Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 May 23 >

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 Speedy Deleted by User:Fastily (non-admin closure) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One person, one vote

[edit]
One person, one vote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason HudecEmil (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Accidental draft creation. I intended to redirect One man, one vote to One person, one vote, the opposite way of the current redirect.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Ticket Awards till 2010

[edit]
List of Golden Ticket Awards till 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There were two discussions last year but a consensus for a page split from Amusement Today was never reached. Quite the opposite, it seemed to be leaning toward the conclusion that splitting the article was not a good idea. Curiously, the person who made the page split was not involved in any of the discussions. "Till" should not be used in a page title. Ironically, this list was split from a page about a publication journal that would balk at the use of the word "till" in a sentence or headline and now it appears as a Wiki page title.—JlACEer (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the split was not warranted. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 22 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 00:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BIND-014

[edit]
BIND-014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 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 05:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Berkeley Beagles

[edit]
Old Berkeley Beagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Directory listings and trivial mentions are nowhere near enough. Newspaper archive search produced nothing useful. AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. However, I do not agree with the reasoning above. We do not need to slim down our excessive coverage of minor Anglosphere minutiae, but rather increase coverage of non-anglosphere topics. --Bduke (talk) 04:36, 23 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 , which does not preclude an editorial discussion of a merger Star Mississippi 01:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang coffee

[edit]
Mustang coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Didn't locate any substantive coverage on a search. Appears to be a non-notable coffee cocktail. De-PROD'd by Spinningspark on the claim that it is "Plainly not a recent coffee cocktail invented by an obscure barman, but a traditional regional drink" - except none of that is even claimed in the article, so now we're just making wild assumptions when de-PRODing. Naturally, no substantiation of that claim in any reliable source is provided, and certainly no significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a wild assumption, it was based on sources I read before deprodding which show it has been widely reported for a substantial period. You went to AFD less than two minutes of deprodding without discussing and without waiting to see if I did anything with the page. SpinningSpark 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historically, I have rarely seen you make improvements to pages I've PROD'd. I was the one to merge that village-turned-mountain page you de-PROD'd the other week - you didn't even add the source you found to the page that time, let alone rescope it to be a mountain. The reference you added this time is a single-sentence description of the coffee in an interview piece with an artist. It's hardly SIGCOV, and if that's the best source you can find, it speaks for itself as to the notability of the drink. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally all of which are trivial single-sentence mentions, and one of which is a Disneyworld Menu. Come on, man. Are you genuinely trying to claim that a menu is significant coverage? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Liqueur coffee. SpinningSpark 07:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a classic case of the institutional bias inherent in Wikipedia. The recipe is clearly well known in the region, but it is non-English speaking, remote country with little history of publishing and few Westerners who can speak the language to read what has been published. This all adds up to a big difficulty in finding sources. In my opinion, we ought to be far more forgiving over sourcing than we would, say, for a new dish just invented by a five-star New York restaurant. SpinningSpark 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't know about that, Spark: as someone coming at this as a random AfD respondent plucking this article at random from the list, what I am seeing here is that literally every source of the article except the Disneyworld menu URL (which I'm sorry, just should not be used in this article as a reference, full stop) is used to define the contents of the drink... There's no encyclopedic context, no showing of notability by way of detailed discussion in reliable sources. This seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; we can't just create an article for every single beverage in existence for every region of planet earth, nor can we throw WP:GNG out the window because the topic arises somewhere that English isn't the dominate language under the argument that bias is the most reasonable explanation for the lack of demonstrated notability. On this project the onus is upon the party advocating for the retention of an article to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and that just hasn't been done here. And again, if the most we can say about a drink with the use of all available sourcing is to list its contents, that seems like very weak tea indeed (pun intended). Literally the only other thing this stub says about the drink is the vague assertion that the drink is "especially famous in Nepal", and that's the literally the only one of the article's five sentences which is not even sourced, and may be entirely an impressionistic observation on the part of whoever wrote the article--that is to say WP:Original Research. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Per my comments above: no detailed coverage in even a single one of the sources referenced--just a number of incidental mentions in sources (some which do not meet WP:RS standards in any event), amounting to a mention of the drink's existence and noting it's ingredients. That's well bellow the threshold of encyclopedic context and relevance required under WP:NOTABILITY. Spinnignspark may be correct that if this were a coffee drink from somewhere else in the world, it may have more sources discussing it, but such arguments do not obviate the requirement to comport with policy in regard to GNG and WP:WWIN. It seems this listing has been up for some weeks: if additional sourcing has not been found yet which can tell us even a single thing of encyclopedic relevance about this drink other than what is in it, it would seem unlikely that such sourcing is going to be immediately forthcoming. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I just edited my !vote to reflect that a merge would also be reasonable here, something I meant to note originally; all above comments not withstanding, Spinningspark's suggestion of a merge to liqueur coffee seems like a perfectly rational middle ground solution and I meant to say so in my original !vote. Issues with notability are less pronounced when we are talking about an entry detail in a larger subject that addresses context: the sources would be sufficient to verifying the facts in question even if they do not satisfy independent notability for the subject of this article. SnowRise let's rap 02:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 22 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.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Relisted twice with no further discussion in three weeks. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability for this bus route. The refs demonstrate that it exists but little more. Some refs discuss public reaction to recent changes to Baltimore bus routes in general. Fails against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG If there is anything of value here, it could be merged to Maryland Transit Administration  Velella  Velella Talk   05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Maryland.  Velella  Velella Talk   05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article requires a number of changes to be brought up to date, a process I only just started yesterday. I am drafting out some thoughts about what material to include here with respect to the notability guidelines, I started a notice on the talk page regarding this. I will note that the source mentioned is not about reactions to changes from people in Baltimore in general, it is about a proposal to cancel two routes specifically - this one and the CityLink Red, formerly known as the Number 8. (The two routes are some of the busiest in the system.) What I intend to elaborate on next regarding that is how that reaction, which had received political opposition, is what caused that proposal to be abandoned. What is unique about this route is that even after it was proposed to be cancelled and then restored, it was excluded from the "color-coded" schematic of the high frequency network despite meeting the same criteria with respect to headways and high ridership. The 2017 redesignation of the route also restored the downtown segment of it, which is currently in the process of a lot of change as Lexington Market is being redeveloped.

I also intend to get into how this bus route influenced the development of the Garrison Boulevard corridor, which was initially a less built up part of the city which increased in density during a short time as apartments were built to meet demand for the transit line.

The built environment of the surroundings was influenced further with the development of the Baltimore Metro Subway, which was planned in part based on considerations for how it would tie into the existing transit network, and the potential for the subway to alleviate traffic along the corridor. The completion of the subway in the 80s really cemented the form and role in the network the route takes today, as it both starts and terminates at subway stations but does a circuit to pick up passengers who are more distant to the service in between rather than duplicating the subway service.

Finally, the Garrison Boulevard corridor which this route follows has been one of the few candidates selected for potential street resurfacing with bus lanes and signal priority for buses, which would be a substantial departure from the road's current configuration which is very much designed in a way designed to benefit motorists rather than public transportation. This follows the completion of the "North Avenue Rising" project in November 2021 which involved a major redevelopment of another road to function as a more effective conduit for the Gold route. The 80 / Garrison Blvd was selected for its combination of high ridership and the current ways in which the structure of the road inhibits its reliability.

Merging this article to Maryland Transit Administration would not make much sense as it predates the Maryland Transit Administration by decades and was purchased by the MTA in the 1960s when the cohort of private bus companies at the time had become unprofitable.

The Wikipedia is not a directory guideline does not apply here because directories are not concerned with the history, influence, or impact of bus routes. --Middle river exports (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. That's the bare minimum for general notability. SounderBruce 06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a number of articles from secondary sources about this route. I am just in the process of reading the ones from The Sun, which I have started listing on the talk page. I then intend to continue to add material from other publications, such as Motor Coach Age, and from studies and/or reports which concern this route. I also have a couple of books which should have sections on this to supplement, though as I understand it not every single source has to be only about the topic. Also please see my comment above regarding this. The number of secondary sources on the page was 2 fewer before today, and by the time I am done editing there will be several. The number of sources on the page is reflective of the starting point, not an absence of sources. Best --Middle river exports (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure WP:DIRECTORY.-- Mike 🗩 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIRECTORY doesn't really apply here, as directories typically don't include the history or impact of the subject. --Middle river exports (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article improved since nomination by Middle river exports. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a broad guideline and nom hasn't specified what part they feel this article falls foul of. I do not see how this article violated any of the bullets in NOTDIRECTORY. NemesisAT (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 22 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brielle Davis

[edit]
Brielle Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:NMUSICIAN Ploni (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problems seem to have been resolved. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 21:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried looking up the sources cited and I have not been able to find even one. The sources are not hyperlinked and google searches do not turn up the articles cited. The way things stand, there are no independent sources and fails WP:GNG. PaulPachad (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have provided some more archived online sources. Try Trove at National Library of Australia for more.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2022 anti-war protests in Russia but we cannot "delete and merge due to attribution requirements. Star Mississippi 01:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Parshkova

[edit]
Anastasia Parshkova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NBIO, WP:SINGLEEVENT Ploni (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar Raj (2017 film)

[edit]
Sarkar Raj (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Appears to only have 1 full review and nothing found in a BEFORE was helpful in passing the notability guidelines.

PROD removed with reasoning, "Take it to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 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 23:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sony NW-A800

[edit]
Sony NW-A800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is poorly referenced, which is already a bad thing. It also hasn't seen any improvements in many years. It doesn't need to either because this topic is already covered in Walkman A Series, specifically the Walkman A Series#A800 section. The specifications are also already covered in that article. Those are also sourced. So there is no need to keep this poor article Sony NW-A800. Morita Akio (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Covered sufficiently for Wikipedia elsewhere. DoeS not meet wp:notability.....only one mention of this product in one independent source. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 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, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Znidaric

[edit]
Will Znidaric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability including no suitable sources. IMO looks to be expert wiki spinning up. Also have concerns about the editor who has 48 lifetime edits which at first glance all appear to be wiki-expert promotional work regarding 30+ individuals. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems clearly notable, He was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program and won two American Cinema Editors in 2018. Good reference. Paavaover (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC) sources - [1][2] Paavaover (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Will Znidaric". emmys.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  2. ^ "Eddie Awards 2018". americancinemaeditors.org. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. the Academy Award iis one of the very few awards where being formally nominated is of considerable significance, and two eddy's is probably by itself sufficient. I don't see how the article is "spinning up" it's limited almost entirely to a list of films. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs expanding, but seems to be a marginally notable person in the documentary industry. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interceptor (film)

[edit]
Interceptor (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 10:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is kind of borderline overall, I think that there may be enough to squeak by but it's still kind of light for my tastes. Also, I'd say that this should redirect with history, that way it's easier to recreate once it releases and if it gains more coverage (ie, reviews and so on). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the films eventually make it to Wikipedia as they get more coverage, so maybe a better idea is to tag the page as lacking good citations and if there is no improvement within a certain period of time, then it can be draftified/merged with the Netflix above as proposed above? I just don't see any point in removing something that has good chances to stay within a relatively short period of time. It consumes resources on discussions/deleting and writing it again by someone else. In the worst case scenario, the draft should stay, get more coverage and re-submitted. The statistics show that most of the films of this level have a decent coverage. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C13E:2D1B:E068:CE5E (talk) 22:08, 14 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! 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete - Probably have been best to draftify this a year ago when this was created. Coverage didn't really happen til trailer came out earlier this month. No WP:CRYSTAL, but with Hemsworth being an exec producer and the trailer being covered by some RS already, I'd assume reviews and more coverage will occur next week when it's released. If it were to be deleted, it would be a few days before movie comes out. I guess we could make it a draft for a few days, but seems unnecessary. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I think it's reasonable to wait a week until the film comes out and see if it receives coverage then. There's nothing seriously wrong with the article itself. Tisnec (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has been significantly improved since the AfD nomination was made. Enough sourcing on the production itself to clear WP:NFF requirements. Covered at IF Magazine,[1] and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation piece is pretty good coverage of the overall production effort.[2] Additional sources, though not necessary, are surely coming soon when released. - 2pou (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per 2pou; article seems to have enough independent sources to just pass WP:NFF and more future reviews and coverage are almost certain to be posted once the film is officially released. Happily888 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As others have stated. At least wait until it has debuted to see the response or reception it receives. - Bgsu98 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Slatter, Sean (2021-03-04). "Luke Bracey and Elsa Pataky to star in Matthew Reilly's 'Interceptor' for Netflix". IF Magazine. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  2. ^ Hassall, Greg (2021-10-10). "Author Matthew Reilly goes from books to big screen in Interceptor directing debut". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we cannot rely on French Wikipedia as justification of notability. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Planet Institute

[edit]
Learning Planet Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE, runs out of relevant results before anything even remotely independent or reliable shows up for either its current or past name. Article is the focus of a large number of undisclosed paid editors as well, who don't seem to really give a hoot about our policies or anything. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:00, 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! 23:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. on the basis of the extensive french wp article, which explains the notability much better. This is a special purpose consortium of some extremely prestigeous universities, and for French institutions like this ,I tend to follow the judgement of the frWP. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NSCHOOL says all for profit educational organizations must be considered as commercial organizations thus should satisfy WP:NCORP. The guideline doesn't respite not-for-profit educational institutions from the requirement of passing WP:ORG either. All the references in this article are either irrelevant, or insignificant, or dependent on the subject or isn't reliable. The subject doesn't look like it passes WP:ORG from any pov. The lede is very promotional and there are pinches of promotionalisms in other parts of the article. The involvement of eight SPA in a single non-notable article is too much to ignore since I consider it to be a violent attack on Wikipedia's integrity. SPA contributions: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and other IPs. This article doesn't have a place in our English Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inni Vendham

[edit]
Inni Vendham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. Tried searching non-English sources (using the translated name: இனி வேண்டாம் பாடல்) and nothing came up. Articles sources comprise of wordpress (like a blog), YouTube videos and a PDF. Awards are minor and not a state/national level. Also the articles of the two awards that it won, VIMA 2013 and Anugerah Industri Muzik Malaysian-Indian, were both created by the same user who created this article. Also given the amount of views on the song (9 million), it is not that well known. Also, Wikipedia policy is to cite reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think view counts on YouTube (or other streaming services) are a fair way of judging notability (+ likely borders on WP:USERG); besides, I'm sure I could find plenty of notability-clearing song article with even less views. However, I agree with your assessment otherwise and vote to delete. QuietHere (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

River Clarke

[edit]
River Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and an unelected candidate must show either (a) evidence that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) a reason why their candidacy should be viewed as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This shows neither of those things, however, and isn't sourced to coverage that's showing a strong basis for notability: three of the seven footnotes are primary sources (the candidate's political party, government election sites) that aren't support for notability at all, one is a Q&A interview on an individual radio station in which Clarke is the speaker and not the subject, one is a piece of Clarke's own writing, and two are just glancing namechecks of Clarke's existence in sources that aren't about them in any non-trivial sense, which means none of them are building a case for passing WP:GNG as a subject of enduring importance. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers merchandise

[edit]
List of Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers merchandise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N, no significant coverage. I was always surprised this had an article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to nominate this myself. It is based mainly off of Amazon pages, with two deadlinks from a university as the remaining sources. Even this suboptimal sourcing does not cover most of the page, which is unverifiable fancruft that does not meet WP:LISTN or the WP:GNG (apologies for the harsh language). I have tried to find reliable sources online, but can only find commercial websites and press releases.
I will mention that Oinkers42 brought this to my attention over Discord, and I suggested an AfD but was beaten to it, so my vote can be discounted by the closer for possibly constituting canvassing. However, my reasoning can likely be kept. Toadspike (talk) 22:37, 22 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth TV special

[edit]
Mammoth TV special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought this was a hoax article but apparently, it is a television show that has an outlandish premise and very little coverage. It was PROD'd, which I'd expect these days, but was de-PROD and so I'm bringing this to AFD to see if every single program that airs on a television network is now considered notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ryan, Nicola (2021-11-30). "Mammoth: TV". Wales Arts Review. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The review notes: "As pilots go, Mammoth comes with a heavy dose of backstory, but it is nonetheless exciting to see where Bubbins will take the character over the full course of the series. From cultural to social changes, Mammoth draws on both the similarities and differences between the 70s and the modern-day, mostly making its home in a nostalgic light-hearted humour rather than overwrought generational tensions. Packed with 70s reference points and a killer soundtrack, Mammoth is a perfect watch for lovers of warm and fuzzy feelings with a few laughs along the way. "

    2. Bennett, Steve (2021-11-05). "Mammoth: Review of Mike Bubbins's new BBC Wales sitcom". Chortle. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The review notes: "Mammoth is a kind, sympathetic figure, doing his best despite being out of his time. You suspect even his wary headteacher, the supposed point of conflict in the story, knows this. And for a show with such outlandish premise, the tone is otherwise firmly down to earth. So if you prefer a little grit in your sitcoms or big exaggerated gags, look elsewhere, but for coridal smiles from an engaging character, Mammoth might be your man."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mammoth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:29, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 05:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee you-mi

[edit]
Lee you-mi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author moved all content from Lee Yoo-mi to this page and didn't seek consensus to do so. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10 How do I withdraw it? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Btspurplegalaxy: You could enable WP:XFDcloser and close the discussion with the custom result of "withdrawn". — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:39, 23 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 23:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Solway

[edit]
Matthew Solway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afelee Valoa

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Afelee Valoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep BeanieFan11 asks a valid question. The nominator is literally asking that an entire nation’s sporting history be wiped away just because Fenui News (the major Tuvalu news outlet) is not available online. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper is not the only source. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh give us a freaking break. You're seriously alleging that this article on this one-time obscure footballer is the hinge upon which "an entire nation's sporting history" rests? Ravenswing 00:42, 25 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 23:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Dawn

[edit]
Savage Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 21:23, 22 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 23:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demonwarp

[edit]
Demonwarp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 21:16, 22 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 23:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe Private Equity

[edit]
Aloe Private Equity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. None of the reference meet NCORPs criteria for establishing notability as they are based on routine company announcements and PR (no "Independent Content") or are brief mentions which are neither WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth nor significant. HighKing++ 21:00, 22 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?) 01:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Makeover Story

[edit]
A Makeover Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the show's length, I cound find no good sources at all, just "Local X to appear on A Makeover Story" fluff pieces and press releases. This has been unsourced since 2008 and is unlikely to ever improve. One source was added with deprod, but I still have yet to find others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lenig, Stuart (2017). The Bizarre World of Reality Television. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 45–46. ISBN 978-1-4408-3854-5. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Google Books.

      The book provides 573 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "A Makeover Story takes friends who have drab wardrobes and places them in striking clothes with the help of a fashion consultant. Usually, the guests are already attractive and possess good wardrobes, but they need a little expert advice and some prodding to enhance and maximize their appearance. A Makeover Story was one of the first makeover shows in the new generation of reality shows that began their existence on TLC starting in 2000. The program ran as a daytime series, produced the highest ratings of any TLC daytime show, and encouraged TLC to add other daytime reality programming. It ran for five seasons and produced effective shows that depended on solid, simple design and good grooming ideas. ... The program set the stage for countless makeover programs and raised the standard for what such a show could accomplish."

    2. Gallagher, Amanda; Pecot-Hebert, Lisa (2007). ""You Need a Makeover!": The Social Construction of Female Body Image in "A Makeover Story", W"hat Not to Wear", and "Extreme Makeover"". Popular Journal. 5 (1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.1080/15405700709336785. ISSN 1540-5702. EBSCOhost 24951676 – via Taylor & Francis.

      The article notes: "Textual analyses of three current popular television shows, A Makeover Story, What Not to Wear, and Extreme Makeover, in addition to a brief historical analysis, provide the framework for this study." The article further notes: "In the opening segment of each episode of A Makeover Story, each friend describes what it is about herself that needs improvement and also comments on what she would like to see different about her friend. The friends then separately choose outfits (with the help of a fashion stylist) and arrive together at the beauty salon to complete their transformation. The show ends with both revealing their new and (presumably) improved look, before going to a staged event to present their newly transformed selves to friends and family. ... An example of the production of a new feminine identity can be found in A Makeover Story participant, Eileen. Eileen notes that although she always wears athletic clothing, she wants to look sexy for her birthday celebration that evening. ... On another episode of A Makeover Story, Debbie, an artist, said that the outfit she chose made her feel classy and gave her a lot of confidence."

    3. Gleiter, Sue (2004-01-11). "'A Makeover Story' visits midstate // New moms share new look for TV". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The article notes: "Babies are turning restless, and it's not helping that a production crew from "A Makeover Story" is running late. ... A five-person crew spent three days following Tiffany and Christina as they were transformed for "A Makeover Story," a TV show airing at noon weekdays on The Learning Channel. The 4-year-old series by Philadelphia-based Banyan Productions was among the first of the "makeover" genre. It's been joined by such shows as ABC's "Extreme Makeover" and Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." ... On the last season, two stunt women were transformed for a walk down the red carpet at the World Stunt Awards in California. Roommates from the University of Richmond were outfitted for the school's annual "Ring Dance." ... Each show follows the same formula. Two people, usually close friends, talk about how they met and why they think they need a makeover before sharing some of their favorite clothes for the cameras."

    4. Davenport, Misha (2003-12-31). "Bosom buddies go through 'Makeover' under glare of cameras". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The article notes: "They came, they saw and, after a few reshoots, the production team from the Learning Channel's "A Makeover Story" turned two Sun-Times marketing ducklings into swans. TLC cameras descended on the newspaper's offices for four days in July to shoot an episode featuring staffers Ari Frank, 24, and Stacy Winter, 23. The show premieres at 11 a.m. today. ... Each half-hour episode of the show features two transformations, and Frank approached her best friend and co-worker Winter to appear with her. ... The shooting was a mixture of both spontaneous reaction and rehearsed reshoots -- something this reporter learned firsthand when producer Royd Chung enlisted me to critique Frank and Winter's pre-makeover looks."

    5. Freiden, Jaymi (2000-05-14). "A mother's makeover". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2000-09-17. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The article notes: "That was part of the reason that Malphrus and her brother, Stephen Hood Jr., decided to write to "A Makeover Story," a new show premiering this fall on The Learning Channel. They wanted to give their mother, a hairdresser, her shot at glamour. ... That's where "A Makeover Story" comes in. The show, produced by the same people who brought us ... chronicles two people as they get made over, complete with new clothes, makeup and hairstyles. They go through their transformations separately and reveal their new looks to each other at the end of each show. ... Two of the show's producers arrived here in April for the taping of the show, which will air in the fall."

    6. Sheehan, Nancy (2003-10-10). "Double exposure - Twin sisters' looks transformed for TLC Network's 'Makeover Story'". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The article notes: "But the twins, who turned 30 in July, wanted to do an about-face. They wrote to A Makeover Story, a TLC Network program that airs two back-to-back, half-hour shows beginning at noon every weekday. Show producers cull makeover subjects from the 750 to 1,200 applications they receive each week. Two people at a time get made over on each show, adding four initiates a day to the ranks of the Beautiful People. A given show's subjects are always somehow connected to each other -- mother and daughter, husband and wife, or two co-workers, for example. The twins were a ready-made package for the show's double-makeover format."

    7. Jones, Beth (2003-11-15). "Lights, Camera, Reaction - Reaction: Different Isn't Always Better". The Roanoke Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The article notes: "The adventure began Friday morning when Williams, 48, met a camera crew from Banyan Productions, the Philadelphia-based company that makes "A Makeover Story" for the TLC cable channel, at E.I. Randle in Roanoke County. ... In their letter to the show's producers, Williams and Metzler said they were willing to receive drastic makeovers, but Metzler did have her limits. She wrinkled her nose big time when Elam and company cooed over a sleeveless hot pink top matched with lacy black pants."

    8. Lofaro, Tony (2003-10-01). "'It was nice to be a princess for a day'". Ottawa Citizen. p. B3. ProQuest 240681068.

      The article notes: " Former Ottawa broadcaster Janice Dean is no longer the "Mrs. Doubtfire" of the New York City radio airwaves. Long kidded by her male colleagues at radio station WFAN for her dowdy, business-like look, the 32-year-old broadcaster received a head-to-toe revamping on A Makeover Story, a popular show on the TLC network. The program, broadcast yesterday, revealed a sophisticated, glamorous radio personality, dressed in a designer evening outfit and sporting an edgy, blunt blond haircut and a sexy makeup job."

    9. Haley, Kathy (2002-11-25). "Mining new categories: promotions pitch advertisers not currently using cable". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 132, no. 48. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "Viewers in 13 Cox Communications markets have the chance to win a top-- to-toe makeover, much like the ones on TLC's weekly series, A Makeover Story. In fact, each of the 13 local winners who submit to the show's primping, trimming and shopping expeditions will find themselves the subject of an upcoming episode. The promotion, which began this fall and continues into January, is one of the most prominent of an increasingly popular breed of campaign: those designed to reach out to specific advertiser categories that aren't yet spending much on cable. A Makeover Story features total makeovers of people getting ready for a big event like a wedding or family reunion."

    10. Less significant coverage:
      1. Jurgelski, Susan (2004-02-27). "Fashion forward - Lights! Camera! Doneckers! - TLC's 'A Makeover Story' features Ephrata store". Lancaster New Era. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "At noon Monday, the Doneckers advertising and public relations coordinator will appear on The Learning Channel (TLC)'s "A Makeover Story." The half-hour show features head-to-toe makeovers of applicants selected by producers. But it is only fitting that the fashion-sensible Dietrich, who helps market a 50-year-old family-owned and operated upscale, full-service fashion store, fine-furniture gallery and inn, gives rather than gets a makeover on the show."

      2. Wayne, Harada (2002-10-22). "TLC brings two reality shows to Hawai'i". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "The reality-based "A Makeover Story" is shooting six episodes on O`ahu, Kaua`i and the Big Island, this week through Oct. 31. ... On "A Makeover Story," applicants are selected in pairs. ... Chosen:› Honolulans Erica Neves, a 33-year-old hotel communications manager, and her colleague, Lynelle Miyashiro, a 34-year-old public relations account executive"

      3. "Local Mother and Daughter to Appear on TLC Show - "A Makeover Story" Crew Was Here in May to Film the Women as They Got New Looks". Savannah Morning News. 2000-09-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Remember Cheryl Hood and Denise Malphrus, the mother-daughter pair who got new looks thanks to the TLC series A Makeover Story? Well, the premier episode of the new show is scheduled to air at noon Monday on cable channel 21, and it will feature Hood and Malphrus on their makeover journey."

      4. Bricking, Tanya (2003-10-22). "'Makeover Story' turns cameras on Island folks". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "When Banyan Productions films "A Makeover Story" here over the next two weeks, it will feature sand and surf for TLC series, but it also will get a bit beneath the surface of the Islands. ... The best friends will be filmed taking hula lessons, trying on clothes at Adasa Hawaii in the Hilton Hawaiian Village and getting their hair and makeup done at Aveda in Ala Moana Center. They'll have their "reveal" party Monday at the Hyatt hotel in Waikiki."

      5. Abderholden, Frank (2004-09-06). "Lindenhurst resident featured on 'A Makeover Story'". Lake County News-Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Former Lindenhurst resident Anissa Adams and her college friends will be the featured guests on The Learning Channel show A Makeover Story airing Tuesday afternoon. ... That meant getting their hair done at Bumble and Bumble, a mecca for young models and A-list film stars."

      6. Freiden, Jaymi (2002-07-21). "TV Show Snags 2 Local Women for Makeovers". The State. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: ""A Makeover Story" chronicles the transformation of two people as they get new outfits, hairstyles and makeup. At the show's end, the participants first reveal themselves to each other, then to their friends and family. ... The show's producers disagreed. After a day of interviewing them over the phone, the women were told the shooting would begin in three days."

      7. Bolin, Jackie (2003-08-07). "Show&tell". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Format/big idea: Makeovers are given to both nominated and volunteering couples or individuals on this cheery show, then their story is told through interviews with friends and family. One episode last season featured Trading Spaces carpenters Ty Pennington and Amy Wynn Pastor receiving new looks for the Emmy Awards."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Makeover Story to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the show is notable, and there are other notable sources, it is written in a very terse way and should be tagged as a stub PaulPachad (talk) 18:04, 24 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 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actera Group

[edit]
Actera Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. None of the reference meet NCORPs criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with . HighKing++ fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:22, 25 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, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Vacation Homes

[edit]
Amazing Vacation Homes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with addition of a source, but I couldn't find anything else. Even adding keywords turned up only TV Guide directories and unrelated content using the phrase "amazing vacation homes" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Donaldd23.
    1. Muhammad, Larry. (2004-10-18). "Home boy. Louisville native has a ball as host of 'Amazing Vacation Homes'" (pages 1 and 2). The Courier-Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Cut to [Tom] Jourden, the host of "Amazing Vacation Homes" on the Travel Channel, who bounds into the house and shadows the owner through the architectural showplace, oozing charisma and infectious good cheer. ... Now he's happily serving as host of a cable show of homes from the extravagant to the extraordinary. ... Jourdan gives viewers the grand tour through an awesome series of incredible getaway haunts, including a converted Boeing 307 Stratoliner once owned by billionaire Howard Hughes; a movable, low-maintenance "boxkit house"; a bamboo treehouse set in a tropical forest in Puerto Rico; and a remarkable Dome Home in Pensacola, Fla., capable of withstanding 300-mph hurricane winds."

    2. Barger, Theresa Sullivan (2005-08-12). "TV Spotlight: 'Amazing Vacation Homes'. Travel Channel". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The premise: Just as its name implies, this show features Jourden taking viewers on tours of cool houses around the United States and a few other countries that showcase the skills and imaginations of the architects and homeowners. ... The verdict: Whether you like to dream or are looking for inspiration, this show demonstrates that anything is possible if you have tenacity, the right architect and enough money. Jourden asks the kinds of questions viewers would ask if they were in his shoes."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Haley, Sharron (2005-01-18). "Architect's project featured on cable show". The Item. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "A vacation home designed by Prescott, Ariz., architect Matthew B. Ackerman, formerly of Sumter, will be presented on a segment of the Travel Channel's "Amazing Vacation Homes" series at 4 p.m. Jan. 23. ... Ackerman's design chosen by the Travel Channel for its "Amazing Vacation Homes" series is called the "Lily Pad House" for its unique, organic design."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amazing Vacation Homes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 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 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The One Man Jury

[edit]
The One Man Jury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 20:50, 22 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 The nominator requested to withdraw. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slaheddine Fessi

[edit]
Slaheddine Fessi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i don't believe this player meets GNG or SPORTCRIT. I can find no coverage or details on this player/ MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those! Perhaps I missed them due to them being in French? At first glance, they appear to be excellent sources that would see him easily pass GNG. I'll wait for someone else to confirm they're good sources, then withdraw the nomination if appropriate. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment withdraw my nomination as per above. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:52, 22 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Meet (film)

[edit]
Swap Meet (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 20:35, 22 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. ✗plicit 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comandante (book)

[edit]
Comandante (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles fails WP:BOOKCRIT. The page is only based in reviews, from which the second one (Foreign Policy) is a passing mention and the last one (BBC) is a primary source. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 22 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 00:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumithra Kamaraj

[edit]
Sumithra Kamaraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:07, 22 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. ✗plicit 00:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Tamang

[edit]
Anju Tamang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that KhelNow is suspect. The MyKhel article is written by a professional journalist so I think is okay for establishing the bare minimum for GNG. There's a reasonably sized article about her on MSN although it's mostly just repeating quotes from her. There is also The Bridge, which appears to be RS and Ommcom News. I'd be interested to see if anything better exists in Sikkimese or any other of the hundreds of languages of India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MyKhel profile links would definitely claim that their authors are professional but I don't think they (or Oneindia) have themselves ever described their work as journalism. There is some discussion in WP:RSN about Oneindia and I'd like to specifically point you to this which has comments illustrating their quality.
I had seen the article from The Bridge and discounted it as it appeared to be essentially an interview. IANS (which is the source for Ommcom) is a private wire service and unreliable. Hemantha (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting accusation, but I stand by my keep vote, as I feel Tamang meets GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to retract. You were calling an apple an apple (telling the truth), and there is no rule against that. 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:44, 29 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 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alamoana Tofuola

[edit]
Alamoana Tofuola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:58, 22 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 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Takataka

[edit]
Ali Takataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All current references are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:57, 22 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 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Panapa

[edit]
George Panapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All current references are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:56, 22 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 Tuvalu Independence Cup. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tuvalu Independence Cup

[edit]
2012 Tuvalu Independence Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Tuvalu A-Division (women). ✗plicit 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tuvalu A-Division (women)

[edit]
2012 Tuvalu A-Division (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

2013 Tuvalu A-Division (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalesi Vaia

[edit]
Lalesi Vaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:51, 22 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 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polu Tanei

[edit]
Polu Tanei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:50, 22 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 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Lotonu

[edit]
Paulo Lotonu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god can you please just request speedy deletion on all of these articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:55, 22 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 00:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moeava Mausalii

[edit]
Moeava Mausalii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:46, 22 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 00:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Timo

[edit]
Jay Timo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:26, 22 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 but that does not preclude a redirect to Tuvalu national football team following deletion Star Mississippi 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Selau

[edit]
Jelly Selau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:25, 22 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 00:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamelu Seloto

[edit]
Kalamelu Seloto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:24, 22 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 00:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kivoli Manoa

[edit]
Kivoli Manoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:23, 22 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 00:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paenui Fagota

[edit]
Paenui Fagota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 22 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 00:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Marengo-Union Times

[edit]
The Marengo-Union Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage anywhere. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:07, 22 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 00:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFRA Commission

[edit]
AFRA Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has never contained any sources, and I can find no evidence that the organisation exists at all. Most notably the African Union website has a page titled "Financial Institutions", but mentions no such Commission. The full text of the Abuja Treaty discusses African Monetary Union and an African Central Bank in Article 44, but names no Commission for implementing them (Article 19, mentioned in the article, is an entirely unrelated provision related to establishing a Court of Justice). The full text of the Sirte Declaration again mentions African Monetary Union and the African Central Bank without detail. The "African Star Treaty Alliance Group", implied to predate the "AFRA Commission", also appears to be non-existent. - IMSoP (talk) 18:04, 22 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) Nehme1499 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico SC (Lebanon)

[edit]
Athletico SC (Lebanon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing the claim to notability for this football academy. The only references are from the club itself and databases.

Searching online, I can find some mentions of this academy on the Olympic Lyon site. But since they're an affiliate club, this presumably doesn't count as independent coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that articles such as these ([28], [29], [30]) are enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. Nehme1499 01:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, thanks! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Withdraw nomination per sources found by Nehme. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:42, 23 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) 00:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meauke Tuilagi

[edit]
Meauke Tuilagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:36, 22 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) 00:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tapeni Letueti

[edit]
Tapeni Letueti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 22 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 00:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoa Kaio

[edit]
Hetoa Kaio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:28, 22 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 00:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taulau Iotonu

[edit]
Taulau Iotonu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:26, 22 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 00:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

İtaia İoane

[edit]
İtaia İoane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 22 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 00:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semese Alefaio

[edit]
Semese Alefaio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: ... which, of course, does not matter. Sources cannot be theorized to maybe, possibly exist. They must be demonstrated to exist. Either produce them or admit you cannot. Ravenswing 18:53, 29 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 00:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laupama Elu

[edit]
Laupama Elu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: ... which, of course, does not matter. Sources cannot be theorized to maybe, possibly exist. They must be demonstrated to exist. Either produce them or admit you cannot. Ravenswing 18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - now that WP:NFOOTBALL is defunct, simply having caps is not enough to sustain a stand-alone article on its own. We create articles from evidence of notability not on a presumption that sourcing must exist because of x, y or z. If sourcing cannot be provided, then it's clear that we must delete this article until such time that someone can provide the alleged sourcing, at which point we can create this again. I have searched in multiple search engines and ProQuest and couldn't find any decent WP:RS on Elu. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 29 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 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Guirao Díaz

[edit]
Rocío Guirao Díaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 22 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 deleted. Clear and WP:SNOW'y consensus to delete, largely on the basis of notability. El_C 12:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M Miraz Hossain

[edit]
M Miraz Hossain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entrepreneur, writer. Other than some passing mentions/interview type news, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:11, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Courtyard Inn

[edit]
Kings Courtyard Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business (hotel), sources cited are primary, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, travel booking and similar sites. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Few of the literally hundreds (or thousands?) of buildings in that district are mentioned in the 1977 documentation, not really a nomination per se because the district was among the list of super-obviously-worthy places recognized on the first day of the National Register of Historic Places program. --Doncram (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Additional local old sources, not on the internet, surely exist. Sources to start with include "The Early Architecture of Charleston" (1970, u of sc press), and others cited in NRHP doc. And Charleston planning dept files and other files supporting the 1931 designation of the district as the very first historic district (protected by local ordinance and an architecture review board) in the U.S. This one absolutely is a contributing property: it was built in 1833 (very old, for the U.S.), and of an old wonderful style, Greek Revival architecture, which was just then developing (1820-1850) as the first deliberately non-British high style in the U.S. And it absolutely is in the district. And it has Egyptian Revival elements, and it is on the main historic street of Charleston. In old sources it will not be known by its modern name. For this large district listed before NRHP documentation got more elaborate, it is true that the individual buildings are not individually noted and described. A building like this elsewhere would likely be individually NEHP-listed. I created the article. Isn't it also recognized in Historic Hotels of America, a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation? Sure, the article would be improved by adding photos, but those will come. The talk page identifies it in places needing photos type category. --Doncram (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re it is true that the individual buildings are not individually noted and described. Not so. A number of individual buildings are listed and described in the nomination form, and this isn't one of them. Deor (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deor, the doc mentions there 400! buildings having _major_ architectural or other importance, which i interpret to be significant on a national level, and lists something like 40 of the very most critical ones. It mentions on PDF page 3 that more than 650 buildings are deemed "valuable to architectural historians (and mentions a source, the compilation records of 1929). It doesn't list, like modern NRHP HD nominations do, all those having regional or local significance, nor does it list buildings which would have been deemed non-contributing 56 years ago. Many of those would likely now be considered contributing; other NRHP HDs get updated sometimes to deem more contributing after they have aged past the 50-year threshold. --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at most merge into Charleston Historic District (though there doesn't seem to be a good place for that): notability is not inherited from the district it's in (if being a "contributing property" was enough, you could argue that any of the literally hundreds (or thousands?) of buildings in that district could be notable, even residential houses with no coverage). The National Trust for Historic Preservation is hardly official, being privately-funded and financially benefiting from the hotels (as they offer bookings and the like), hence not independent. The talk of architectural styles just screams WP:ILIKEIT and nothing that actually points to notability. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES has no weight unless these sources can actually be found. Looking on ProQuest and Newspapers.com, the vast majority are advertisements or mentions that certainly don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH (mentions in lists of other lodgings in the area, or at most one sentence about it) while the others (again, very few) are local, not meeting WP:AUD. Online sources consist essentially of just reviews. All in all, no evidence that this passes NCORP. eviolite (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Historic districts are do not give 'blanket coverage' to all buildings within it's borders; each building is determined to worthy of the status "contributing property" or not.Djflem (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck per below. I still maintain that this being a "contributing property" (which is not at all verified in RSes) is nowhere near a valid argument for keeping. eviolite (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Wenzell, Ron. (1983-11-20). "'Antique' Inn Offers Flavor Of the 1700's" (1 and 2). The State. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A 130-year-old building which formerly housed retail shops and a roller skating rink has been converted into one of Charleston's newest inns. Kings Courtyard Inn at 198 King St. opened this month in the heart of the port city's antique district, and in conjunction with the opening is sponsoring antique symposiums each Saturday through Dec. 10. ... Erected in 1853 in the Greek revival style with Egyptian detail, the three-story building is one of the oldest and largest in the block. The two upper floors were originally used as an inn, catering to visiting plantation owners and shipping magnates. High-quality shops occupied the ground floor. In later years, millinery, grocery, and antique stores were among the building's tenants, and in the 1930s the third floor became an indoor skating rink."

      This is an article about the antique symposiums it is sponsoring:

      Wenzell, Ron (1983-11-20). "A Look At The Historic Past". The State. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

    2. Ramsey, Molly. "Fodor's Expert Review: Kings Courtyard Inn". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The review notes: "Nestled on famed King Street in the heart of Charleston’s historic district is Kings Courtyard Inn—a charming, recently redesigned circa-1853 property boasting three peaceful open-air courtyards and cheerful guest suites. Getting to your room is a treat: you’ll wind your way through old-school outdoor (yet covered) wooden hallways. Once there, enjoy historic architecture, modern furnishings, and gobs of natural light. A wide selection of room layouts accommodates a range of travelers, from singles in town for business to small families; a few suites even allow dogs."

    3. Fielding, Geoffrey (1984-08-12). "Elegant inns offer Charleston charm". The Baltimore Sun. p. 1G. ProQuest 539020501.

      The article provides 137 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Just north on nearby King street is the Kings Courtyard Inn, which opened only last fall. Located in the center of Charleston's antique district, the inn was built in 1853. It was designed by Francis D. Lee, a noted architect, in the Greek Revival style and catered to plantation owners and merchant guests. During the years it has housed high-quality shops and private residences. The 34 rooms feature oversized beds, some with canopies, and many of the rooms have fireplaces. Many face one of the two interior courts. The amenities include sherry or wine upon arrival, and a continental breakfast — fruit, juice, pastries and coffee or tea — is served in the breakfast room, the courtyard, or the guest's room. Each evening the beds are turned down and complimentary brandy and chocolates are placed on the bedside tables."

    4. Perry, Lee Davis (2015). Insiders' Guide® to Charleston: Including Mt. Pleasant, Summerville, Kiawah, and Other Islands. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-7627-9676-2. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Kings Courtyard Inn has an interesting history in that the building has come full circle in its lifetime The Greek Revival building, dating from 1853, began as an inn catering to 19th-century plantation owners and businessmen. Then it was a private residence; after that, the downstairs housed some of Charleston's most fashionable shops; and now it once again serves guests with luxury accommodations. ... This inn is part of the Charming Inns of Charleston group."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Simmons, Jean (1991-04-21). "Doing the Charleston: Sweet-dream lodgings in the heart of things". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 72 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Kings Courtyard Inn. Guests enter through a simple doorway into an elegant fountain-adorned courtyard. Wine or sherry is served on arrival, brandy and chocolate at bedside, and a continental breakfast the next morning. Another AAA four-diamond winner with three stars from Mobil, this 34-room building was erected in 1853 and restored to maintain its Greek Revival-style with Egyptian overtones. Facilities include a breakfast room, cocktail lounge, two inner courtyards and a whirlpool."

      2. Mayle, Mary Carr (2014-02-09). "King Street Has Much in Common With Broughton\ - Developer Ben Carter Wants to Replicate the Success of Charleston Street in Savannah". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Charleston native Linn Lesesne and her husband Rick Widman own four hotels and two restaurants in Charleston. Their Kings Courtyard Inn and Fulton Lane Inn, both boutique hotels, as well as Kitchen 208, a casual dining establishment, are on King Street."

      3. Corris, John (1990-03-04). "Carolina stops prove interesting". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Richard T. Widman is the owner-manager of the Rutledge and the nearby Kings Courtyard Inn."

      4. Koppel, Dale (1998-06-07). "At Home in Charleston - A Night or So in a Two-Century-Old Carriage House Snuggled up to a Mansion Can Give You a Real Feel for History". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The 41-room Kings Courtyard Inn, built in 1853 in the Greek Revival style (with unusual Egyptian detail), is one of Charleston's most historic inns. This one has a courtyard spa and complimentary brandy at your bedside, next to the chocolates. For those who like an afternoon or evening cocktail, drinks are available in the courtyard bar. Standard rooms range from $135 in low season to $185 in high season. Larger rooms (with jacuzzi jets in the bathtubs) range from $155 to $205, depending on the season."

      5. Donnelly, Frank (1997-11-16). "Web sites boost interest in historic buildings". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "As owner of the historic John Rutledge House Inn and Kings Courtyard Inn in Charleston, S.C., Rick Widman knows competition for the vacation dollar is fierce. "

      6. Kujawa, Dawn (1993-01-24). "Valentine's the Perfect Reason to Plan a Romantic Weekend Getaway". The State. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Enter the Kings Courtyard Inn through a simple doorway into an elegant, fountain-adorned courtyard. Wine or sherry is served on arrival, brandy and chocolate at bedside, and a continental breakfast the next morning. Some rooms have canopied beds and fireplaces, and many have views of one of the two inner courtyards. From Feb. 10 through Feb. 14, rates begin at $105. From Feb. 15 through March 11, rates begin at $85. Information: 723-7000."

      7. Ronson, Jon (2013-04-19). "US road trip: from New York to Georgia". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "We stay at a sweet hotel – the Kings Courtyard Inn – where they're doing that southern thing, where all the guests are supposed to meet and chat and drink sherry before dinner. We don't attend because we're introverted and find it overwhelming to meet strangers on holiday."

      8. Starr, William (1988-03-05). "Charleston has 18th-century homes, walled gardens". Montreal Gazette. ProQuest 431604059.

        The article notes: "For instance, the Battery Carriage Inn, Indigo Inn, Church Street Inn, Vendue Inn, Elliott House, Kings Courtyard Inn, Meeting Street Inn, Planter's Inn and Two Meeting Street each offer a convenient location, a few oversize rooms with private baths, luxuriously furnished to the tastes of the most fastidious with lots of extras including breakfast served on a silver tray, a morning newspaper and gracious, informed hosts."

      9. McMillan, Cecily Deegan (1987-03-29). "What's Doing In; Charleston". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Kings Courtyard Inn (198 King Street; Charleston, S.C. 29401; 800-845-6119), which has 34 rooms, is probably the most conveniently situated small inn in Charleston, standing as it does in a renovated Greek Revival building in the middle of the King Street shopping district. Free parking is available in the adjacent city lot. The rooms are small, but they encircle two courtyards where there are fountains, benches, tables, flowers and small trees. Rates start at $90 a night."

      10. Munday, Dave (2017-11-19). "Kings Courtyard Inn in downtown Charleston completes guest room overhaul". The Post and Courier. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Kings Courtyard Inn, which operates out of an 1853 building in downtown Charleston, has wrapped up a $500,000 renovation of its 41 guest rooms. ... The Kings Courtyard building is just south of Market Street. Originally, it had shops on the ground floor and rooms upstairs. It was not in good shape when Charming Inns owner Rick Widman leased it in the early 1980s. ... Widman opened the inn in 1983 after renovations that included adding fountains in the two courtyards."

      11. "Kings Courtyard Inn". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The review game the inn a one-star rating out of three stars. The review notes, "Just a 3-minute walk from City Market, this historic property started life in 1853 as an inn catering to plantation owners and merchants. Though it’s starting to show some wear and tear, the rooms remain charmingly old-fashioned, most with four-posters or canopied beds, fireplaces, and fine views of the two inner courtyards."

      12. Morekis, Jim (2015). Moon Charleston: Including Hilton Head & the Lowcountry. New York: Avalon Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63121-046-4. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Still, its charming courtyard and awesome location on King Street are big bonuses, as is the convenient but cramped parking lot right next door (about $12 per day, a bargain for this part of town), with free in-and-out privileges."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kings Courtyard Inn to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for actually locating these sources instead of just asserting that they exist. I have struck my vote based on the The Post and Courier article and the tourist guides (which I initially dismissed as being more blog-like, but it seems they do have some editorial/selection standards?) eviolite (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one, me included, has claimed that every building, or every contributing one, in this historic district is worth having a separate article. If one had, the arguments about notability not being inherited would apply. To counter others' assertions, I did/do assert this building is a contributing building. And among contributing buildings in the HD, i assert this one is notable and sources will exist, including because it is a hotel, and hotels get written about. And User:Cunard's analysis supports this (thanks!). We don't have to improve the article to satisfy everyone in order for Keep to be the outcome. It suffices for us to establish well enough that sources, online and offline, will exist. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.
That said, even if it is notable, we are not required to have a separate article on it if it can be covered in section or a table row in an appropriate list-article, say. Which would be something like Buildings in the Charleston Historic District, currently a redlink. Corresponding to how Buildings in the Savannah Historic District relates to the similar large HD Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia). I would be happy to start that list-article myself, but cannot do so immediately. If someone else would start it with the mentioned list of 40 or so, plus this one, that would be fine by me. And this AFD could be closed as Merge to that, leaving redirect with article history behind. Or, Merge could be decided or recommended, to be implemented when possible. Until that needed list-article is created, though, this separate article should be kept. In a merge decision, it is okay to leave work to be done before the merge can be accomplished. I would do that work within a few weeks, anyhow. I think/hope this should help. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 27 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?) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G vs E

[edit]
G vs E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested with addition of sources, but they're still pretty thin. The first added is a paragraph-long opinion piece. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:23, 22 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. ✗plicit 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian Nobel laureates

[edit]
List of Asian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The only sources presented are for trivial facts about Nobel Prizes and have nothing to do with this specific intersection of "ethnicity" and "some other thing". On top of that, "Asian" is not really an ethnicity and is also a very large intersection, stretching all the way from Turkey to islands in the middle of the Pacific, and covering dozens of countries and ethnicities and billions of people: the relation between most of the listed winners here is, similarly, at best, very tenuous: if too broad groupings are unacceptable for categories, I very much doubt that a list based on such a grouping is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't understand the nominator's comments about ethnicity. Asia is a geographic region, and the article is written accordingly. What ever the confusion here, doesn't seem to justify deletion. CT55555 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is in both Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by ethnicity and Category:Lists of Asian people. Asia is too large a geographic region for this grouping to be pertinent. I don't see what this intersection of "people from Asia" and "Nobel winners" provides as useful encyclopedic content. One could similarly make thousands of other intersections without any of them being pertinent or encyclopedic. Simply because this one is about the Nobels doesn't exempt it from that: notability (or suitability for a Wikipedia article) is neither automatic nor inherited. We don't have List of Asian Fields medalists or List of Asian Oscar winners; nor do we have List of European Nobel laureates; or List of North American Nobel laureates. Simply because someone thought that the intersection of A and B was interesting does not make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so it's got an incorrect category added. That's easy to fix. I don't think that's a reason to delete. Nor do I think the ethnicity confusion is relevant.
    I think the question here is if the interaction of Asia and Nobel prize winners is notable. What did your WP:BEFORE find? Anything? CT55555 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing that would qualify as either a reliable source (read: Wikipedia mirrors) or significant coverage. I can find some coverage about specific sub-sections of Asia (i.e. China [33] [34]; or maybe "East Asia"/"South Asia" [35] [36]); but nothing about a grouping as wide as the one taken by this list (i.e. nothing which covers the whole of Asia to its maximum geographic extant, from Turkey to the Pacific, as one single group)). And this is still fundamentally an intersection of "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X" and "something else"; and given the lack of sources which talk about this large grouping or how it is a culturally significant phenomenon, also fails WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN, this group is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. AAPI Key Facts 2018 (NIH, "Asians have been the recipients in all Nobel award categories. The first Asian recipient, Rabindranath Tagore, was awarded the Literature Prize in 1913. To date, there have been 69 Asian winners of the Nobel Prize, 11 within the Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine categories."), The amazing history of the Nobel Prize, told in maps and charts (Washington Post, 2013, "All of Asia, despite being by far the largest and most populous region in the world, can claim only 49 Nobel laureates."), International Relations of Asia (2014, pp. 23-24, discussing Asian Nobel laureates as a group), A Handbook of Political Geography (2021, pp. 120-122, discussing Asian Nobel laureates). Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [37] is a short paragraph with a very basic-statement-of-fact feel and clearly doesn't constitute "significant coverage" of the topic as required per WP:GNG. All of Asia, in [38], clearly refers to a different grouping than the one of this article (which, just if it wasn't actually obvious enough; the article as it stands actually includes nearer to 80 winners...); and is not really in-depth coverage of any particular region. The next source is similarly not significant coverage. A trivial one-liner that "Asians have begun to garner an increasing share of Nobel Prizes" is not SIGCOV under any meaning of the term; and the listing which follows again seems very much limited to what really is South-East Asia (China, the Indian peninsula, Japan, ...). In short, the sources you have show this actually fails LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two sources help address your apparent concern that no sources have ever addressed the group or set of Asian Nobel laureates, and the second two are in-depth discussion of Asian Nobel laureates; all four independent and reliable sources discuss the group or set, and the in-depth coverage can help address concerns you raise about defining the parameters of the group. Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional sources discussing Asian nobel laureates: Cores, Peripheries, and Globalization (2011, p. 259), The Future Is Asian (2019, p. 354). More than snippets are available in previews of these sources, similar to the other books noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not saying that of the "first two sources", one does not use the same definition of Asia as this list (come on, there's a bloody map, look at it); and the other one is only a few basic-statement-of-fact sentences (neither encyclopedic nor significant coverage). Those are again trivial mentions and not significant coverage. The first of the additional sources only has a grand total of 4 or 5 sentences on "Asian Nobel laureates" (in the midst of a much wider discussion); The second one I can't access but judging again how it probably is a short mention on a single page, that would again not be SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you try the "Search inside" feature with the page numbers I provided or use the Gbooks search feature at the top of this page to click on the links to the title of the books. And a detailed discussion of "Asian Nobel laureates" in the context of a wider discussion is secondary commentary and analysis that supports the notability of the group. And I am sorry that your inability to access a source, cited as pp. 120-122, that has a section titled "Culture" and begins with a bolded "Nobel Prizes" and then proceeds into a detailed discussion about Asian Nobel laureates across three pages (for a total of nearly two pages of content), seems to lead you to conclude it is "probably is a short mention on a single page". Beccaynr (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one I can't access but judging again how it probably is a short mention on a single page, that would again not be SIGCOV.
    How can you tell if you can't access it? ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  22:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, and also WP:IMPACT. Meets qualifications set forth in WP:LISTCRITERIA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while it is potentially a broad group, since it has been discussed in reliable sources it is an encyclopedic topic and NOTDIRECTORY does not apply. Hut 8.5 12:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't "been discussed in reliable sources as an encyclopedic topic". It might have been trivially mentioned here or there, but none of the above sources (where coverage of Asian Nobel winners is usually at most a few sentences) can be considered "significant coverage". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY (your rationale for deleting this) with WP:LISTN. The former has nothing to do with the depth of coverage. And since one of the sources given is about 2 pages of content I don't agree that the only coverage is trivial. Hut 8.5 11:36, 25 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) Vexations (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Toogood

[edit]
Faye Toogood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. All sources except one include interviews with the subject which casts doubt on their independence. Promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too can see mentions in books but what I cannot see is what those books say. In my before search I was unable, and remain unable, to see any independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject. Until and unless someone can provide abstracts from these sources that demonstrate that they meet the needs of WP:GNG, I will remain of the view that notability has not been met. Any interviews are very rarely going to be independent, and the refs given certainly are not. There was no suggestion by me that either the subject or the journalist had been paid - that isn't the issue. The issue is that an interview is rarely independent - it doesn't usually present both sides of an argument unless it is a grilling of a politician which these refs certainly are not.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Velella, she meets WP:NARTIST by way of the collections in several notable museums. She also meets WP:GNG as there is a monograph book solely about her from Phaidon Press, a top-notch publisher of art & design books - that is considered significant coverage per WP:N aside from her inclusion in other books. Phaidon does not publish junk. There is a lot of material online about her (in addition to sources that are not online) for example, a review of her work in Pin-up Magazine HERE, five articles in Denzeen HERE, Gallerie Magazine calls her a "British superstar artist, designer" in this article HERE, and more. It's perplexing that you are not seeing these items in your BEFORE, perhaps we are "googling" from different geographic locations which might have a impact on what you are able to find. Here in the US, I'm finding tons of material. Netherzone (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see many citations with a simple google news search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Faye+Toogood%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&biw=1920&bih=929&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ56pRpCDdNe53ATMj4CXfUhkvUoA%3A1653619251469&ei=MzqQYrybHJThwbkPwfS14AY&ved=0ahUKEwj8gM_g0_73AhWUcDABHUF6DWwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Faye+Toogood%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQ1DCBVjuF2CMHGgAcAB4AIABa4gBtgKSAQMxLjKYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-news I think it passes WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:43, 27 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 12:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyotoma

[edit]
Priyotoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no indication filming ever began, let alone released, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 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 00:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Stop Feeling (disambiguation)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Can't Stop Feeling (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page not needed since the song by Franz Ferdinand is the only one that is exactly named "Can't Stop Feeling". Opposers at the RM suggested deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have closed the move discussion at Talk:Can't Stop Feeling (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2022 as "procedural close". No prejudice against new move discussion if this AfD is closed as keep. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:43, 26 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 13:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Feng

[edit]
Lila Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a television weather presenter, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for television personalities. As always, TV meteorologists are not automatically notable just because they have/had staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own present or former employers -- but as usual for old, bad articles about television meteorologists, a staff profile is the only source here, and the article makes no meaningful notability claim at all beyond the fact that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 22 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 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animesh Sharma

[edit]
Animesh Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, self-promotional, sources are all either by the subject or not WP:RS Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artilce about the work of renowned Indian writer and blogger Animesh Sharma. He belongs from a remote location in India and he is doing a remarkable job in the field of writing and blogging. His works are being considered for various notable awards. He is also working in the field Hindi blogging. His page is created as per wikipedia policy guidelines and page must be continued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksdw (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being considered does not mean having an award, and is not really relevant. Working in the field of Hindi blogging is not enough for notability. His origins are irrelevant. And no page ever 'must' be continued on Wikipedia. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:43, 22 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 COVID-19 pandemic in Eritrea. ✗plicit 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 vaccination in Eritrea

[edit]
COVID-19 vaccination in Eritrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"COVID-19 vaccination in Eritrea is an ongoing immunisation" and then later... "COVID-19 vaccination has not begun in Eritrea as of April 2022."

We can't have an article on a thing that doesn't exist. This is a placeholder article at best, in which case it should be moved to draft space. Or we cover the lack of a COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Eritrea, and the reasons why. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 22 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 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UK Kabaddi Cup

[edit]
2013 UK Kabaddi Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 9 years. Can't find any evidence of significant coverage from independent media. ProQuest has nothing at all. The only evidence that this sports event even took place seems to be at Live Kabaddi, which doesn't appear to be an independent source. In any case, there is no significant coverage, only a link to a broken video. Unless evidence of WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG can be provided, the article must be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 22 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 13:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Canada World Kabaddi Cup

[edit]
2013 Canada World Kabaddi Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any news coverage of this event in ProQuest or Google searches. I have tried both "Canada World Kabaddi Cup" and "Canada Kabaddi Cup" in my searches. Potentially fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Would have redirected to Canada World Kabaddi Cup but, oddly, that seems to redirect itself to this article. Unless someone can find a source, this may even be a WP:V issue. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:00, 22 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 05:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candice James

[edit]
Candice James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building media coverage, of a writer whose only stated claim of notability is having served as poet laureate of a midsized suburban city.
This is not an "inherent" notability freebie that secures inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself; it would be fine if there were genuinely solid sourcing and/or additional notability claims (e.g. notable literary awards), but the sourcing here is entirely to the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims and/or social networking content on YouTube and Facebook, which aren't support for notability at all, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, New Westminster's own community weekly hyperlocal is the only place I'm finding any hint of non-trivial coverage of her, with absolutely no evidence that she ever even got coverage from the major GNG-worthy daily newspapers in Greater Vancouver, let alone anything wider or more nationalized.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any substantial media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, does not cite independent credible sources. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:32, 27 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 12:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gyanendra Pratap Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, only interviews and mentions. Priya Ragini (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foul End

[edit]
Foul End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not cite any notable sources and uses the stats and articles for instead both nearby Kingsbury and Hurley. It would be best either deleted and mentioned under Kingsbury or Hurley. Also no real notable schools churches amenities history anything about this place... DragonofBatley (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete We need something better than maps for this. The name shows up all the way back to the first series Ordinance Survey maps, but what they show is a few buildings at the same location as the current farm on the spot, indistinguishable from numerous other sprinkles of names and dots which are more obviously farms and estates. Over in the USA we've had numerous problems with names on maps being interpreted as town/villages/etc. when further investigation showed they could be almost anything (see WP:GNIS for a list of examples); given that this situation parallels those almost exactly, I think we need other sources which talk about the place. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well aren't the Survey of English Place-Names enough? A lot more than just maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at both sources and neither says what the spot was; also, it appears they are referring to a different spot anyway. Mangoe (talk) 04:35, 26 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 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Asian Kabaddi Championship

[edit]
1985 Asian Kabaddi Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

from what I found no tournament was held in that year. and beside that the source used for this article is a hoax. it gives nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Sports2021, the only reference given links to a domain selling page PaulPachad (talk) 20:09, 24 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 Egusi#Usage. Moving other pages is not within the scope of this AfD. Sandstein 16:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efo elegusi

[edit]
Efo elegusi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary – this is one kind of pumpkin soup and the article is written as a recipe. Previously PRODded, author removed PROD and renamed the page as evasion. Parts of it could be salvaged for Pumpkin soup, the rest are not notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: To closing admin, could you move Egusi sauce to Egusi soup? Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 04:44, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Girlfriends

[edit]
The Girlfriends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in 2009, when notability guidelines were more lax than they are in 2022. As the group briefly came into existence in 1964 and then disappeared just as quickly, it would appear to me somewhat unreasonable that online sources should be mandatory here. It would appear - from unreliable, user-generated sites like Discogs, at https://www.discogs.com/artist/1050826-The-Girlfriends - there really was a trio of this name. Given the undoubtedly notable artists, producers and record labels mentioned here, it would appear to me that a deletion discussion would be the better option that outright speedy deletion. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 22 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 18:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fireburst

[edit]
Fireburst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source, which only links to the developer's website, and content seems to have been written like an advertisement. Also doesn't seem to be very notable to begin with. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 10:26, 22 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 11:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of media portraying drug smuggling

[edit]
List of media portraying drug smuggling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the only list on Wikipedia entitled "List of media portraying Foo". It's unreferenced and in addition to WP:V arguably fails WP:NLIST, as well as WP:IPC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. There is a general consensus that secondary sources, such as those presented by Ficaia, are sufficient to meet WP:LISTN, despite a single objection from the nominator. There are certainly legitimate concerns about WP:OR and WP:V. However, for a notable topic the bar for deletion on those grounds is very high, and based on this discussion there is no general appetite for WP:TNT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references in The Cantos

[edit]
List of cultural references in The Cantos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have only two articles on Wikipedia named "List of cultural references in Foo". This is one of the (the other is the List of cultural references in the Divine Comedy). Both suffer form the same major problem: failing WP:OR and WP:GNG (ok, two problems). They have no footnotes, just general list of references that may or many not be relevant. They fail WP:NLIST. They are fascinating, as notes for someone's PhD, but I don't think they encyclopedic in the current form. Note that this was a former featured list, demoted in 2009 due to failing WP:V (no inline citations) and WP:OR. It hasn't improved since. PS. Imagine, each article about any piece of fiction could have an ORish subarticle on "List of cultural references in...". Like, "list of cultural reference in episode 12, season 6, of Star Trek: The Next Generations"... we dodged a bullet we only have two such articles, honestly. WP:NOTTVTROPES comes to mind, too... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an incredibly important appendix to what is a very important literary work. Deleting this page would be catastrophic for Wikipedia’s cultural section. This and its main page were written by Filiocht, who I remember well and (without risk of outing him) was a respected authority on Ezra Pound. To even consider deleting any of his Wikipedia works because they don’t meet some rule dreamt up since they were written is plainly absurd. Are works by William Shakespeare to be burnt because their spelling and grammar don’t meet today’s recognised standards? Adding the page to the main page would make it ridiculously long and deter people from reading it, if it’s such a problem (and I don’t believe it is) then start a category around The Cantos.Giano (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL does not trump WP:OR. If you think it is valuable, and I don't deny it can be, consider transwikifying it to Wikibooks, for example. Such content is simply not within the scope of Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Giano makes a good case for keeping it. Also its a valid spinout article, valid information, the main article would be too long with it in there. Dream Focus 13:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list doesn't look like other lists, in the sense that it lacks inline citations. (The list of references verifies the material in the list.) If it had inline citations, it would presumably need them for each item, would be longer and uglier than it is, and would include a formidable raft of footnotes. It would be a tortured victim of the bed of Procrustes that is the wikipedian passion for uniformity. Treating a list such as this in that way would defy common sense and make it unreadable, IMO. Do we really want to choose between doing it over with the inline references (Procrustean stretching), which is anyway unrealistic now that Filiocht is long gone, and deletion (Procrustean lopping-off of limbs)? I note the OP's suggestion that if we keep this list, we're essentially encouraging people to write List of cultural reference in episode 12, season 6, of Star Trek: The Next Generations (I actually think that should be "Generation", without the "s"), because... well, I suppose because every work of fiction is as valuable as every other, and Pokemons are, to the principled Wikipedian, as good as Ulysses. I disagree. I only wish we had a List of cultural references in The Waste Land, and I don't hold with discouraging people from creating such lists. I'll quote WP:Commonsense: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective". PS, full disclosure, Giano alerted me to this discussion. He knows I'm interested in Filiocht's work. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Strong KEEP per "...this was a former featured list"; it was once considered that this was a prime example of encyclopedic content. It is understood that standards have changed, insofar that we now have WP:NOTLIST (which does not appear to be relevant here, as it is not a standalone article but a branch of one) or WP:OR upon which I shall expand. Yes, it might be argued to be OR to compile a list as there cannot now be found a source or sources for the information in that format, however, each entry is likely to be verifiable - which remains the base for which the inclusion of content is judged; It is not important that content is sourced but that it could be if the effort was made. ps. My disclosure is that I am a Bishstalker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand the logic that this is WP:OR when the information is taken from indexes and such in the listed sources, from which a list is made ensuring that WP:COPYVIO is not an issue. By the logic of saying that rewriting the sources sufficiently that plagiarism is not a problem is Original Research, then we had best delete the content of the encyclopedia - starting with the Wikipedia article - as being so. Obviously this is ridiculous, and this discussion is straining the credibility of the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think we have to worry about this type of article in general, I think it's sufficient to use the normal requirements. For WP:GNG/WP:LISTN: Are there secondary sources which discuss the topic "cultural references in The Cantos"? Was a WP:BEFORE search done? What were the results? Do the sources listed in the article discuss that? For e.g. Ulysses I expect such sources would exist, for a specific Star Trek episode, that's hard to imagine. And if there were, then by all means, let's have such an article in that case. As for WP:OR/WP:V: Having no inline citations is no grounds for deletion. Is there a good reason not to assume in good faith that the given references will support the content of our list here? In addition, if a topic, like e.g. Adonis, is discussed in the text of The Cantos, than that's verifiable by the primary source itself, that's not original research. Only if the reference is oblique that would require a secondary source. Lastly, I own an annotated edition of The Divine Comedy, which should contain references to most if not all the topics present in List of cultural references in the Divine Comedy. I assume something similar exits for The Cantos. So I can't see the problem there. Daranios (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Even if this concept is notable, the current execution merits WP:TNT. This is simply not how our modern Manual of Style dictates articles should look. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: If this is a problem of style rather than content, then I argue that WP:TNT is never applicable. None of the serious examples of problems in that essay refers to mode of presentation, and neither have I seen this in WP:Deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. Perhaps this was "featured list" material in a different time in the development of this project, but it is rather an overaccumulation of cruft. It would be better suited to a fan wiki for Ezra Pound. References that are truly significant in literature can be worked into The Cantos (as many are), but this, frankly, is just too much, to the point of indeed becoming indiscriminate. BD2412 T 06:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my reasoning above, until I see a good reason why this should fail WP:LISTN despite the presence of a number of secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't like the precedence suggested here, and as a co-conspirator on the Ezra Pound bio, would hate to see a list like this, which I see as untangled weeds spun out to die, merged. Ceoil (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weeds spun off to die should, well.. die. This is pure WP:OR. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Would you care to explain why you think "This is pure WP:OR"? Having come to a different conclusion, I can assure you that it is not at all obvious. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of footnotes is usually a telling hint. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: By that logic we should delete everything on Wikipedia which does not have an in-line citation. While having those is preferable, that cannot be our goal and I don't think that's supported by policies anywhere. Or to quote WP:OR: "all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation" and "Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." We don't have in-line citations here, but we do have sources. Do you have a good reason to suspect that those do not cover the content of the article? Let's make a trial with the first entry in the list, Acoetes. I don't have access to the sources given besides what's available on Google books. And that tells me at least that the Annotated Index to the Cantos of Ezra Pound, p. 1, covers that for the most part. As do other sources not listed in the article like this, this, or this. So this section can be verfied, no problem with WP:V or WP:OR there. Do you have a good reason to suspect it is otherwise for other sections? Daranios (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios "Do you have a good reason to suspect it is otherwise for other sections?". How is this not a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Huh? There are eight+ sources present in the article. I have just shown for one randomly chosen example that they do indeed cover content of our list here. I have provided three more sources for that randomly chosen example. How is that in any way a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument? Daranios (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN says that once content has been challenged, it should not be restored without a proper footnote-style reference. WP:AGF allows us to keep such content, for a while, but eventually, it has to be improved to meet our modern standards. We believe we were much more forgiving to OR in the past. Now that our attention has focused on this article, either it is rewritten to meet those standards, or deleted (or maybe moved to someone's userspace if they want to work on it in the future). - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Per WP:BURDEN "...If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Have you checked with User Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus whether they had attempted to provide the citations, or that they were aware of this duty, or indeed you were when you quoted just part of it. Obviously, as there are sources noted then the question of verifiability is moot. Why was this article put for deletion before this step was taken. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any annotated edition of The Cantos will contain explanatory footnotes or internal commentary for many if not all of the cultural references included in this list. Here are 3 examples: (1), (2), (3). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:OR. It reads like part of the scientific apparatus of Pound's work, but Wikipedia is not for original research - this is a core policy which cannot be overridden by local consensus. And nothing above explains how this is not OR, i.e. based on secondary sources. Sandstein 16:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what about all the annotated editions? Some contain introductory essays to each Canto, some use footnotes, but they all make an effort to explain Pound's references for the student. Any number of sources could be added here, as there's basically a cottage industry in lit studies of "explaining" Pound. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then start referencing this, as required by WP:V. Unreferenced content can be removed, and should not be restored, after challenge, unless referenced. Consider every unreferenced sentence in that article challenged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started referencing the article. Note that this (1) critical edition has a long index, with entries on most if not all of the items currently in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response to GizzyCatBella and WP:BURDEN, that would have been your job before listing the article. There were the sources listed at the end of the article, which would have made clear that the content was available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See immediately above - the sources are available, in a format that reflects the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is not sufficient to disprove OR. For example, we have "Meyer Anselm – Banker – Canto LXXIV (referenced)". Ok, I AGF that the cited source explains that such and such person, named in that Canto, is a banker. But that's a historical reference, not cultural. Does that source goes into a WP:SIGCOV-level discussion of how the mention of Mayer Anselm in is related to culture? Bottom line, while this article represents an undeniably useful analysis of a literary work, useful is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:ITSUSEFUL). In order for this to be kept, we have to show that the topic is notable (that there are reliable works that discuss "cultural references in The Cantos"), and that our discussion is based on such work and not on primary sources or mentions in passing (per WP:SYNTH). Right now, there are weak signs that the first criteria is met (but I stress, weak), and I see zero signs that the latter is. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:LISTN seems to be clearly met, and Ficaia's recent edits have gone a good way to resolving concerns (unconvincing concerns, I think) about WP:OR (so WP:HEY applies too). I'd also note that an article like this doesn't actually need to be independently notable in the first place per WP:SIZESPLIT, as it's made of encyclopaedic material that couldn't comfortably fit in the main article on the topic. Finally, whether these are all specifically cultural references and how to treat items that are better described as historical is an interesting question, but not one that has any bearing on whether this should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These kinds of guides are something that Wikipedia is getting good at offering. For these large tomes that massively culturally significant, these types of lists really help to the reader, navigate the text, which is true calling. The list is is eminently notable. scope_creepTalk 10:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too hung up in the names. There is several for them, but there definently more than two articles in existance. scope_creepTalk 10:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Pare

[edit]
Ankur Pare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

End-to-end WP:PROMO case. Résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 22 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 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadhome

[edit]
Leadhome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:24, 22 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 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrance and Flavours Association of India

[edit]
Fragrance and Flavours Association of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack neutrality as per WP:NPOV. Also, lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:14, 22 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 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Kothari

[edit]
Rishabh Kothari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 22 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 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G Fashion

[edit]
G Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:UPE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:06, 22 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 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folomanu Kulene

[edit]
Folomanu Kulene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 22 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) 07:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teoliga Fakailoga

[edit]
Teoliga Fakailoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:14, 22 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 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
John C. Wells Planetarium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not seem to have changed much since last deletion discussion, so the previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-07 (closed as merge to James Madison University)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Katenda

[edit]
Lukas Katenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation led me to Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa, which has a section on Namibia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 22 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 11:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasani Persians

[edit]
Khorasani Persians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, none of the sources in the article mention anything about "Khorasani Persians". The article is a violation of WP:OR, with the context tantamounting to having articles such as "Californian Americans". - LouisAragon (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carey R. Dunne

[edit]
Carey R. Dunne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:ANYBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. Most of the coverage is focussed on the cases rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP: ANYBIO -- well-known or significant award or honor... please see Awards section on the article; there are several. Widely recognized contribution to Supreme Court cases on President Trump (see C-SPAN citations, see New York Times, etc). This is all extremely well-accounted for. Llmeyers (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find the Awards section convincing. They certainly don't have their own articles and seem similar to other awards given within the circles of a specific profession. As an analogy, many wines get awards, but few wines are actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Anachronist, I meant to slash my above comment as well. I went back to strikethrough a few things after I understood more about MrsSnoozyTurtle's reasoning. I explained my thoughts below in more depth. But overall I agree with you, that the Awards section of the article is not the most convincing for keeping it. It's more Dunne's role in the New State courts, his role as President of the NYC Bar Association, and so forth. Llmeyers (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to delete because of WP:1EVENT. I am not convinced the awards are notable, and if he hadn't been involved in the Trump case, I am skeptical he would merit an article. The relevant information could be merged into New York investigations of The Trump Organization. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :WP:1EVENT notes that in the case of a highly significant event where the individual's role is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I think Dunne certainly qualifies.
    I also think having links to New York investigations of The Trump Organization is definitely important, but doesn't totally cover it. Dunne's colleague on the investigations, Mark Pomerantz, has an individual page which similarly includes his role in the Trump cases as well as his other work as a federal prosecutor.
    Similarly, Dunne's page is not only relevant because of the Trump investigations. His work as a white collar criminal defender for Davis Polk is also notable –– as was the well-publicized murder trial of Lonnie Jones and his subsequent exoneration. That case was remanded by the Supreme Court of New York in 2006 and led not only to Jones's exoneration but also an order by the New York Court of Claims that the state pay Jones $1.8 million in compensation. [See info from National Registry of Exonerations here.] Llmeyers (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llmeyers Hi again! This is your first afd, so when it's done you will have learned some stuff about afd:s. 2 things: Only write keep once on a page like this. You don't have to strikethrough or anything, but remember that going forward. Also, "Mark Pomerantz has an article" is one of the weaker arguments you can make in this context, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there's one thing Wikipedians don't trust, it's Wikipedia. Which is for the good of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you... ack, learning a lot today! Sorry to clog the discussion page, everyone. Llmeyers (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thing: It seems that Dunne's presidency of the NYC Bar Association is really notable here, potentially just as important as his role in the Trump investigations. I think there's little reason he didn't have a page before the Trump investigations –– he certainly could have. Llmeyers (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you describe any nonreliable sources used on the page? Vast majority of the page's citations come from reputable independent sources: Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times, C-SPAN, etc. Llmeyers (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Llmeyers. The reliability of those sources isn't the question here, it's how they relate to the individual. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! If you read the articles, you'll see that some of them are not ONLY about the cases, per say, but focus on Dunne's background & professional history. This is also true for the articles that discuss Pomerantz and Dunne's resignation. Llmeyers (talk) 12:31, 23 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 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinis Krauklis

[edit]
Reinis Krauklis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG all sources I could find are trivial in nature, such as [73] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 22 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 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HTI Group

[edit]
HTI Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable apart from its subsidiaries. A quick Google search does not seem to indicate the significant media coverage needed for notability. Additionally, this whole page looks almost like a company webpage and thus promotional. It's been polluted by paid editors in the past. Firestar464 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 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 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoola

[edit]
Yoola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable , the company don't have good references AlexandruAAlu (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "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 - articles that simply regurgitate quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews and basic information and descriptions fail ORGIND.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to draft. Sources currently in the article do not support encyclopedic notability. It is possible such sources could be found or could develop, but the article as it stands does not meet the sctrictures of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Kumar Tiwari

[edit]
Brajesh Kumar Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Citations are not yet impressive enough i.e., h-index is just 11. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 22 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 03:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CLAP (company)

[edit]
CLAP (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references provided discuss the subject in any kind of depth-- all are passing mentions. Was not able to find significant coverage in published reliable indepdendent sources. Existence does not equal notability. If sources exist in Japanese, then they need to be demonstrated. A loose necktie (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 22 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 12:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Schoenfeld

[edit]
Wayne Schoenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. See also Talk:Wayne Schoenfeld#COI tag (May 2022). – Ploni (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Something seems "off" about this article. I had a look at some of the sourcing (not all) and the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, have zero record of him nor the author in their archives. The Los Angeles Times and others did not check out either. This might be a possible hoax or fake sources? I'll spend some time to look deeper into the sourcing before coming to any firm conclusions and !voting. Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems apparent that this person does not meet our notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. I searched the databases of the newspapers and other publications that supposedly had coverage, but most of them showed no mention of this person at all, or were simple name checks or calendar listings. The permanent collection claim is false, as this too was a name check that he was in a show not a permanent collection. His books are mostly self-published. A Google search reveals only social media, a few press releases and wikipedia mirrors, a Newspapers.com search shows no in-depth SIGCOV. The sourcing is dubious and the article seems to be a PR effort, and as mentioned in the nomination a COI creation, (possible UPE). Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_22&oldid=1099661810"