandula.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jojit fb (the page creator) already made the article meets with notable standards (WP:NBIO). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Kewalramani[edit]

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

Too complicated for PROD. I cannot find any evidence of her films, nor that a film called Female to Male was shown at Cannes per this apparently comprehensive list. She exists and was selected as a jurist, but nothing approaching creative notability. Star Mississippi 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Star Mississippi 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually good at rescuing articles like this, and searched for all sorts of combinations of words that I thought would find verification, if not notability. I found none. CT55555 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same issues. If any of this is verifiable, she'd probably be notable even if just as a student filmmaker. But I can't find anything besides her Vimeo (which doesn't include Female to Male) and a Tumblr post. Star Mississippi 22:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can find anything that supports keeping this, I will be immediately pleading with them for mentoring! CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also checked the databases I can access at the WP Library, and only found this Hindustan Times article (also available online), which verifies she founded the animation studio and received some attention for the Election Mat-ters campaign in 2014, but is not enough to support notability per our guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a blog post by Mihir Desai/Rhea Kewalramani [12] which suggests it might be Being France that appeared at Cannes? ("in 2010 I was part of the Real Ideas Studio student filmmaking program at the Festival de Cannes. Here, I was awarded Best Director for our team documentary 'Being France' - about the life of France, a transexual cabaret dancer.") Not that that is in the list either. I wonder if student films are presented separately? The duo won a travel scholarship for Paan India in 2014 [13]. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that might be the case, but the English language version of that page doesn't go into much detail on how selective the submission process is. Nor can I find the 2010 list of student films. If Rhea's work were more recent this would be a no brainer to draftify, but I'm not sure what we're going to find if she's no longer an active filmmaker maintaining a portfolio that could theoretically lead to news clips. Star Mississippi 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound quite promising but if it relates to a short film might still not meet guidelines. I hate deleting content on non-white women who clearly have some claim to inclusion but I've not had a lot of luck with searches on this one. I did wonder if the subject had changed her name eg on marriage. Perhaps ask at Women in Red? They're pretty good at finding sources. I'd drop them a note myself but I've been lightly chastised for canvassing of late. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhea_Kewalramani.

We'll hit a new level of AfD silliness if I'm called a canvasser as a nom. More input is always better for a clear discussion. And I'm not sure whether @Cunard works in film at all, but they're the best source finder I know. Someone working in the 2000s shouldn't be this hard to find information on. Star Mississippi 13:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you for the ping and the very kind words, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs). I did multiple searches for sources for Rhea Kewalramani and unfortunately could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about her. She does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I found a passing mention in the article from Hindustan Times that is mentioned above. Searches I did included combinations of her first and last name, the films she made, and the animation studio she founded:
1. Kewalramani "Mr. Sir"
2. Kewalramani "Female to Male"
3. Kewalramani "Being France"
4. Kewalramani Cannes
5. Kewalramani Mynah
6. Rhea "Mr. Sir"
7. Rhea "Female to Male"
8. Rhea "Being France"
9. Rhea Cannes
10. Rhea Mynah
I found her Twitter account, which says she is "Partnerships & Communications Manager @Ashoka UK". This indicates she may not be making films anymore which explains why there has been no coverage about her filmmaking in the last eight years. The Twitter account still uses the name "Rhea Kewalramani" and was recently active in that it last retweeted a February 2022 tweet. This indicates her name likely is still Rhea Kewalramani (though it's possible that if she did change her name, she did not update her name on her Twitter account). The account has retweeted at least one tweet from Mynah Animation, the animation studio she founded, which indicates it's the same person.
Cunard (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as always, for your deep dive.

While I trusted my own BEFORE, if you cannot find sourcing, I'm even more sure that it does not exist. Star Mississippi 18:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately it is hard to find evidence that they pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Siegel[edit]

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

There are a number of assertions of notability, but they're minor and nearly unverifiable. She does not appear to meet notability criteria as an author or an artist. Possibly as a commercial photographer, but it doesn't appear so. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and California. Star Mississippi 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of this adds up to actual notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked the article sources which are mostly name checks that do not contribute to notability. I then searched for her band Eenie Meenie to see if that revealed biographic info on her, but was not successful. She has photographed numerous notable people as a commercial photographer, but I could not find SIGCOV of her as a photographer nor notable collections or exhibitions, and notability is not inherited from those she photographed. This person does not meet our criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST nor WP:MUSICIAN. The BEFORE search I conducted doesn't result in anything that could be added to the article to improve it, or solidify notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was starting to suspect this article conflated multiple people with the same name (or maybe even made the person up entirely), but the subject apparently has a website that can at least vouch for some of the claims. The subject has had a diverse and interesting career, but I can't find enough significant reliable independent coverage to build an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weegee (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only one entry on here is exactly called "Weegee". The others are all WP:PTM or misspellings. Also, the page on Glasgow does not support "Weegie" as a term for a Glaswegian, and Luigi does not support the existence of the "Weegee" meme, so those are not valid entries either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A key part of the justification to delete is incorrect, as Weegie is indeed a colloquial Scots term for someone from Glasgow. 1 2 3 and therefore the disambiguation seems appropriate. CT55555 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is that not in the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking why the article about Glasgow does not contain the Scots work for the name of the people from that city? If so, you're inviting me to speculate, so I won't. If it were to be included anywhere, I would expect it to exist in Glasweigan (but that redirects) or People of Glasgow (but that doesn't exist). I don't know if the Scots name for people from a city should be in that city's article or not, but to return to my first point, I think this makes the need for the disambiguation clear.

It does appear here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weegie and here Glossary of names for the British

Also note that there is not a formal spelling system in Scots, so the Scots word could be Weegie or Weegee. CT55555 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone deleted it? It tends to happen.... Cnbrb (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the DAB page says "Weegee or Weegie" so entries for both are likely valid. The house could be called without "house" sometimes and Thompson is a valid entry per WP:NAMELIST. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any proof that "Weegie" is a supported term for Glaswegians, or that "Weegee" is a meme about Luigi. Those are both therefore invalid dab entries. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, Did you see my multiple links, including from Wiktionary that prove that Weegie is a common term for Glaswegians? This is very easy to verify from the sources provided or a simple google. CT55555 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a The Scotsman source to several articles: "Baffie to Weegie: 18 Scottish words that are now in the dictionary - and their meaning". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, wee should keep it. There are at least four strong entries in addition to the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there and I award you 7 points. CT55555 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cunard's sources were added five days ago and no one has argued they are not sufficient, therefore they counter the nom's assertion of zero sources found. Star Mississippi 02:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Braingames (1983 TV series)[edit]

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

Zero sources found on Newspapers.com or ProQuest. Prod removed without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. O'Connor, John J. (1984-11-05). "'Wonderworks' and 'Braingames'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The review notes: "An example of what can go wrong is Braingames, an animation game show making its debut on Home Box Office, the pay-cable channel, this evening at 7 P.M. ... HBO's Braingames, on the other hand, arrives with all sorts of lofty claims but fails to define any special purpose for its exertions. Employing state-of-the-art animation (is there any other kind?), the program offers several games, each lasting three or four minutes, that are designed, according to a press release, to tickle the memory, sharpen auditory awareness, spark logical thinking and heighten visual awareness. All of this might be possible, perhaps, if Braingames didn't also induce drowsiness. ... Considerable effort and expense has been devoted, clearly, to the animation, ranging from an Egg, which serves as overall host, to the individual game segments, The animators include Michael Sporn, Jeff Schon, Janet Perlman and Stan Smith. The problem is the games themselves. Wrongovia, for instance, focuses on things that are out of their historical context."
2. Dawidziak, Mark (1984-12-30). "Lessons in entertainment". The Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Ms. Nevin and her production company, Spinning Wheels, developed the concept and came up with Braingames, which premiered in November on the Home Box Office pay-cable service. The delightful results were good enough to earn an endorsement for family viewing from the National Education Association. ... In addition to fresh Wrongovia and Safari sequences, the second installment of Braingames features new segments on art, medicine, and famous people. ... Braingames is that happy medium between entertainment and education."
3. McKerrow, Steve (1985-01-19). "Irritated Mom's Brain Storm Leads to HBO's 'Braingames'". The Baltimore Evening Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Braingames is a collection of animated, three- to four-minute games and quizzes, packed with facts and aimed loosely at fifth- and sixth-graders. But many parents would find it fun to watch with their kids, for the game formats are built from generations-old childhood traditions. ... It's all hosted by an amiable Egg, and the segments are done with cute, contemporary animation which, in an age of bizarre rock videos, offers a charming bit of old-fashioned learning. What's more, kids seem to like it. ... Braingames is booked on HBO, in five monthly installments plus a sixth "best of" edition, through April."
4. Curtwright, Bob (1984-11-04). "HBO's 'Braingames' Offering Mental Gymnastics for Viewers". The Wichita Eagle. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Braingames is the more interesting, the more challenging and, therefore, the more satisfying. ... But Braingames, on the other hand, is something for all ages to try. Created by Sheila Nevins, each program consists of six games that are non-competitive and non-threatening. Children (and adults, for that matter) work at their own pace to solve riddles and puzzles as well as expand processes of logic. From a preview of the first episode, the series is as fast-paced and as informative as PBS' Electric Company — and just a touch more fun."
5. Eaton, Anne (1983-02-20). "HBO exploits video game craze". The Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "On Wednesday, March 9 at 7:30 p.m., HBO will premiere Braingames, a game show that combines the visual and sounds appeal of many of their favorite games with the challenge of an IQ test. There are seven games in Braingames. The first of these is called "Aliens," which uses colorful computer graphics and the computerized voice of Robert Klein. ... The program also includes a couple of simple identification games. ... The show is a pilot, and if it proves to be popular, HBO hopes to produce more of them."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Braingames to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources shared by Cunard establish notability per WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeremy Narby. Per CT55555's last comment it appears as if no merge is needed, but the history is under the redirect if someone wants to add more. Star Mississippi 01:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmic Serpent[edit]

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

This book seems to radically fail WP:BK. I think it was created during a flash in the pan interest in the film based on it. Neither seems to have a lasting impression. The author page Jeremy Narby may fail notability as well. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature. jps (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Biology. jps (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jeremy Narby. Whatever little notability he has seems to be for works in aggregate and the documentary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 21:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep. Clearly WP:BK as evidenced by:

Academic paper: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/45064/Cosmic%20Serpent%20Dspace%20Nov7-07.pdf?sequence=1
Review: https://www.theguardian.com/society/1999/jul/07/guardiansocietysupplement4 CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge To help who ever is going to close this, and to try and help reach consensus, I'll open the door to merge, which is a reasonable outcome. I still prefer to keep, but merge is a good consensus/compromise. I've scored out my Speedy Keep above. CT55555 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure those are very good. The review is like two pages, and a lot of that isn't about the book, and what you call an academic paper firstly, isn't even published from what I can see, and secondly, goes off-topic basically immediately. It'd be hard to consider the "academic paper" a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The paper was published in Spirituality and Health International journal in 2002. I'll cite it in full: (Wishart, Paul M. "Reflections on the cosmic serpent." Spirituality and Health International 3.4 (2002): 50-53.) It is precisely what an "academic paper" is.
  
  Two pages of review is a completely normal length of a book review in The Guardian. CT55555 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spirituality and Health International journal is not a reliable source because the editorial board does not have the relevant expertise to evaluate the claims being considered. It would be a reliable source for a subject such as "spiritual beliefs of medical practitioners", but this subject is making empirical claims about how people know about certain scientific facts. When people publish content that runs astray from the epistemic remit of the journal's editorial expertise, that's when we stop accepting those sources as being evidence of anything other than the base opinions of the authors. We've seen enough attempts to get WP:FRINGE content introduced into the encyclopedia through such fashions to know when this is what is going on. jps (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are still stuck thinking this is an encyclopaedia article about the claims in the book, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the book. I recognise the difference is subtle. But that subtle difference is the key to our disagreement here.
    
    I also think we've reached an unproductive point in this debate and we'd serve the community better by leaving space for others to read our perspectives, add theirs, reach their own conclusions. I think that you and I are not going to reach consensus here, and that's OK. We've made our arguments, let's let others chime in.... CT55555 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeremy Narby: As I argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature, a merge or redirection is much more warranted than deletion. This book appears to have has received more coverage than the former. I'm not saying the book yet deserves a stand-alone article, but here are some sources that can help in determining notability and due weight (see more sources at Talk:Jeremy Narby#Sources). --Animalparty! (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nonfiction Book Review: The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge by Jeremy Narby". Publishers Weekly. 1 April 1998.
- Griffiths, Jay (7 July 1999). "Serpent's tale". The Guardian. (Review of The Cosmic Serpent)
- "New in nonfiction". The Tampa Tribune. August 16, 1998. p. 5 – via NewsBank. (synopsis review of The Cosmic Serpent)
- Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank. (critical review of The Cosmic Serpent from a physics teacher)
- Wishart, Paul M. (December 2002). "Reflections on the cosmic serpent". Sacred Space. 3 (4): 50–53. doi:10.1002/shi.123. (this is the University of Calgary source above, in published form)

To quote WP:BK "This page in a nutshell: A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"

I think, based on sources provided by you, I and others, that this book clearly meets that criteria. CT55555 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because a subject passes the bare minimum of a threshold doesn't mean we are required to grant it a separate article, especially since the majority of Narby's notability seems to come from this book. As a comparison, the notable book A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians is intentionally discussed in the article of the author, under the premise that centralized comprehensive discussion in context is better than forcing readers to navigate a plethora of stubs. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more work on it, to get it way out of the stub zone. In case that influences you. CT55555 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Only one potentially WP:INDEPENDENT source cited in this article to merge into author's article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeremy Narby. I have no idea what the commenter above means; this obviously does not fail WP:GNG, as CT55555 has clearly shown in the reply to Animalparty. Outright deletion is clearly not an option. If this article were significantly larger, or if it were being edited reasonably frequently or appeared otherwise "under construction", I would argue to keep it. However, I agree with Animalparty that forcing users to navigate a plethora of stubs is unhelpful. There is not so much here that writing two or three sentences on Jeremy Narby's article will unbalance that one - and it would significantly improve the Narby article (which, as a BLP, ought to be our priority, imo). If someone in the future desires to expand the discussion of this book in particular such that it no longer makes sense for it to be covered in the Jeremy Narby article, it can easily be spun back out into this one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the view, but I'm always curious why these sources come out only during deletion discussions, rather than being used to expand and improve articles. My deletion vote is as much because the article is unmaintained, as nobody has taken the step to add any of these reliable sources in place of the WP:PRIMARY. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They come out in deletion discussions because there are people watching deletion discussions. There are thousands and thousands of poor-quality articles on Wikipedia and only so many editors looking at maintenance backlogs. Those of us willing to go looking for sources to improve articles we previously did not even know about are most motivated go search for sources for articles that have a deadline - AfDs. Remember, it's not the article that has to pass WP:GNG but its subject, and this one clearly does. But I agree with you that the article is both minimal and unmaintained, and that is my reasoning for my redirect vote. I don't have anything against book stubs, and I think even minimal book articles can be very useful to readers, but the sources that turned up in this AfD would be put to better use improving the author's article. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:asilvering. If you find that sources are only coming to light during deletion discussions, the question we must ask is why are they not coming out during the WP:BEFORE process that should occur before deletion is proposed? CT55555 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the article some more, added more content. CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just want to state clearly next to my !vote that I've seen and appreciate the work that CT55555 has been putting into this article. I still think this would be relatively easy to rewrite to fit Jeremy Narby's article, and I believe that would be a better place for it, especially given the WP:FRINGE concerns. Between this and the Intelligence in Nature article also at AfD, there's enough to actually write a decent-sized BLP. -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some material from The Guardian article. I then used the WP:RATER tool, which indicated the article was start-quality, so I've updated the assessment. CT55555 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A credulous review from Jay Griffiths is really not something that should be used as a source. The review is terrible. Almost nothing in it can be taken at face-value per WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Guardian is a reliable source. You can see that here WP:RSPSOURCES
  2. For your statement about Jay Griffiths to have weight, I think you would need to point to something saying that The Guardian was reliable except when Jay Griffiths is writing in it, otherwise this seems like opinion or WP:OR.
  3. I think you are sharing an opinion on the review, and I think we should avoid introducing our own opinions, again, I think that original research, unless there has been some consensus.
  4. Regarding WP:REDFLAG I think you are mixing up what is said in the review (which is very credible) or the actual accuracy of what is in the book. As per WP:FORUM this is not a place to share our own views on the book, we are not book reviewers. Many books contain bold hypothesis, we're not here to prove or disprove them, we are here to say what reliable sources said about them.
  In summary, I think The Guardian is a reliable source and everything else you've said is opinion that we must disregard based on WP:OR and WP:FORUM. I think WP:REDFLAG is not relevant. CT55555 (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to say "The Guardian is a reliable source" as though it has magical imprimatur. That is manifestly not how WP:RS works. The fact of the matter is that Jay Griffiths wrote a credulous and absurd review of the book without so much as even mentioning the WP:FRINGE nature of the claims. jps (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do get to say "The Guardian is a reliable source": this is the exact place in wikipedia for me to share my analysis on this exact topic. I have made a non-controversial statement, completely consistent with wikipedia norms, and a consensus that is clearly documented here WP:RSPSOURCES. CT55555 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it as much as you want, but it doesn't make you correct here. What you are doing is promoting a shitty source. It makes you look like a subpar editor. But go ahead. jps (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sufficiently confident in my editing to not care about your opinion on it, but there is generally an expectation of civility required on Wikipedia and to not follow that can put off newer editors, so I'd discourage this sort of comment. Check out WP:CIVIL. CT55555 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are under no obligation to care about my opinion of your editing, but editors who tend to skew the encyclopedia towards credulity have historically not lasted very long. Just be aware that I am not the only person who is critical of this position and if you think I am being uncivil, I think you might be surprised when you find out what others might say about the kind of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:Civil POV-pushing with which you are engaging. jps (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am doing anything improper, I disagree, but WP:NPOVN would be the place for your to seek community support or resolution. CT55555 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it appropriate to identify it here for good measure. jps (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 Sure, the Guardian is a generally reliable source, but that does not make everything published in it a reliable source. You must know this by now. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you saw User:asilvering's comments below. And assuming you did, can you please just say if there is something in the article that is not accurate?

I see the chat that people are having over at Did you know shamans can speak bird language and I agree with User:Adam_Cuerden point that debunking a book "beyond Wikipedia's remit". I'd go further and say that to try to do so is somewhere close to, or in, WP:POV territory. But to those who don't like the contents of the book and wish to tackle that point of view as per wikipedia norms...just add in any critical review. I'd welcome that. What ever aspersion have been cast with this comment I can assure you that I don't have any investment in the content of this book, only a commitment to keep this encyclopaedic.

So point out what is incorrect. Or add in something correct. But please stop telling me the sourcing is not good, when it obviously is. CT55555 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone doesn't like a source or author doesn't mean it can't be used to help characterize and establish due weight to what Narby writes or claims in his book. Indeed, it's better than using the book itself (would we want Wikipedians alone summarizing what they think the main arguments or take home messages are?). Griffiths is of course not the only source to review this book or write about Narby. The view that basically only sources who shit on a controversial book or theory, or that only subject matter experts can be cited for straightforward comments such as "X claims Y in his book" strikes me as elitist, gatekeeping, and implicitly POV pushing. Mention of claims is not the same as endorsement of claims. My vote to merge hasn't changed, realizing of course that good editing means modifying the content accordingly post merge, not crudely shoe-horning one article inside another. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Better than using the book itself" is true. But it is still not good enough. jps (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my edits are not good enough, the talk page of the article is a good venue to seek opinions from others. But I remain confident in using The Guardian's book review on a wikipedia article about the book. I'm so deeply within Wikipedia norms here that I don't know what else to say. CT55555 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may think you are, but just because a review is published in The Guardian doesn't mean that we have to let our brains fall out. It is undeniable that Jay Griffiths is a compromised source from the perspective of believing in pretty outlandish claims that are similar to Jeremy Narby's. The whole point of our WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG warnings is to avoid nonsense like this. jps (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you said, I think WP:REDFLAG is not relevant. seems to me to indicate that you don't think it is remarkable or extraordinary to support the outlandish claims that Narby and Griffiths are making about shamans having intuitive knowledge of the DNA's double helix. That's, to put it mildly, somewhat concerning. jps (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to critique the book. This is not a forum or a place for original research. I sense that we're not going to reach consensus here. We've both shared our different opinions. Let's leave space for others to do so and agree to disagree please. CT55555 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research to demand a source that does not credulously accept at face value claims of a magic transference of scientific knowledge when someone takes a certain South American hallucinogen. jps (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause. Let me try to help you recalibrate here.

We're not reviewing the book. I have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents. We are editing an article about the book. We include what reliable sources say about it. If you have a reliable source that says the book is a heap of manure, you should add that in.

Again: we are not all collaboratively writing a book review. We're writing an encyclopaedia article about the book and what people said about the book, not our personal opinions on it. CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents, then this may explain why you are accepting credulous reviews as evidence of notability. It's not about opinions at all. It's about identifying WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:FRINGE claims. Since you have abrogated any editorial responsibility in that regard, you refuse to apply WP:REDFLAG to the source on the sole basis that the review was published in a particular newspaper that often has high standards (which is one of the main reasons WP:SENSATION exists -- because even good publishing outfits can go bad). In any case, the problem here is that you cannot write an encyclopedia article about a book if it has not been noticed by WP:Independent sources. Griffiths, due to an acceptance of the premise of the fringe claim, is not an independent source of high caliber. jps (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not being used as a source for medical fact claims. CT55555 brought it up in this discussion as a notability claim, for which it is perfectly valid, answering the question: did a mainstream media publication review the book? (Answer: yes.) I've read CT55555's Guardian-sourced edits in the article itself. They are:

"The book argued that..." This seems to me uncontroversial. Whether the book is fringe or not, it argued something. Do you have reason to believe it did not argue what the Guardian said it did?
"The book documents numerous indigenous peoples who incorporate images of snakes in their documentation of human creation stories..." This is another basic fact claim: either the book did this or it did not. Fringe and opinion do not matter here.
"His own ayahuasca ingestion was followed by hallucination and visions of two snakes, which he associates with DNA." Out of an abundance of caution, I have edited this to begin, "Narby writes that..." We now have a third basic fact claim.

Every single one of these is a fact about what the book says, not whether any of those things are useful, believable, true, or scientific. CT55555's edits are perfectly reasonable; while we may have reason to believe that Griffiths is a credulous reader, we don't have any reason to believe Griffiths is lying about the contents of the book. -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper context is vital to evaluate the notability of a fringe claim (I am glad we agree the book is promoting fringe claims). The relevant consideration is WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND which, in my estimation, make this review more than a little problematic. People who take the idea that ayahuasca hallucinations are indicating ancient knowledge of DNA at face value are necessarily WP:PROFRINGE. This is the problem. jps (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment jps you can find a link to a critical review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Narby I can't access it to add it in, but I think this is what you are looking for to provide more criticism of the book and I would encourage anyone to add this in, if they can access it.

Full link Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank. CT55555 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you can access it. I assume it exists, but cannot confirm and none of my usual techniques for finding this sort of source has worked yet. jps (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to access it, but I have since added several critical reviews. CT55555 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both Intelligence in Nature and The Cosmic Serpent to Jeremy Narby. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as merge and redirect become clearly the likely outcome here, I've edited Jeremy Narby to include the info here, I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamhuri Wear[edit]

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

This one doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. MySpace sources aside, I could not not find any mentions of this company online other than a few directories or scraper sites. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Approximately zero coverage indicates lack of notability. Mahdiar86 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although some promotional language was trimmed, this article's current state is similar to that 13 years ago when concerns about its promotional nature and under-referencing were tagged. Searches find a 2015 interview with the founder but that is insufficient, nor is notability is inherited from individuals who may have been seen wearing a t-shirt; I am not seeing evidence that the company meets the current WP:NCORP notability standards. AllyD (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is a close paraphrase of https://needguide.ru/view_tour.php?tour_id=26447, so that is satisfies speedy deletion criterion G12. JBW (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mausoleum of Ukash-Ata[edit]

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

I'm submitting this AfD per WP:PDEL as a presumptive deletion for copyright violations. All other recently created similar articles by this editor are close-paraphrase copyright violations and are specifically close-paraphrases of the single link the editor adds to the references. In this case, the single link does not work so I cannot compare the content. But WP:PDEL appears to apply as a presumptive deletion in this context. Singularity42 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Turkmenistan. Singularity42 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Fell in Love with a Dead Boy[edit]

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

Fails WP:ALBUM Mooonswimmer 19:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found passing mentions to the song, specifically, and the EP is briefly discussed in coverage of the band. In other words, coverage that's perhaps good for Antony and the Johnsons, but not demonstrating the notability of this EP. Given the lack of charting info, I don't think any alternatives are demonstrated for notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Bennett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines turned up routine campaign coverage and trivial mentions of the subject, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Sal2100 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of RS that aren't routine election coverage. I looked for sources using Google News and the Wikipedia Library and couldn't find anything in-depth since her last run for major office. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a functionary for a party at a US state level is not even clear grounds for inclusion if the party actually elects people to office. For a party that gets no candidates in the legislature the threshold for inclusion is very good sources that provide indepth details on the person, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. State-level party executives are not automatically notable, even for major parties. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George and the Dragon (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link from Variety. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all the films are notable, and this one doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). My BEFORE hits seem to be unrelated to the movie, or unreliable, but ping me if good sources are found, and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick note here - the article has it labeled as a SyFy film but there seems to be some evidence it may have screened before then. I'm not really finding evidence of it airing or screening and most of what I'm finding seems to be likely referencing this Wikipedia article. Offhand this looks like it was a film made for theaters but for whatever reason couldn't find a distributor, so it landed on TV. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for coverage for this was a mess, as there are multiple claims as to when it first screened, who distributed it, and so on. Best I can tell, this was made with high hopes that it would be a blockbuster film and it (supposedly) screened at a couple of film festivals. It never got a distributor for a theatrical release, so it inevitably went the route of home video and TV release. There's not a lot of sourcing for this, as the reliable stuff I could find mentions the theatrical plans and the mentions of it being made directly for TV look to have been more recently released and likely base their info on the Wikipedia article. Now in all of that I couldn't find any good coverage of the film itself, let alone a review. This just looks like it was one of many films that were created but languished on a studio shelf until it could find a buyer, only for it to then just never get any attention. I'd say it sank into obscurity but that would imply that it gained significant attention in the first place, no slight intended against the film itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jump! (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. Nothing else suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Austria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've added some more to the article, including a second review with the Quad City Times, as well as some coverage of the production. It's not great and I won't be upset if this ultimately closes as a delete, but I think it's enough for a weak keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this took a ton of digging to find what I did. The name is so common that a lot of what I found was buried under false hits and the typical junk results. There may be a little more out there, I get the impression that there may be, but I don't think that it's going to be a huge amount of sourcing FWIW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to what RotP found, there are also a few paragraphs from Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post at ProQuest 410365387, available through WP:TWL. That gives us three reviews plus additional coverage, which in my view is enough to clear the GNG threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cobra Starship. Sandstein 10:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Suarez (musician)[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV found in BEFORE, just some mentions in relation to the band Cobra Starship. Recommend redirect to Cobra Starship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, no evidence there is any notability outside of the band. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little uncertain on this one. He's been involved in a number of projects, including as a producer. Not arguing for notability on that article, just made me wonder whether Cobra Starship is the best target? Star Mississippi 13:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship, as argued in recent AfDs for other band members. This article achieves little more that a reprint of autobiographies at Suarez's personal sites. To address the previous voter's concern, Cobra Starship is the only act featuring Suarez that is itself notable. I can find no reliable coverage of his other endeavors such as LEFTI, and I am also skeptical about the notability of his other band This Is Ivy League (not yet nominated). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found reviews from pitchfork and consequence of sound for that band, so it's not as obvious as the individual members. I've left it for now, but no objection if someone else wants to nominate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cobra Starship. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Blackinton[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV found in BEFORE, just some mentions in relation to the band Cobra Starship. Recommend redirect to Cobra Starship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, no evidence there is any notability outside of the band. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship. He is not independently notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship. WP Articles for the individual members of Cobra Starship date back to 2007 when the band took off, and at the time it was easier to justify articles for every member of a notable band. This article serves little purpose beyond reprinting self-written autobiographies at Blackinton's own promotional sites. Despite a long career he has achieved no independent notability outside of Cobra Starship. I am also skeptical about the notability of his other band This Is Ivy League but that is another discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cobra Starship. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Novarro[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV found in BEFORE, just some mentions in relation to the band Cobra Starship. Recommend redirect to Cobra Starship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, no evidence there is any notability outside of the band. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship. He is not independently notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship. Cannot find any other notable work. Star Mississippi 13:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship. WP Articles for the individual members of Cobra Starship date back to 2007 when the band took off, and at the time it was easier to justify articles for every member of a notable band. Now it's time for cleanup. Nate Novarro has achieved no coverage for any of his activities outside of Cobra Starship and he is only ever mentioned in articles about other acts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey R. Cohen[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. MB 18:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Texas. MB 18:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis. I've found no reliable significant coverage prior to 2022. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. –Ploni (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis per nom, WP:CHEAP, and Category:American people taken hostage. StonyBrook _babble 09:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spyridon Ferentinos[edit]

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

Spyridon was a non-medaling competitor in the Olympics. Thus he meets no rpesumed notability guidelines. The one source here is a sports table, and the only other source I found on him, an entry in Olympedia, also does not have any body text, it is for him only a table. Searches in google, google books and google news archive produced no other sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ~~Shellwood~~User:Lugnuts. I could find no English-language sources other than database entries. If there are Greek sources, I don't know how to find them. I did a newspapers.com search, found nothing. Thanks John Pack Lambert, for doing the legwork of WP:BEFORE and nominating an article that looks to be non-notable. Jacona (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storm (1999 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP: NFSOURCES. I found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes (needs two or more suitable and reliable reviews in order to be eligible). Nothing else was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, second review found at Variety [14] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per NEXIST since there are now two reviews that exist. The Film Creator (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per consensus and withdrawal of nomination by nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Street[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. It needs more coverage—at least one more suitable and reliable review—in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one write up on a film is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's taking some time, but I'm finding some coverage here and there for the movie. It looks like for the longest time this was kind of the film the director was known for, now it's probably BlacKkKlansman. In any case, I'll add more as I find it - this is one I'm really having to do some spelunking for since a lot of the coverage is buried in paywalled databases. What I'm finding does point towards there being more, which has been the case so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one's a bit marginal, but on balance I think Dennis Harvey's review in Variety, Robert W. Butler's articles in The Kansas City Star, and Thomas Fox Averill's article here are enough to satisfy the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus and per User:ReaderofthePack’s article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might be piling on at this point, but current references seven^[1] and nine^[2] are very good and should meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFO. –2pou (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harvey, Dennis (1999-01-19). "Ninth Street". Variety. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
^ Loeb, Jeff; Willmott, Kevin (2001). "A Conversation with Kevin Willmott". African American Review. 35 (2): 249–262. doi:10.2307/2903256. ISSN 1062-4783.

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Gallery (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like the nom, I tried to look for anything to indicate this was a notable film. It certainly featured notable actors like Freddie Prinze Jr. and Ving Rhames, but goodness, no one cared at the time that this film was released. I can't find a single reliable source discussing the film, reviewing it, analyzing it, bupkis. We can prove it exists, because it's available for sale on DVD and on streaming services, but beyond mere existence, there's nothing to write about. --Jayron 32 17:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one source covering the film, mentioning that it was going to be going into production later that year. Other than that it seems to have gained no coverage and was released direct to video, where it quickly sank into obscurity. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the nom and comments above. -2pou (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Flat[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said when I declined the prod, multiple reviews are present in the article. I see no policy reason to delete this material. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many mentions of this play in books thoughout the centuries indicate that this is notable. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ginostra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was suitable enough to be found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reviews in Le Monde here, in Variety here, and in Les Inrockuptibles here. That's enough for a GNG pass, and a Google Books search suggests that there may be additional coverage in French-language periodicals that aren't available online. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST since there are 3 reviews that exist. Excellent work to User:Extraordinary Writ. The Film Creator (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Line: The Exodus of Charlie Wright[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Mexico, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a review on DVD Talk and a small review in a newspaper, as well as an article on Garcia's participation in the film. It's surprising that the coverage is so ridiculously light given the amount of star power in this. Granted they're not as super popular as they once were, but they're all still relatively well known. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I withdraw the nomination per NEXIST thanks to User:ReaderofthePack’s article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reeshma Nanaiah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR. Lacks credible citations as per WP:RSP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Hatchens (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. She does not appear to have had any significant roles in any notable films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassimela (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Star-Crowned Kings[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Only two very short reviews from unknown newspapers exist. Gabe114 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Entertainment. Gabe114 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The 1975 novel The Star-Crowned Kings has been the subject of two or more reviews. From its entry on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database:
1. Review by Baird Searles (1975) in The Science Fiction Review (Monthly), August 1975
2. Review by Frederick Patten (1975) in Delap's F & SF Review, November 1975
I also found this three-sentence review from Galaxy Science Fiction and this review from Paul Walker Luna Monthly (though it starts out with "Robert Chilson is a friend of mine, but I was his friend, I was his fan."). I found this page from Science Fiction Book Review Index, 1974-1979, which lists six book reviews for the book. The entry notes:
The star-crowned kings. New York: Daw, 1975. 188 p.
1. SFRM 6:11. Ag. 1975. (B. Searles)
2. DSFR 8:27. N.1975. (F. Patten)
3. LOC 180:5. O. 27, 1975. (C. Brown)
4. UNIVERSE 6:20. N/D. 1975. (T. Jones)
5. LM 61:20. Ja. 1976 (P. Walker)
6. SFFN 14:7. N. 11, 1976. (S Burns)
Cunard (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent work by Cunard finding these reviews. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews as brought out above, a big thanks to Cunard. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Much of the sourcing is behind paywalls, and I am unable to assess it here. There is a clear majority in favor of keeping the article and since there certainly is sourcing available, at the very least in form of multiple sports news articles and an interview, that view has merit to it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Claver[edit]

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

Footballer with two professional appearances. Nominated in 2019, it was "keep per NFOOTY". NFOOTY no longer exists. Since 2019, the subject has been playing amateur football. BEFORE search turned up no GNG sources; there was a bit of coverage but nothing independent and in-depth. Levivich 18:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Netherlands. Levivich 18:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first AFD was 'no consensus', so saying that it was "keep per NFOOTY" is not fair or accurate. There are sources out there, beyond those already in the article (such as this), see also this from the first page of a Google search for 'Cody Claver voetbal'. GiantSnowman 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources out there, but not WP:GNG sources. First one isn't in-depth (brief mention in a routine signing announcement), second one isn't independent (interview). Levivich 22:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an independent interview, it's a valid source for GNG.06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)~ Ortizesp (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I argued in the first nomination, the only in-depth coverage we've found is the Leeuwarder Courant article referenced in the article. That's not enough to satisfy the GNG, and consensus should now be clear to delete. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claver meets the WP:GNG per his BIOGRAPHIES here: Leeuwarder Courant Het Amsterdamsche Voetbal Voetbal247. The claim above about supposed routine coverage is false per WP:NOTROUTINE. The interview claim has equally no merit because the biography section was not part of the interview. Hence my capitalization of the word BIOGRAPHIES. It is important to examine sources more carefully and especially without bias to either side. This bias strongly conflicts with our policies, guidelines, and essays. gidonb (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please WP:AGF. The voetbal247.nl source is indeed an interview with the subject of the article and doesn't count as significant coverage (I read the entire interview, and precious little of it covers his footballing exploits anyway). The hetamsterdamschevoetbal.nl source consists of 3 sentences in a routine transfer announcement, which also doesn't count as significant coverage. Bottom line, the article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read my opinion and the Voetbal247 article again. It does not make sense to me that you cannot find which part of the article is an interview and which part is not. I do not only assume good faith, I also assume good skills! ;-) gidonb (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the entirety of the voetbal247 article that is not written by the article subject:
      In this article we highlight perhaps one of the quieter forces of AFC. Where stars such as Raily Ignacio & the Teijsse brothers are often in the spotlight, the 24-year-old back had a good start to the competition and he leads the assist classification together with Furhgill Zeldenrust van Rijnsburgse Boys (4 assists). In addition, he started all matches in the starting line and did not miss a minute. Time to get to know Cody Claver a little better!
      It does not provide barely any independent information about Claver; all the information is Claver being quoted, because it's a Q&A interview. It's not a GNG source because an interview is not independent. The others are not in-depth. Levivich 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously this is a complete distortion. The important text starts before, this is not part of the interview but the way the journalist (who is personally signed on the article) presents and analyzes the player, and the third source is also great. There are three sources here that count towards the WP:GNG, where only two are needed. gidonb (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thoroughly confused by what "good skills" you think I lack. The source contains a few sentences about Claver that are before the interview - which tell us he is an amateur footballer who played a few games for AFC and recorded 4 assists. That's not in-depth coverage at all. If the standard is really that low, we will have articles about hundreds of thousands of amateur footballers who played a few matches and recorded a few assists! Jogurney (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I assumed you have good skills and faith, and do NOT lack these. You are now assigning me 100% the opposite and did so before as well. That is really unfortunate! Second, "amateurism" and "professionalism" are relative concepts in Dutch soccer because virtually all players at the higher "amateur" levels and all coaches at the same and far beyond get paid. Countries like Holland fake a lot of "amateurism". Nevertheless, we went by professional and played (like Claver) can have an article, in the third tier (supposedly "semiprofessional" or "amateur"; this was a professional league in the past) and played (like Claver) would not have an article but the coverage can still be counted with previous coverage towards the WP:GNG. Now we got rid of WP:NFOOTY (and WP:POLY), there are advantages to that (given said relativism of amateurism and the fact that everything was run by the GNG anyway), and we got an avalanche of nominations. People make wrong assumptions, argue a lot, nominate and renominate, and it's all very time consuming. That part is unfortunate because WP editors generally prefer to work in the article space. There is a group that keeps arguing, keeps nominating, also after they have been proven wrong. Until a few more say that keep is the way to go. Then they suddenly stop arguing and move on to the next article where they can create or enjoy action. This is not about you or any specific person. Just general frustration. gidonb (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two sources pass GNG in your opinion? Levivich 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments of Gidonb and other Keep voters. Elbatli (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Labs (company)[edit]

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

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search links me to a bunch of mere announcements and press releases. WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent as well. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I explained why I wanted to create this page at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Junaruga>. But let me explain it again here. First, this page was already linked by this page, List_of_laptop_brands_and_manufacturers - Other brands. I don't belong to this company, Star Labs. And the page name "Star Labs (company)" makes sense to me. Because there is already this kind of page name, Purism (company). The reason why I wanted to create this company's Wikipedia page is because this company is open source, Linux, open firmware friendly company. There are already some presences on it. For example, there are devices (companies) using the open source firmware coreboot. See <https://doc.coreboot.org/distributions.html#star-labs>. In the listed ones, there are Wikipedia pages of Chrome OS devices, System76, Purism (company). But Star Labs didn't have the Wikipedia page. So, I wanted it. Junaruga (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Please can you show us reliable sources that shows WP:ORG met? Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let me read the document first. Junaruga (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the reliable sources.
This company's legal page by UK government: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10602146

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/05/15/linux-laptop-benchmark-dell-xps-13-star-labtop-intel-i7-8550u/

Today: https://www.today.it/best/tecnologia/computer-e-tablet/star-lite-mk-recensione-notebook-linux.html

omg!ubuntu!: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/05/starbook-mk-v-linux-laptop-specs-price

Phoronix: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=StarBook-Mk-V-Coreboot

Fossbytes Media: https://fossbytes.com/star-labs-linux-laptop/

Linux Magazine: https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/StarLabs-has-Released-Another-Linux-Laptop

Linux Today: https://www.linuxtoday.com/news/star-labs-unveil-byte-mk-i-first-amd-powered-mini-linux-pc-with-coreboot-support/

GamingOnLinux: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2022/04/star-labs-byte-announced-as-their-first-mini-pc-powered-by-amd-ryzen/ Junaruga (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reason why the page name Star Labs (company) is good. Because there are already similar page names Starlab, S.T.A.R. Labs on Wikipedia. I want to distinguish this page with those pages. Junaruga (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
UK gov	Filed by company		Just a directory listing
Forbes			– Coverage of product, not company	—
Phoronix	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
OMGUbuntu	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
9to5linux	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
Fossbytes	presumed	presumed	– Mostly a product review, plus a (very little) bit about the company	—
Linux Magazine	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
GamingOnLinux	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
GamingOnLinux 2	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
Linux Today	presumed	presumed	– Calls company "well known for nice Linux laptops", but little else here	—

Most of these sources fall in the same bucket: product reviews that say little or nothing about the company otherwise. So product details are (over)sourced, but there is little from which to build a well-rounded article about the company. The claim about software freedom doesn't seem to be supported by the sources used, but otherwise what's here is well cited. The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here. Borderline. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking the sources! I can understand your points. You are right for the expression "software freedom" not seen in the source. Sorry for that. I referred Purism (company) to create the Star Labs page, and referred the expression. Maybe it's better to delete the expression in the Star Labs (company).

Now I understand the sources cover about the product, but don't the company. Here is another article by Forbes. I think this article covers a little bit more about the company.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/16/pay-attention-to-linux-laptop-company-star-labs/
- Calls the company "Linux hardware company" and "Linux laptop company".
- Has a story about the company's person "Sean Rhodes".
- Says the company was founded in 2016 in a pub.

> The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here.

I agree. I couldn't find any other reliable sources about the company so far. Junaruga (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

decentralize.today: https://dt.gl/star-labs-you-close-your-curtains/
- Explains the company with a privacy? Junaruga (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's analysis of lack of coverage/depth. Product reviews, which is most of what the sources are, is not a viable means to establish notability. Also, HighKing touched on this, but the Forbes sources mentioned to establish SIGCOV/RS are WP:FORBESCON. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Brainard[edit]

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

The article lacks sources that are secondary. They are really all just papers collections, which are primary sources. Beyond this, this is the Eisenhower Library publishing the papers of one of the founders of the organization, this is not in any way indepdent sourcing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit short on sources, indeed. I've added one that I found (which I admit is lacking in much detail at all). Online sources may be difficult to find so I think that if it would be kept, it would be through any offline sources that enthusiastic editors may be able to find. I'm not that enthusiastic myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul McDonald, I found some sources, a few of which are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time this was nominated, there was only 1 source actually in the article. However, many other sources existed, both online and offline. There are now 13 in the article. There are many more at newspapers.com. In addition, some of the sources now in the article point to the existence of other sources. I'm voting keep, because just the sources in the article amount to WP:SIGCOV that demonstrates meeting WP:GNG, but note that there are definitely more sources available which could be used to expand the article significantly. Jacona (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nice research and a broad supply of articles. Speaks to WP:IMPACT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Oman[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, not a notable grouping. Unsourced since its creation in 2004, incomplete (both pre-independence and after), not of interest to readers (21 pageviews in 90 days). Fram (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Middle East. Fram (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. We have plenty of these kinds of articles, and there appears to be a well-established consensus for their validity as lists. The article's "stubbiness" (or whatever the list equivalent is) and lack of readership are not reasons to delete. AviationFreak💬 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of equally problematic articles, and no consensus about their acceptability. A fair number are already up for deletion, with most heading for deletion or redirection. The reason for deletion is lack of notability, the incompleteness and lack of readership are additional arguments why these are hardly essential elements of an encyclopedia, and indicate that they don't have any real function and will hardly be missed. Fram (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus, why not just post the various kinds of notices that the list should be improved, and see how that goes first? I had been thinking I should spend less time on personal projects and get back to doing more with Wikipedia, but to immediately get sucked into AfD debates about my past work is kind of demotivating. Stan (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had many similar articles tagged as e.g. "unsourced" for more than 10 years, and no improvement was done at all. This one was prod'ded (not by me) in 2009 already for "not notable", and nothing was done to improve this one either. Fram (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article. The requirements to create a list go to the length of basically requiring it to be a subject that has been considered as a group in reliable sources, which means we need sources. It is time to rid Wikipedia of the excessive levels of philatelycruft it has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how is three people even a "list"? No sources, barely any content. Same problems as most of the other "list of people on the postage stamps of X". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing indicates we need such a list. There's not any independent coverage of the list as such, rendering this WP:OR. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TE Data[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence of notability for this company. It exists, and the Arabic article isn't any better sourced. Could stub the promotional content but cannot find anything on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Egypt, and Middle East. Star Mississippi 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not realising WP:CORPDEPTH. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: The Telecom Egypt page indicates that "TE Data" had a prior existence as "GegaNet" but I am not seeing the necessary coverage under either name. This page consists of unreferenced coverage of partnership agreements which, even if referenced, would fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of distinct notability but a redirect to Telecom Egypt where this subsidiary is mentioned could be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Scherzinger[edit]

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

non-notable vanity spam, also deleted on dewiki numerous times - despite the claims here is not notable - there is no coverage OF him, just links to him writing for Entrepreneur, which apparently does allow contributors. Being a member of Forbes Council is ridiculous since you pay to be a member and pay to publish your own content. Nothing else in the way of coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable entrepreneur, due to lack of significant coverage. Mahdiar86 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To clarify, this has never been deleted at de-wiki as the result of an AfD. The context is relevant to understand our article, though: the de-wiki page was created (by a user named "PSscherzinger") on 26 January, and deleted in under a minute for lack of encyclopedic relevance (de-wiki's version of notability, somewhat different from en-wiki's). At some point it was recreated, speedy-deleted on 8 May, recreated by IP 2A02:908:2542:9060:E545:5E3E:4726:BFF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 9 May, and again speedied and this time salted on 9 May. The en-wiki version was created by Aprikose77, who created their account on 9 May (after the 2nd de-wiki speedy deletion and before the IP editor recreated the page a third time). They also put it on fr-wiki. Article created by "BusinessGuru78" on pt-wiki on 10 May is already up for AfD. Obvious spam is obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rakesh bhumihar also only has edits related to this article, if anyone wants to chase meat/sockpuppets. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic cannot meet the GNG requirements for encyclopedic inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Steele[edit]

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

WP:NBIO. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Ploni (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. Ploni (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any reliable sources.Nassimela (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS/SIGCOV. Articles states topic has been covered in numerous major media outlets, yet when I go to them and search his name, there is no coverage. Topic does not appear notable at all. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European International University[edit]

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

It exists but I cannot find any coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News search just gives me hits of people who have substantive or honorary degrees from the university. Needless to say, such sources do not enable us to write an encyclopedic article on the university. No substantial results on Google Scholar or Google Books. Soft deleted in 2019, recreated. Steve Quinn, Kudpung who commented on the previous afd. (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of couse you cannot find substantial results on Google Scholar or Google Books as it's a pretty new university established in 2018. I don't recommand to delete this well made page. 221.151.120.189 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the sources available indicate this is a notable topic. It was deleted before at the previous AfD and then recreated in May of 2022 according to the article history. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I found nothing wrong with information included in this page. 211.218.9.223 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Looks fine for me. 114.201.120.207 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Hi guys I have newly edited this wikipedia content in accordance with wikipedia's policies. Please check again.61.105.99.96 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice try, IP user from the same place in Korea, but you can only vote once. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: no sources that comply with GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH for this distance learning facility even if it is accredited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I sense lots of socking going on in this AfD alone. Lorstaking 10:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I vote to salt as well. Hopefully it will prevent any further... misuse. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DistrictBuilder[edit]

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

This piece of software appears to fail WP:GNG. It has been previously been deleted for lacking significant coverage (at the time, the only source cited was this one, which doesn't give significant coverage). The current sources in the article include a marketing blog, the website of its developer, this Bloomberg piece, a Pew Trusts source that doesn't cover it significantly, and trivial coverage on a Pennsylvania website.

A search through google news reveals lots of trivial coverage (such as namechecks and one-sentence mentions), but I can't find a second source that gives this piece of software significant coverage. As such, I think that this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as failing to meet the relevant notability guideline. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Software, and United States of America. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for Environmental Education, Inc[edit]

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

This is an organization that is the fundraising arm of Jupiter Environmental Research and Field Studies Academy. It has many references, but they don't establish significance criteria of WP:NONPROFIT. Could probably be merged in the JERFSA article. Senator2029 【talk】 07:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Florida. Senator2029 【talk】 07:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mohamed Yasin Ismail[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ploni (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Somalia. Ploni (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Surana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Promotional article with major WP:COI issues. Ploni (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Ploni (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid delete for reasons laid out in nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FICCI affiliations got nothing to do with notability. Not realising [[WP:GNG] policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet any notability guideline and article is too promotional. —Natalie RicciNatalie 01:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Murdock[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. No notable releases or WP:SIGCOV about his career. – DarkGlow • 09:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belgium. – DarkGlow • 09:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and NMUSICIAN, nothing notable. The last paragraph is barely about the subject itself, even. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with a side of nom withdrawn, but would have been kept anyway per sourcing IDed during the discussion. Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wayne (historian)[edit]

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Canada. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing showing notability. Nothing suggests he passes any of the prongs to being a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading this, I have to ask, did you click on find sources, scholar above? Because if you did there are a lot of things that suggest that. Jacona (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure that "BLP with no working references" is a great rationale for deletion when Google finds several sources immediately. A brief University of Toronto bio still exists, though he's now retired: [15]. There's also [16] which confirms his family history and the novel. His book The Reshaping of Plantation Society: The Natchez District, 1860-80 has 150 citations in Google Scholar; there will undoubtedly be reviews for this and probably his other two academic books. There are also 61 citations for a 1995 paper which looks to be the same Michael Wayne. Book reviews: Imagining Black America JSTOR 43663590; Death of an Overseer JSTOR 30039946, JSTOR 2700822, doi:10.1086/531379; Reshaping of Plantation Society JSTOR 23521672, JSTOR 24419754, JSTOR 2208749, JSTOR 1862715, JSTOR 3114555, JSTOR 203614, JSTOR 2702471, JSTOR 4232369, JSTOR 26475057, JSTOR 1903540, JSTOR 3742400, JSTOR 40581124. Book award: JSTOR 3115051 Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about living people must have at least one working reference. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before voting, one should click on the "scholar" link within "find sources" above. He's published a lot of books and journal articles. Some of these have been cited, including this [17] with 150 cites. That goes along way to meeting [[WP:NSCHOLAR]. But the trump card is that he is a senior fellow. That meets NSCHOLAR item 3. So, this should be an obvious Keep. A few references are now in the article.Jacona (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona He's a senior fellow of University College, not the Royal Society of Canada. That's not a WP:NPROF#3 pass. But he is clearly notable via book reviews, as Espresso Addict has shown. -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction…affirming my !k, meets several notability guidelines including WP:NPROF, NAUTHOR. Jacona (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Espresso Addict has given a very clear demonstration of a WP:NAUTHOR pass. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, not a notable list subject. Article unsourced since its creation in 2004 (and tagged as such since 2010), ends the list at a random year, and is incomplete even for those years. Due to the list ending abruptly and early, there is not a single entry for the actual country Antigua and Barbuda, only for the earlier separate ones. Extremely limited page views (1 visit every three days). Useless as it stands, and no sources are available to show that it is a notable subject anyway. Fram (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks sources. It is time to cut out philatelycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as all these other unsourced, un-maintained, outdated lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and discussion has stalled, indicating none is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields[edit]

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

Searched all over for sources and found none. The article doesn't even state when the show started or ended!

First off, the show doesn't even have an IMDb page, which is very telling. Despite the show having supposedly been on the air since the 1980s, newspapers.com has no hits prior to 1998. Searching for just "Evans and Novak" turned up nothing but false positives for unrelated works in which Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were hosted, as well as another article saying that "Evans and Novak" became "The Novak Zone" in 2006 -- itself contradicting the supposed end-date of 2002.

The only other results I got for the article as titled were CNN transcripts, citations of the same in unrelated works, and obituaries of Rowland Evans. The current footnote to the Los Angeles Times is broken, and was only repaired after it went 404, making me unable to determine what coverage (if any) it actually had.

Google Books gives tons of hits for the title, but every single one of them is some one-sentence passing mention along the lines of "X said Y on ENHS", "X appeared on ENHS", or a footnote within the book citing a quote from an episode. As AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Freak Hideout (4th nomination) prove, "a source can be reliable without being notable".

I'm not instantly expecting some CNN show to have Featured Article level of coverage. But for a show that was supposedly on the air for 20 years to be shrouded in such mystery that even its start and end dates are completely unknown by reliable sources -- that is a massive red flag. I'm willing to be proven wrong in this AFD, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked on the wayback machine and 'Novak, Hunt & Shields' canceled - Los Angeles Times (archive.org) still does not give a start date or anything. Also, when i searched "Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields" on the internet archives, most of the results were porn sites, except for a CNN site which did not even reference the show, so delete. Kadermonkey the monkey (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're not going to get hits prior to 1998 for a show that didn't have Hunt and Shields before 1998. It was "Evans & Novak" from 1982 to 1998. Evans stopped being in it in 2001, and Hunt and Shields in 2002. Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2003). "Evans & Novak". The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present. Ballantine Books. p. 369. ISBN 9780345455420.
- As I pointed out though, searching for just "Evans and Novak" gave no better sourcing and in fact only polluted the search results with a myriad of false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did it turn up the source that you just commented on top of? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I didn't see that you found that. I just found it on GBooks and it's a single paragraph that takes up less than 1/6 of a page. Hardly WP:SIGCOV if you ask me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject currently fails WP:GNG. This seems odd because I do remember it and the talking heads were well known figures in that profession. But I can't find enough to ring the WP:N bell. Will happily reconsider if more extensive coverage can be found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNN#Former programming, where an equivalent description of the program already exists/WP:CHEAP. Same for the redirect Evans & Novak (we really don't need an RfD on that, I assume). One of the big problems for this show is that since it existed pre-TVNewser, the only coverage it usually got was of the 'so-and-so guests will be on' mention in some place like the Washington Post calling out weekend political talk show guests in agate, which wouldn't be a real source for anything outside guest appearances, along with said archived transcripts on CNN.com (which only go back to 1/1/2000, though). (Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is an David Zurawik obituary for Novak from The Baltimore Sun which lays out Novak's CNN career, which may help to establish the timeline of the series (including its time as The Novak Zone). Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm finding numerous obituaries for Rowland Evans. The one in the LA Times (ProQuest 421771540) talks extensively about the show. There's a lot more in Proquest - for example ProQuest 280644965. Even if not notable, why would this automatically a redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNN#Former programming. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ProQuest mentions seem to be trivial name-drops at best, such as the one you cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juju Harris[edit]

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

Coverage is minimal. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. agtx 03:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Food and drink, and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some WP:BEFORE type work, found sources about her, added content and I think now notability is more clearly established. CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree. Most of the sources you added are just scheduling notices about the talk at the Smithsonian, which was already in the article. Per WP:NAUTHOR, we're looking for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," not a single review (which is also all I could find). agtx 17:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't foresee that, so I'll expand a bit more about my thinking:
NewsOne.com reporting is secondary, in depth and a reliable source A

Cuisine Noir is also secondary, a review of her book, and written by a journalist B

The "We got Soul" book quotation is borderline, she is mentioned in passing, the NPR piece is an interview, and yes, Smithsonian's three citations are all about an event she's involved in, and then there's the Cuisie Noir interview.
So if we need three perfect sources, we don't have them. We have two. Plus a lot of imperfect sources. In the context of us having guidance rather than rules, I'm applying a bit of judgement here to say she passes in the normal way.
With regards to criterion 3 of author WP:AUTHOR she has two books and the article cites one review of each of them by Cuisine Noir so I think she does actually pass AUTHOR. Where do you think she falls short? Here's the two reviews:
https://www.cuisinenoirmag.com/arcadia-sustainable-food-system-juju-harris/

https://www.cuisinenoirmag.com/the-arcadia-mobile-market-seasonal-cookbook-by-juju-harris/ CT55555 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Sunni Movement[edit]

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

Subject fails Wp:org. Basically this is an advertisement. All of sources are Trivial. Does not have a single coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. (speedy deleted the article on bnwiki, see Afd there). - Owais ^Talk 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human Nature in its Fourfold State[edit]

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

References are not reliable sources. Does not meet GNG Whiteguru (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Whiteguru (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Scotland. Curbon7 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "References are not reliable sources" is not, of course, a reason to delete. But I have added a reliable source demonstrating the book's significance. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was also the topic of Philip Ryken's D. Phil. thesis. St Anselm (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the addition of a reference, I still do not think this article meets GNG notability criteria. If further, reputable sources could show how this book was notable in it's time than it could be a keep. If it was as popular as Ferguson notes, I would have expected to see a wider impact on social history. I didn't find anything on a couple of different university library searches. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that not much comes up in searches, but I think that's because sources are offline. I suspect that Paul Helm's Human Nature from Calvin to Edwards would discuss the book and thus satisfy WP:GNG but I don't have access and so I don't know. St Anselm (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference from Jonathan Yeager which cites G. D. Henderson, The Burning Bush: Studies in Scottish Church History . Again, I am not able to access that work, but I think it will provide the significant coverage you're looking for. St Anselm (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The nom is plain wrong. One of the sources is a description of the book, which might fail RS. The second appears to be a place where the text can be downloaded. The third is certainly RS. Possibly the titel should be Human Nature in its Fourfold State (book). If what the article says is true, this was a best seller of the 18th century, in which case it was notable then; if so, it is notable now, as WP-notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Ferguson source to the article after the deletion nomination. St Anselm (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book appears to be discussed at some length in every source that discusses Boston. E.g., here in the introduction to an edited collection of his works, and here in an 1899 journal. That second source is paywalled but 1/4 of it is a discussion of the publication and reception of this book. Looking at bibliographic databases, it went through a huge number of editions for an 18thC book, signalling real popularity -- a book with that kind of footprint is essentially guaranteed to have gotten newspaper reviews in the 18thC, but those reviews are very hard to find now, as they are not indexed in databases. Philip Ryken's dissertation is not an RS (theses and dissertations are assumed not-RS unless there's a reason to make an exception), but Ryken subsequently published a book version, Thomas Boston as Preacher of the Fourfold State, which is. Based on the index Ryken's book seems to be mostly about Boston's religious philosophy, but it must have at least some discussion of the book since it is clearly about the book's main topic. Based on a book review I found for The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston by A.T.B. McGowan in 1997, I think it likely discusses this book as well, as do publications by James Torrance and Sinclair Ferguson also from the 90s; Thomas Boston apparently attracted a lot of attention then. WP:NBOOK just needs two sources of sustained coverage; usually that would be two reviews. Here, I would say that the 1899 journal and Ryken's book are the best two sources for an NBOOK pass, if we don't want to take the existence of 18thC reviews on faith. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. One small quibble: WP:SCHOLARSHIP specifically allows doctoral theses as reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, re WP:OLDBOOK, as brought out in the article: "the most frequently published Scottish book of the eighteenth century, going through nearly 60 editions by 1800 and over one hundred editions in all". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work by StAnselm so that the article now clearly establishes notability. Srnec (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Henry Wiltshire[edit]

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

I can't find anything of substance online about this person. The references are an obituary and his name appearing on old lists and what appears to be a passing mention in a book. Probably does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate to public office. Nothing suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Steuer[edit]

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

Article has one reference which is a statisitics site. External link is similar. Does not meet WP:NSPORT Whiteguru (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. Whiteguru (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found two sources with WP:SIGCOV here and here which also appear to be independent, meaning subject meets WP:GNG. 2nd- and 3rd-tier NASCAR drivers, especially younger and/or part-time drivers are a grey area in the updated WP:NMOTORSPORT guidelines, however since GNG trumps SNGs including NMOTORSPORT, I feel comfortable !voting to keep this. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GhostOfDanGurney. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Oozi![edit]

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

Quite simply, this just plain fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 04:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources found. Might meet WP:A7 for web content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The channel literally has 351 subs. --எ (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via WP:A7, web content with no claim of notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, no credible claim of significance. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animoca Brands. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OliveX[edit]

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

WP:SERIESA. At the moment, this does not appear notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have revamped the page and added additional information and citations. Paladin5454 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect~~Delete~~. Per HighKing. Upon checking every reference on the page, I could only find a single WP:RS (the Forbes article): press releases and primary sources are not RSs. Similarly I couldn't find anything on a Google search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animoca Brands. MarioGom (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animoca Brands as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails CORPDEPTH, GNG, so Redirect to Animoca Brands Jacona (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn per User talk:Rockstone35 § Merge discussions. czar 07:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant (Halo)[edit]

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

Propose merge and redirect to Factions_of_Halo#Covenant. Pinging @Czar:. See rationale on talk page. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD might not be the right place for this discussion, but I support a merge. Dose not seem to be independently notable. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this nomination is a little incomplete, but we can still discuss the idea on its merits. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is appropriate considering the lack of reception for this topic. This topic doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Or if you prefer, the real notability is in the wider fiction of the Halo series. This one element receives trivial coverage, but a wider topic may be more significant. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Per WP:WRONGFORUM and no rationale for deletion given. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cookes Creek mine[edit]

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

The article is misleading, there is not actually a mine there, its just an exploration site, with no activity since 2016 (see owners 2021 annual report, page 21). Historical mining took place in the 1950s and 1960s, according to this source, but at such small scale (8 employees) that it lacks notability. - was the reason for the initial prod, the AFD is supported by the absence of any material to substantiate the presence of a mine as claimed of such substance in the years between 2012 and 2022, JarrahTree 01:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 01:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I think we should avoid assessments based on number of employees, recency of activity, scale, and just concern ourselves if it passes WP:GNG. There is coverage in:

Gemstones of Western Australia (2nd edition) (significant coverage)
MINING WEEK, 4 Nov 2006, by Robin Bromby, The Australian (not very significant, but more than trivial)
https://geodocsget.dmirs.wa.gov.au/api/GeoDocsGet?filekey=c8e66b17-d79a-437a-b5b8-a61e095c6191-fpyyeiiwmscg4spvrt5fvyxydi79jcph6ntgscox (a paragraph) CT55555 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've scored out my keep as I am reading convincing arguments to delete. Currently reflecting.....

Delete There is so much misinformation there.
For a start, it claims its a mine, it isn't, its an exploration project at best.
It states that the mine is owned by Hazelwood Resources, a company that ceased to exist in 2016! As per MINEDEX, the project is now owned by Tungsten Mining NL, a successor of the successor of Hazelwood.
Back to MINEDEX, it makes it clear that the Big Hill Plant of the proposed mine is really only proposed and nothing as such is there at the location.
Tungsten Mining NL lists the project now as Big Hill. The little table at the bottom of the article makes it clear that the company has carried out no exploration activity at the project since 2016. There is no measured resource, only inferred, which is just a different word for "guessed". No indication that there really is "9.5 million tonnes" and "one of the largest tungsten reserves in Australia" at location. The archived source supports the first claim, without stating how it was measured (is it JORC complained?) and without any support for the second claim.
I have dug through the last ten years of the Official Western Australia Mineral and Petroleum Statistics Digests and can't find any mention of this mine. As a matter of fact, the digests list no Tungsten production in WA at all!

To sum it up, this is just another Western Australian mining project that hasn't moved past the basic exploration stage. MINEDEX lists about 5,500 of those! It lacks all notability at this point. Calistemon (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted keep above, but am open minded to changing. I hope you don't mind if I ask you:

Is the recency/stage important here? That's not part of WP:GNG either reliable sources consider it notable or not.
Could some of the "misinformation" simply be changed for the accurate info? i.e. deletion is a last resort, improvements should be our default.

I find all this "it's old, it's speculative" thing to be opinion based and there are plenty of articles about former mines that have not been worked for decades, and rightly so. CT55555 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the historic mine workings there and the modern mining project have to be seen as very separate, giving the largeness of the area and time that has since past. Little information seems to be available on the historic mine workings but what is indicates it to be very small. To qualify for the Western Australian Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety official list of principal mining projects an operation has to either had mineral sales valued at more than $5 million, or, for operations where such figures are not reported, had a minimum of 50 employee. We don't know the value of the operation back then but we know it didn't have 50 employees! In regards to the the modern project, its just that, and not a very active one. I will try to dig up an old annual report for Hazelwood Resources from the ASX and see if that produces something, but the modern project does not look very notable at all. Calistemon (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up Hazelwood Resources 2015 annual report and the announcement of the sale of the project in December 2015. The interesting bid about the annual report is that it lists the 9.5 million tonnes as a measured resource, as stated in the article, that now does not appear on the lists anymore. My guess is that this value didn't hold up to proper scrutiny. Another source here has a bit on the historic production of the mine. At a historic production of 17.584 tonnes of Tungsten trioxide, with a historic price per tonne of around $9,000, this would result in a historic production value of $160,000. Unless my calculations are wrong, this isn't a very notable amount at all. Calistemon (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point. My point is that the size/production/age of the mine is not part of WP:GNG. We're talking as if there is some WP:MINES that says that notability is assume if mines have a certain size or production. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such criteria.

We should focus on the existence, or lack thereof, of reliable independence sources and avoid personal analysis based on our own ideas of what makes a mine notable. CT55555 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you don't seem to understand that there is no mine there, contrary to what the article may state. If I removed the parts of the article that are either blatantly untrue or, at best, unverifiable, all that remains would be: The largest deposit is called the Big Hill Tungsten Deposit. It consists of clean scheelite which is easy to extract. Tungsten was first mined in the area in the 1950s. I get that you are trying to prove WP:GNG as part of this deletion discussion but my point is that this mine does not actually exist. The creator, User:Bine Mai, has a long history of creating articles on undeveloped, non-notable mining projects (and not just those, check User talk:Bine Mai to see for yourself) and phrasing them to make it sound like they are actually mines. Articles like this one border on violating WP:HOAX. Calistemon (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think you should feel free to remove anything false or unverified. I'm open minded to being persuaded. Currently reflecting on my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit the article now and cut it back like that virtually nothing will be left. Having stood for so long, I won't take any action until the outcome of the process here has been completed, whichever way the decision goes. Should the verdict be keep I will try to make it more accurate. Calistemon (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer of this Afd, I am aware that in Western Australia, and wider in Australia proposed mines are a problem to document, as the literature around the development of prospects attempt to paint a story that makes an exploration site as something established - the list of similar sites that never materialised with multiple investor/owners who never managed to last the duration, would in effect be more than 500 similar sites in Western Australia... none of them would be sufficiently validly notable sites in wikipedian terms, unless they are out of ordinary circumstances. 'Exploration sites' called mines are not that unusual. However 'deposits' (which Bin Mai's edit history had a large and good selection around the world) mean nothing. When they are not developed into a producing mine, they are simply places where exploration and the related activities like drilling and testing, produces literature or news reports that make claims for the investors/companies hoping to attract attention. The article is like a promotional item, claiming the discovered resource to be of a size and quality of interest. If wikipedia was to have all sites of similarly promoted exploration locations, we would never be able to adequately list them all. JarrahTree 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've scored out my keep for now. May switch to a delete. May remain silent/abstain. I appreciate your explanation, which I find convincing. CT55555 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are always issues with getting a handle of the local context of some activities like mining, specially on some continents, where practices of promotion and gaining investment in production facilities, are of such an extraordinary variety - that a good amount of time (which was taken up by potential investors in the past) can be spent, researching prospectus's for mining projects, and annual reports to sort the statistics and explanations of activities, to work out whether some mining companies had leases with verifiable resources, or not. I have spent many hours searching archives in the Mines Department of Western Australia, and the State Records of Western Australia for gold mines that failed, and succeeded (yes both varieties)- and assure you that many mines, never happened despite their names. JarrahTree 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary (1978 TV series)[edit]

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

Too short-lived to have made an impact. Prod contested because it aired on CBS Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All prime time TV shows received coverage, especially in the era before the internet and when there were only 3 networks. Does anyone really think this show had NO coverage, no reviews, no attention? It was MTM's first show after her hugely successful Mary Tyler Moore Show, and received tons of coverage (but almost impossible to find online being that it was only 3 episodes and aired in 1978!). TV Guide ran a cover story for the show the week it premiered [18]. It is often mentioned in contemporary coverage about how it helped kick off the careers of David Letterman and Michael Keaton, who both appeared in it. One such article is cited in the article. Here is an article from the Salina Journal in Sept 1978 [19], Calgary Herald [20], Dayton Daily News [21], The Columbia Record [22] just to name a few. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fiendishly hard show to search for and I couldn't find a single way to include keywords in a way that didn't return a billion false positives. What was your trick? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used "Mary Tyler Moore" + variety, and limited the search to September 1978. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DonaldD23's sources. matt91486 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mainstream television series starring Mary Tyler Moore is necessarily notable, to the point that it is difficult to regard this as a good-faith nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Harvey, Dennis (1999-01-19). "Ninth Street". Variety. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

[2] Loeb, Jeff; Willmott, Kevin (2001). "A Conversation with Kevin Willmott". African American Review. 35 (2): 249–262. doi:10.2307/2903256. ISSN 1062-4783.

[1]

[2]