Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 05 November 07 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Wood: As Seen on TV documentaries

[edit]
Victoria Wood: As Seen on TV documentaries (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)

Excessively niche, mostly OR, does not meet notability requirements; WP:NOTPLOT. JJLiu112 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Mastrogiacomo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gina Mastrogiacomo (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 just performed the minimal search (step D of AFD) and found nothing new since 2015. The few sources used by the article are basically useless, briefly mentioning the subject by name while discussing other things. In my opinion not a single one establishes notability, just like the cleanup tag suggests. The article has already been through AFD in 2015, and the result was delete.

Still, deleting an article on an actress with an arguably recognizable name doesn't strike me as uncontroversial, so here we are. CapnZapp (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I mostly see her referenced in content covering Goodfellas (Looper: [1], ScreenRant: [2], the book Made Men: [3]), but the only significant coverage of her I can find that doesn't seem to just be a passing reference to her role in an otherwise obviously notable film is from thelocalreport.in, which appears to be a blog and not a reliable source ([4]). I think this is enough to say she fails WP:GNG. As for WP:NACTOR, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...," emphasis added. I don't think single-episode appearances in Seinfeld, ER, or The X-Files hit "significant." Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what you expect to find -- new articles written about a dead actress? Granted, she's not famous like Robin Williams, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have an article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how Wikipedia notability requirements work. One imprecise way of saying it is: if an actress is notable it is easy to find reputable sources discussing her and her career (unless perhaps we're talking early 1900s cinema where sources are more likely to be books not always accessible from the web). If you can find even a single good source discussing the subject (that brings up - actually discusses, mind you, not merely mentions - at least two of her roles), you should easily be able to argue she meets GNG/BIO/ENT. In-depth interviews, retrospectives, even other actors discussing the subject's contributions to cinema. Anything with substance. The age of these sources does not matter. Conversely, we are having this AfD because if noone among us can find any such source, and remember, the search didn't start yesterday, but in 2020 when the article was tagged, that is a clear indicator she simply is not notable (per Wikipedia's definition). Since you are the article creator, it's important to add that should your work be deleted that is not meant as personal criticism. It simply means the article meets one of our reasons for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON, specifically #8 in this case). Hope that helps CapnZapp (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:NACTOR criterion #1, which was invoked above, states that the subject must've had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Which are these multiple notable films or TV shows? And, more importantly, where are her significant performances? I offer some forensics that cut through the unreasonable hype:
- She appeared in Goodfellas. The article piles on no less than five references that supposedly support the claim in the text that she "delivered a performance praised for its passionate and realistic delivery". (a) CNN's article quoting Roger Ebert simply identifies Mastrogiacomo in a photo caption. (b) Another CNN article does not mention Mastrogiacomo at all. (c) From the review in Screen Rant we're informed she played her role "with real humanity". (d) In The Decider report we read that Liotta's characters "ogles women — his mistresses, Janice (Gina Mastrogiacomo) and Sandy (Debi Mazar)". That's all. And (e) in the New York Times piece, Mastrogiacomo only gets a name drop. That was actually her only passably significant appearance on TV or the movies.
- She also appeared in an instantly forgettable role as a prostitute in one Seinfeld episode; in another walk-through in an NYPD Blue episode, so irrelevant that not even the NYPD Blue fansite mentions her; and, if you saw Jungle Fever, you might have missed her as "Louise," a tiny speaking part of half a dozen seconds screen time overall. From the on, it's all further downhill: a couple of small parts in Motorcycle Gang and Tall, Dark and Deadly, while the Wikipedia article on Harry and the Hendersons, her first movie, does not even mention her.
I have no idea what's behind the effort, which is otherwise admirable for its tenacity, to insert an article about a rather obscure actress in Wikipedia but the reality is there is nothing out there to support that. -The Gnome (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has a major supporting role in Tall, Dark, and Deadly according to the review in Variety, and has the leading female character role in the film Space Avenger (where she is the only leading actress among a cast otherwise made up of men). Her role in Goodfellas is significant as a mid sized supporting role in an important film. I would count all three of these as significant parts; enough to pass WP:NACTRESS. I should point out that while we currently lack articles on both Tall, Dark, and Deadly and Space Avenger, there are enough critical reviews of both of those that we could have articles on them which pass WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this now is clutching at straws. For a start, bringing up the fact that she had a role in some film whose "cast was otherwise made up of men" is neither here nor there. There is nothing significant about that, unless we were doing some analysis from a feminist perspective - which would be welcome but it's not what we're here for. Then, you resort to linguistic twisters in order to upgrade and magnify Mastrogiacomo's contributions. There is nothing about a "major supporting role" in the Variety review. Her role in Goodfellas no one in sources assessed as "mid-sized". Above, I went through the related sources on Goodfellas in detail and the most we have is that she played the part "with real humanity". Verbiage such as the claim in the article where it is claimed "delivered a performance praised for its passionate and realistic delivery" has no legs to stand on, i.e. no sources amounting to such arating. These are words entirely made up by an editor. As to the movies Tall, Dark, and Deadly and Space Avenger supposedly getting some time in the future their own Wikipedia article, and thus justifying the claim about Mastrogiacomo having taken part in "multiple" notable films, that's just pure and unacceptable speculation.
When one wants to look up obscure artists, Wikipedia should not be one's first choice. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that goes by sources. It's not a depository of record or an assortment of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She very clearly meets WP:NACTOR #1 by virtue of significant roles in multiple, notable films and TV shows. I don't find the denigration of the roles in highly notable films and TV shows or the denigration of other films as non-notable very convincing, and I am truly puzzled by the ascribing of improper motives to those editors who oppose deletion. In any event, I've added three additional sources. Banks Irk (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denigration" seems a bit extreme; I don't think it's unreasonable to question the notability of Space Avenger or Tall, Dark, and Deadly. I don't think there's any reason to assume anyone has bad motives here in either direction; this is a marginally notable person and that tends to be where AfD arguments emerge.
I disagree with The Gnome on two important points: her role in Goodfellas appears to be significant and covered by reliable sources, and WP:OR is not relevant here at all (that covers original research occuring on Wikipedia, and isn't about source reliability; WP:RSEDITORIAL is relevant, but reviews are generally reliable for the purposes of establishing notability). I'm still not convinced she meets WP:NACTOR—though I could find some coverage of Space Avenger suggesting it might have been notable (along with the Variety piece, there's this review in the Orlando Sentinel [5]), it's yet another borderline thing. If she hadn't been in Goodfellas, I can't imagine a strong argument in favor of her notability, so it seems to be the only role that truly meets the criteria laid out. That said, it should be noted that NACTOR is a guideline; it is possible for someone to be notable without meeting criteria (see for instance Peter Ostrum—note this isn't an other stuff exists argument for inclusion, just an example of a case where NACTOR is not met but GNG is, and it's an exception and not the rule; we don't have an article for Carrie Henn, who played Newt in Aliens).
Is this a case where an actor is sufficiently notable for a single film? Honestly, I don't know. I'd be inclined to support inclusion if there were sources that had significant coverage of her; as is we have a handful of passing mentions of her in routine coverage. The mentions in Made Men, Women and Mixed Race Representation in Film, and Understanding Tracy Letts are all brief—in each case, less than a paragraph, not really significant for establishing notability. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more remark, for Banks Irk: A contributor who's enthusiastic about a subject, such as a fan of an actor, and acts accordingly in Wikipedia, is not acting with "improper motives". Let's reserve such potential motives for editors who balance editorial duty with getting paid for their work, who promote here political ideologies, or who overpreach their nations' glories. I do not assign any kind of improrpiety to any of the editors who I see here suggesting the oposite of what I suggest or to those who've contributed to the text I'm suggesting should be taken down. Enthusiasm and fandom can sometimes mislead us but they're not perforce "improper" sentiments. -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't pass. She has had a few "significant" roles, however they aren't in notable films (eg space avenger). Otherwise, her roles have been minor. I agree, her only notable role was in Goodfellas, and that's not enough to warrant an article either with WP:NACTOR or GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Gnome, for your analysis. CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Sicily (Marxist−Leninist)

[edit]
Communist Party of Sicily (Marxist−Leninist) (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)

Regional party practically unknown and absent in the sources, which scored an ephemeral result (0.22% in Sicily) in 1972. It definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Why notable? For its electoral result? It scored 0.0% of the vote in 1972. The article must be evaluted for the available sources, honestly I don't see any "valuable information that would be lost" on this article.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's very hard to search on this because few online Italian newspapers go back to this date. The party did exist and did participate in an election, but otherwise I can find little about it. I find one other possible mention in Google Books but nothing substantial, just a mention in a footnote. Although the "marxist-leninist" parties in Italy were not directly associated with the PCI I think it would be possible to add a section to Italian Communist Party about the various separate parties such as this one. The references here could support that, IMO. Lamona (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Echols

[edit]
Mike Echols (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)

All sources failed verification, and were local only anyway. Even if all this is true (maybe, maybe not), he is really only known for one book, and that book isn't notable enough for its own article. The criminal stuff seems only here to discredit him. I've removed some BLP concerns (other persons), left the rest intact, but this person is simply not well known enough to warrant an article. There is a Mike Echols who is an American Football player, who would be the logical choice for this article title. I would suggest deleting this, and moving the football player to this article, as the football player is obviously notable and would be the primary target for this title. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harris, Scott (10 Mar 1992). "A Victory for Shadowy Crusader As Persistent as a Nazi Hunter and as Duplicitous as a Con Man, Mike Echols `Stings' Pedophile Group and Stirs a Tempest in San Francisco". The Los Angeles Times. p. 1.
  • Blackwell, Tom (25 July 2001). "Web site monitored to catch pedophiles: Was based in Montreal". National Post. p. A7.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illia Samoilenko (officer)

[edit]
Illia Samoilenko (officer) (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 a case of WP:BIO1E, outside of the siege of Mariupol, there is no in-depth coverage of this individual. Was redirected to the siege article, but recreated. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Thorsen

[edit]
Robin Thorsen (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 coverage of her that wasn't about her role in The Guild, and even that coverage is very passing mentions (i.e., her name in parentheses after her role in The Guild). benǝʇᴉɯ 20:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: The subject's role in The Guild is good for WP:NACTOR, but I can't find any other TV or film performances that assist us. She did have a main role in a short film, Magic H8 Ball, as evidenced by this Screen Rant review, but I don't think the production itself is notable enough. I have no idea about her theatre productions, though. In terms of sourcing, there are multiple hits at newspapers.com, but almost all appear to be passing mentions. Even the Screen Rant article (and I confess I have no idea whether Screen Rant is considered WP:RS—can anyone help me out there?) makes brief reference to her. According to IMDb, she did share an award as part of the ensemble cast for The Guild. The Wikipedia article asserts that she has won other awards, but there is no sourcing to back that up. All in all, I don't think the notability guidelines are met, but if anything else can be unearthed, I'll happily revisit my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Cenat

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kai Cenat (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)

Nothing's changed from the AfD 2 months ago made by Praxidicae. Lots of fluff pieces. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again? we just deleted this one. Same as last time; it seems most sources now are "meet the stars nominated for awards" articles, so brief mentions. Most aren't even in RS; the yahoo news is from one37pm, which is about as reliable as it sounds. Yahoo is basically a site that reposts anything and everything online. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen no indications that One37pm isn't reliable. From my readings on Variety, it seems to be owned by Gary Vaynerchuk as part of Gallery Media Group. [9] It could also be argued this Dot Esports piece covering him in depth is a weak WP:GNG pass. [10] Célestin Denis (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the previous arguments proposed by Praxidicae in the first AfD was that there wasn't in depth coverage about the subject. Now that there is that coverage, why shouldn't Kai Cenat warrant an article? Unless the sources are deemed by a community census to non-reliable, we shouldn't rush into deletion of such an article. Social media entertainers are often subject to heavy misinformation because of the alternative sources fans use for information on the subject and I think the Wikipedia community should be a lot less severe towards notable entertainers in order to let verifiable information circulate on the subjects. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of YouTubers and Twitch streamers who would pass WP:GNG in any other context that I've seen be deleted or draftified is ridiculous. I've had to face attempted speedy deletion, AfD or draftification for every single social media entertainer article that I've created and I'm starting to sense a pattern. Unless we as a community come together to recognize the notability of entertainers and establish precedents for such articles, we might be enabling the circulation of misinformation online. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage is coverage. I mean you won't find articles on twitch streamers in the NYT, we'd have to vet certain sources as RS over at the discussion place for such things. Til then, we can only play with the tools we have. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if this helps Kai Cenat's claim to notability but I just found another in-depth piece on Kai Cenat on French video game journal Jeuxvideo.com [11] Célestin Denis (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources it is reliable so that should count unless standards had dropped significantly since it was placed there.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for this, this is a great addition to Kai Cenat's claim to notability, I can't believe I've never checked this before. According to the WikiProject, Dot Esports is also considered a reliable source which would make the extensive coverage of his career (I found about 15 articles from Dot Esports where Kai Cenat is the primary subject) a GNG pass. Additionally, I've found other articles from other reliable video game sources such as Kotaku [12], Inven Global [13] and Game Zone [14]. Célestin Denis (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this version is improved over the version deleted two months ago. The French video game journal source and the One37pm source appear to be enough for a weak pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a few months can make a big difference when it comes to internet stardom. There is a massive volume of coverage on him on a few online publications, and he is also getting mentions in more mainstream media like this piece. He may not have been notable a few months ago, but being one of the most subscribed streamer on Twitch has to count for something. This may not be a formal criteria, but Cenat clearly belongs on List_of_most-followed_Twitch_channels and I don't know why he's not on it. The top 9 names on the list all have Wikipedia pages. There are at least 50 articles just about him surpassing another Twitch user to become the most subscribed English speaking Twitch user. These may all be low quality sources by conventional standards, but the sheer volume has to count for something. Chagropango (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the new sources cited in this discussion and the ones in the version that appeared before this AfD. I'd even argue that this leans towards a speedy keep per criteria #3 which aptly applies to Onel5969's inaccurate rationale for deleting this article. Not to assume bad faith, but to argue that "nothing's changed" from the previous AfD despite the vast differences in sourcing from the previous version to now is quite erroneous - especially with the ongoing DRV that's already leaning towards the consensus that the G4 deletion was a mistake. Not to mention, not specifying which references are so-called "fluff" and why. Also, the improvements Célestin Denis made here could make a good example of WP:HEY. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another "famous for being famous" type. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please elaborate on how you believe Kai Cenat doesn't meet WP:GNG? This is the reason this article was listed for deletion. You believing that Cenat is "famous for being famous" is a subjective opinion and not in itself a reason to delete the article. Célestin Denis (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There exists more than a dozen articles where Kai Cenat is the primary subject in 5 different sources deemed reliable by the community. Some of the articles in question also go very in depth about his career and other aspects of his life. I have yet to see anyone justify this deletion with evidence of the sources being unreliable or a clear Wikipedia policy going against the article. Every single argument for deletion is made on perception, the previous deletion discussion or unsubstantiated claims. Célestin Denis (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    so is Kim Kardashian. Did we delete her article? Your comment does not include any valid deletion rationale. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with VersaceSpace and Célestin. I smell a pungent aroma of WP:IDONTLIKEIT coming from Stifle's vote. For anyone reading this discussion: if you're going to vote delete, at least put a better effort at doing so that doesn't reveal your unwarranted bias towards internet personalities. Otherwise, save the bytes for arguing over if some obscure 19th century artist needs an infobox. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion either way on notability here but this is clearly not an acceptable reason to delete an article, and the term famous for being famous doesn't even really apply here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have prepared a source assessment table to strengthen my claim of Kai Cenat's passing of WP:GNG
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Dot Esports - September 13, 2022 Yes Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Article centered around his career and describing him as one of the most subscribed streamers on Twitch - Credible claim of importance. ✔ Yes
Jeuxvideo.com - September 27, 2022 Yes Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Article describing his rise as a Twitch streamer and how he became one of the most subscribed Twitch streamers. ✔ Yes
Kotaku - September 26, 2022 Yes Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Goes into detail about Kai Cenat's rise as a Twitch streamer. ✔ Yes
Inven Global - August 27, 2022 Yes Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Article describes his rise as a Twitch streamer and asserts him as one of the biggest names on the platform.
✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Célestin Denis (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion after the addition of a source table that may help the discussion progress. I closed the first AFD so I'll let another admin/NAC close this second one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrightView

[edit]
BrightView (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 am not able to find coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. Coverage in the article is either routine (IPOs, acquistions) or in trade publications which aren't of use for determining notability. My searches did not turn up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Sons of Anarchy and Mayans M.C. characters#Deputy David Hale. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Hale (Sons of Anarchy)

[edit]
David Hale (Sons of Anarchy) (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 secondary character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Doesn't give a claim to literary value or influence. Existing references are more about the actor than the character. Critical, non-trivial references about the character aren't forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems to have no independent notability, as all sources talk more about the actor.
2601:647:5800:4D2:B473:DA3F:2C7B:8141 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McAnulty

[edit]
Nick McAnulty (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 filmmaker, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The strongest notability claim on offer here is that one of his films won an award at a minor film festival -- but as always, Wikipedia does not accept just any award from just any film festival on earth as an instant notability freebie, and instead looks for a narrow range of internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Sundance or Toronto. The source for the award claim here, however, is the film festival's own self-published website about itself, which is the kind of award that cannot secure a filmmaker's notability in the absence of GNG-worthy media coverage about him and his work.
But the other references here are IMDb (not a reliable or notability-building source), a blog and one deadlinked but Waybackable very short blurb in a smalltown newspaper, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get him over GNG all by itself -- and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled given that the notability claims are six to twelve years old, I found absolutely nothing of value.
And the second-strongest notability claim is that a cast member in one of his other films won a Best Actor award at a possibly more notable film festival, but that speaks more to the potential notability of that actor than it does McAnulty's notability as a director.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have quite a bit more GNG-worthy coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yakubu Murtala Ajaka

[edit]
Yakubu Murtala Ajaka (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 political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's publicity secretary of a political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's one where he would have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, not one that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article on its face. But the sourcing here is not getting him over GNG, consisting of two very short blurbs, one list of his party's entire executive, and just one source that's actually substantive, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination; sadly, the walls of text produced here appear to have discouraged participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamifusen (duo)

[edit]
Kamifusen (duo) (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)

Apparently a Kamifusen is an inflatable Japanese paper balloon which sort of describes this article. Impressive looking references break down quite quickly when fed into Translate to give passing mentions, catalogue entries and short one-para pieces but nothing that would consist of critical review or significant coverage. The most striking line to establish notability in the article is "In 1977, Kamifusen had their first major hit "Before Winter Comes", which became a signature song for the group. The song reached number 4 on the Oricon Singles Chart" sourced to two interviews and the third source being a broken link. In the two interviews, both short, the record is referred to as 'selling quite well'. The link is to Japanese Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG; WP:BAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because Kamifusen the duo satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BAND, as they meet the following criteria.
1,Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

In 1977, Kamifusen had their first major hit "Before Winter Comes", which became a signature song for the group. The song reached number 4 on the weekly Oricon Singles Chart. The information is retrieved from the Japanese Wikipedia page of "Before Winter Comes", which also listed other high ranking of the song including 27th in 1978 yearly Oricon Singles Chart and 8th on TBS The Best Ten. This source also verifies that the song was ranked in TBS “The Best Ten” and sale totaled 450,000 copies.

2.Has released two or more albums on a major record label.

This AllMusic.com citation [1] provides an incomplete list of Kamifusen’s catalogue and shows that 2 of their albums were released by Sony Music, which is a major record label. The release of these 2 albums and more by Sony Music Entertainment (Japan), Inc. can be verified through their Spotify artist page. [2]

3.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

A chart for Tie-Ups, which is translated from Kamifusen’s original Japanese Wikipedia page, will shortly be added to the English page with proper citations. Some notable performance include: Kamifusen performed/recorded the ending theme song “I Was Born” of Fuji TV’s Nissei Family Special Feature Animation “Tondemo Nezumi Daikaku”. They also performed the theme song for TBS TV drama Love Theater “Wagakoyo III”. “I Want To Be Like You” is the ending theme for MBS TV drama special “Cynthia – The story of the birth of a service dog”. Their hit song “Before Winter Comes” appeared on Fuji TV’s “Night Hit Studio”, broadcasted on February 13, 1978.

4.In addition, per WP:NEXIST:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Sushi114Su (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Nom. Sources that are deemed "insufficient" are interviews (Sponichi Annex, science.ne.jp/info/177, narweb.com) and do not advance notability, nor does a listing at Discogs. There are promotional sites (jp.yamaha.com -- advertising tickets), The listing of a show (tvdrama-db.com) that simply lists the theme song, and radio station (www.mbs1179.com) schedules, means the subject suffers from a lack of significant coverage from independent sources. I didn't check every one as the pattern was clear. Reasons for deletion #8, #9, and #14. It is strange to see NEXIST argued as a reason to keep. If the rationale was that simple we could argue to keep every article on Wikipedia. The last paragraph of WP:NEXIST states: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Verifiability includes BURDEN. A WP:BEFORE (step D) explains the procedure and #3 states: If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. NOTE: A hindrance to searches would be the article sources are not in English. Yeah, yeah! I know it is legit but my point is that someone with better access to those type sources might be able to find reliable and independent sources that advance notability per Hey. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NMUSIC outlines the Criteria for musicians and ensembles for notability. The sources cited verify the criteria stated and explained above. Additionally, #7 applies, as Etsujiroh Gotoh and Yasuyo Hirayama are prominent representatives of the Japanese folk scene in the Kansai area, and this has been cited - "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability". NOTE: Also replying regarding WP:Hey: Citations have been added from Mainichi Shimbun[3][4], Nikkan Gendai[5], Oricon News[6] and considering the volume of activity on television and releases on major record labels, including Sony Music, EMI Music, and King Records, it’s more than likely that there are reviews by journalists of secondary, independent sources and unlikely there are none. Kamifusen also collaborated internationally, with Peter Yarrow personally writing a song for them, which was recorded in Santa Monica with Joni Mitchell’s producer Henry Lewy as their producer, and they recorded in Toronto with Steve Sexton, of The Anne Murray’s Band, arranging, and the band playing on the recording sessions. The Tie-Ups' table and songs in NHK television shows on the Japanese Wikipedia page have been translated and added NHK is nationwide and worldwide. These meet criteria towards notability. The citations verify these facts are true. Sushi114Su (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually only get to vote once? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can only vote once in an AFD discussion so I have struck your second vote. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's an argument that's as much paper as Kamifusen are a balloon. The first and second sources are non-RS (Allmusic and Spotify), the next two from Mainichi both contain the immortal words "pay article". Nikkan Gendai is a two line interview-based piece 'Where are they now?' (just as pertinent would be 'where were they then?'). The Oricon source is already cited in the article and is a listing of TV appearances (if being on TV made you notable, I'd be Notey McNoteface). It's all cruft, as are the sources in the article. Kamifusen are simply.not.notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: The nominator writes that the two articles in Mainichi Shimbun "both contain the immortal words 'pay article'". However, the nominator hastily misinterprets and misrepresents to this AfD "pay article" as an advertisement when in fact it is an article behind a paywall in which readers have to pay to read the full article - One has 458 out of 867 words left and the other has 420 out of 830 words left. If anyone would like to verify this, put this into Google Translate and see what it says: "この記事は有料記事です。 残り420文字（全文830文字）。" This line is preceded by a lock icon, which is familiar in references such as EBSCO and other newspaper sites behind paywalls. Sushi114Su (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AFDEQ Wikietiquette  Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies".   Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. Sushi114Su (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources provided as evidence of GNG have been convincingly rebutted, but the argument that this group meets other criteria in NBAND has not been discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The nominator writes that the two articles in Mainichi Shimbun "both contain the immortal words 'pay article'". However, the nominator hastily misinterprets and misrepresents to this AfD "pay article" as an advertisement when in fact it is an article behind a paywall in which readers have to pay to read the full article - One has 458 out of 867 words left and the other has 420 out of 830 words left. If anyone would like to verify this, put this into Google Translate and see what it says: "この記事は有料記事です。 残り420文字（全文830文字）。" This line is preceded by a lock icon, which is familiar in references such as EBSCO and other newspaper sites behind paywalls.
@Vanamonde93: Therefore "The sources provided as evidence of GNG have NOT been convincingly rebutted" and the nominator has NOT done sufficient WP:BEFORE. Perhaps this nominator could allow other new page patrollers who are more familiar with Asian press and subjects to review Asian-related pages.
Also adding to the argument to keep this article, the two members of Kamifusen meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER: #1 Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition; #4 Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
The following are several of a great number of articles that come up from cross-searches in the Asahi Shimbun Database archived articles 1985-present, accessed through an academic library. I cannot cite them because the links won't be available for the general public. Hopefully, there are editors with access to these kind of sources who might help.
1. Title: Kamifusen "Tsubasa wo Kudasai" becomes Japan Football Association's cheering song [Osaka] No.00005 April 9, 1998 evening paper ＹＵ３ 007 pages, 00424 characters.

The single CD "Tsubasa wo Kudasai", which was jointly recorded by the chorus club of Minatojima Elementary School, Kobe Municipal Minatojima Elementary School and others, has been officially recognized by the Japan Football Association as the official cheering song. Last year, the official approval was decided because the supporters who cheered for the Japanese national team sang at the final Asian qualifying round of the World Cup. It looks like it's going to be a hit again for the first time in 28 years for the French tournament in June.

This song became popular in 1970 when it was sung by the folk group "Red Bird." The group disbanded in 1974, but among the five members, Etsujiro Goto and Yasuyo Hirayama formed " Kamifusen " and sang this song at concert venues. It has been adopted in elementary school music textbooks and has been loved by people of all ages.

Supporters, who are overwhelmingly young, said that when someone started singing, it spread to everyone.

The two of Kamifusen said, "I was deeply moved when I thought that singing with fans for a long time led to that event. If possible, I would like to go to France."

2. Title: Reconstruction, Gradual Masterpiece Children's "Lyrics", Composed by Kamifusen Goto [Osaka] No.00006 January 6, 2009 evening paper 2 Society 012 pages, 01199 characters.

Since last spring, at 8:55 every morning, there is a song that is playing at Ashiya City Hall in Hyogo Prefecture. "I like this town." Etsujiro Goto (62), a resident of Nishinomiya City in the same prefecture, who is a folk duo known for hit songs such as "Fuyu ga Kaku Mae Ni", wrote a poem based on a poem by an elementary school student wishing for recovery from the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Although it is not recorded on CD and is not widely known, it is sung by local chorus groups and others.

The song was created in the winter three years after the earthquake. The Ashiya City PTA Association planned to solicit poems from elementary school students in the city under the theme of "My town, Ashiya," and sing them at a public concert. Fifty-seven percent of buildings in Ashiya City were completely or partially destroyed by the earthquake, and even at that time, temporary housing remained on the playground of the elementary school.

Mr. Goto of Kamifusen was also affected by the disaster at his apartment in Nishinomiya City. His parents' house was also completely destroyed, and he temporarily stayed at an acquaintance's house in Osaka Prefecture. Goto, who was asked to compose a song, read all the poems written by the children and picked out words that left an impression on him.

There are no words in the completed song that directly recall the disaster. Mr. Goto said, "Many lives were lost, and each one had to stop their legs from shaking, so there was no need to say, 'Let's do our best.' I made it in one night, hoping that at least I could get close to the people who listen and sing with a gentle song that reminds me of my hometown."

In February 1998, the song was sung for the first time at a concert held at Miyagawa Elementary School's gymnasium. After that, the song gradually became popular through word of mouth, and Mayor Ken Yamanaka heard the song at a city event and said, "Let's carry on the wish for reconstruction." did. On the 16th of this month, a chorus group in the city will perform at the Municipal Museum of Art.

Mr. Goto said, "I think that falling in love with a town is something that can only be felt when there is solidarity between people. As an author, it is my greatest pleasure to see songs being sung and passed down over time." ing. (Kana Yamada)

3. Tite: 30 Years of Friendship Fork Kamifusen [Osaka] No.00008 November 04, 2004 evening paper entertainment 006 pages, 00996 characters.

Folk duo Kamifusen celebrated its 30th anniversary. 1977's hit song "Before Winter Comes" is now a standard number. Etsujiro Goto and Yasuyo Hirayama, who are also partners in real life, look back, "I have been trying to create songs carefully and give concerts that value the fans." A memorial recital will be held at Namba Hatch in Minami, Osaka on the 12th.

The two are classmates at Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki Kita High School. Goto formed a folk band at Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, and Hirayama studied vocal music at Mukogawa Women's University. "We formed a duo in 1967, when we were in the second year of university. I wanted to get her attention," Goto invited her to a concert in which her own band also appeared, drawing her into the folk world. For the next two years, she sang traditional Japanese songs such as "Kiso-bushi" once a month at a community center in Amagasaki.

With the addition of three other members, they made their debut in 1970 with the band "Akai Tori". They left famous songs such as "Takeda's Lullaby" and "Tsubasa wo Kudasai".

However, Goto said, "I was thinking of disbanding in my second year as a professional. Appearing on TV and radio, busy with recording, I didn't have time to create things at all. It was a pity that I could not interact with the fans enough. One month's worth of fan letters were handed over from the office. The teacher at the branch school in Hokkaido sent me a passionate letter saying 'I want you to come sing before the school closes down', but I couldn't make it in time..."

In August 1974, the group disbanded. In September of the same year, it made a fresh start as Kamifusen.

Underlying this was the desire to create works with great care and to interact with fans at concerts. “Before Winter Comes” was also recorded after two years of meticulously singing it at concerts around the country. The two look back on how this attitude led to a big hit.

He is also interested in social issues, and has put messages into his songs and sent them out. In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995, an apartment building in Nishinomiya City, Hyogo Prefecture was damaged. Inspired by the sight of strangers helping each other, Hirayama suggested writing a song to support service dogs such as guide dogs, which he had always been interested in. In 2002, he released "I want to be your wind".

The memorial recital consists of two parts. The first part is traditional Japanese songs, and the second part sings representative songs such as "Tsubasa wo Kudasai" and "Before Winter Comes".

4. Title: Duo Kamifusen (Osaka) writes songs to soothe the hearts of victims of the Ehime Maru No.00017 May 12, 2001 evening paper 2 Society 014 pages, 00677 characters.

"The sound of the bells in the distance echoes quietly in my heart Today's wind, the sea breeze, that person's scent." The folk duo Kamifusen living in Nishinomiya City, Hyogo Prefecture, who have continued to support victims of the Great Hanshin Earthquake, have composed a song to soothe the hearts of the victims of the Ehime Maru, a fishing training vessel that sank off the coast of Hawaii.

Having experienced the disaster himself, he thought that he would be able to deliver a song that could share his sorrow to families left behind in anxiety and sorrow. The title is "Blue Sky and Sea". The melody was intentionally made bright and clear so as not to make it too sad, with the idea that even if you are in Japan, the sky and the sea are connected to Hawaii. The lyrics continue, "Now the blue sky is your smile, now the sound of the waves is your voice."

The lyrics and music were written by Yasuyo Hirayama. In March, Jake Shimabukuro, who used the ukulele to cheer up the victim's family in Hawaii, made a guest appearance on her regular radio program and felt a strong sense of grief over the accident. At dusk in late April, when the scent of the sea wafted from the beach, he said, "I wondered what kind of feelings the same scent would bring back to the people who remembered their childhood bathing in the sea, and the next moment they were waiting for their family to return." It is said that the soothing sound of bells ringing in temples and churches naturally came to mind and became a song.

Partner Etsujiro Goto said, "I hope that by singing, everyone can share their thoughts, and by preventing the memory of the accident from fading, it will calm the hearts of the victims and their families." The song will be performed at a recital on June 4th at Theater Drama City in Chayamachi, Osaka.

[Photo explanation] Etsujiro Goto of Kamifusen says, "I want to include the song in the CD album that will be released in the fall."(right) and Yasuyo Hirayama in Nishinomiya, Hyogo Prefecture

5. Title: 40 years since the formation of the folk duo Kamifusen, an exhibition that follows the trajectory Sumoto Stationery Store / Hyogo Prefecture

In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the formation of the folk song duo "Kamifusen", known for their beautiful harmonies, an exhibition tracing the trajectory of their success is being held at the stationery store "Sakabunshodo" in Honmachi 5-chome, Sumoto City. Old record jackets, posters, and books are on display. A total of about 150 pieces are lined up, including those of the duo's predecessor folk song group "Red Bird". Until the 31th.

Masafumi Sakamoto, 54, the president of the company, who has a relationship with the members of the duo, planned an exhibition to let people experience the charm of "red birds" and "kamifusen". He has published his own collection so far.

"Red Bird" was formed in 1969. The chorus work is attractive, and songs such as "Takeda's Lullaby" and "Tsubasa wo Kudasai" gained popularity. After disbanding in 1974, members Etsujiro Goto and Yasuyo Hirayama formed "Kamifusen" in the same year. Known for hit songs such as "Before winter comes".

At the venue, in addition to EPs with paper jackets, LP records and old music magazines, there are also many not-for-sale items such as mini-comic magazines issued by the affiliated office, concert pamphlets, and sample records. In addition, there are treasured items such as photographs of Mr. and Mrs. Goto who attended Mr. Sakamoto's wedding, handwritten musical scores, and progress charts of concerts.(Toshiya Maeda)

[Photo explanation] Mr. Masafumi Sakamoto talks about his youthful memories in front of the items in his collection = 5-chome, Honmachi, Sumoto City

6. Title: Ashiya City celebrates 70th anniversary Air raids and earthquake damage buildings Citizens look back on chorus and drama / Hyogo Prefecture No.00002 November 04, 2010 morning paper Hanshin, 1 region 021 pages , 01031 characters.

Ashiya City celebrates its 70th anniversary on the 10th of this month. On the 3rd of Culture Day, a commemorative ceremony was held at Luna Hall in Narihira-cho, the same city where citizens gathered. A total of about 1,200 people gathered in the morning and afternoon sessions to look back on the history of overcoming the air raids during World War II and the Great Hanshin Earthquake through chorus and drama.(Naoyoshi Mori)

Ashiya City was established in November 1940 as the 173rd city in Japan. From the early Showa period, Rokurokuso town was developed in the mountains, and the image of a high-class residential area was established. In the January 1995 earthquake, about 90% of buildings were destroyed and 444 people died.

At the morning ceremony, the "Ashiya Boys and Girls Chorus" and the "Ashiyagawa Thursday Chorus" jointly sang "Kono Machi ga Suki". Based on a poem written by elementary school students in the city in hopes of recovery from the earthquake, this song was composed by Etsujiro Goto of the folk duo Kamifusen , known for songs such as "Before Winter Comes."

In the afternoon, Ashiya City-based theater troupe “Aozora Drama Company” made up of citizens will put on a stage that follows the footsteps of the city. In the form of an old man telling his family an old tale, there is a ghost called "Nue" with a monkey head, tiger limbs, and a snake tail, which is said to have a grave in the city, and Junichiro Tanizaki's novel "Tanizaki Junichiro" set in Ashiya. Introduced "Sasuyuki" etc. During the scene of the earthquake, photos of the devastated city were shown on a large screen, and the performers talked about their feelings. Sushi114Su (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh!

[edit]
Sheesh! (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 song. Just scraped by on the NZ charts, doesn't appear to have landed anywhere else to date. Only SIGCOV on page is about it landing in a Toyota commercial. Per Richard3120 over here, the only other coverage I was able to find is also unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It would seem to me that being the subject of multiple verifiable commercial uses would inch this towards WP:N. The repeated commercial use gave the song a familiarity to me, which made me feel something was amiss with this subject not being on WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would if there were SIGCOV for those other ads but, as I said, I couldn't find any in my own search. If another editor does then this may turn around.
    Oh, and since I forgot to say so above, my vote is to redirect to Surfaces_(band)#Singles. QuietHere (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, California, and Texas. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Surfaces (band)#Singles. The NZ chart position is absolutely trivial - it's not the main NZ chart, it's the "Bubbling Under" chart, and it still only spent one week there at a very low position, and this information is already included in the above redirect target. The Daily Dot and Chicago Tribune don't mention the song at all. The Times of India source is just a "hey, watch this video!" link. YouTube, Soundcloud and Apple don't make this song notable, they just show it exists. The rest are passing mentions or non-RS blogs. There is no in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this song. Richard3120 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was cobbling the article together, I thought that this review might count as a WP:RS. Does the source benefit in some way based on what he says about the subjects or is he an individual with expertise on music who has decided to focus on objective reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking Richard at his word when he says "No way is Banger of the Day a reliable source - it's essentially a one-man blog run by an aspiring musician from North Carolina with occasional contributions from his friends." I'm not familiar with the page having only seen it appear once before in my editing, but I trust that confidence in its unreliability. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. If that one does not count for much, how about this one. I concede that the Bangeroftheday does not necessarily meet WP:BLOGS. However, according to this the SPS blogger was a professional at "national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is an exception to WP:SPS regarding subject-matter expertise, I'm not sure that applies here. My understanding is that that exception is usually reserved for academics, not radio programmers, and even when SME is established there are plenty of editors who will push back anyway (see the WP:ALBUMAVOID entry on The Needle Drop) for various reasons why other SPS are unacceptable such as lack of editorial oversight. This page appears to be a one-man blog which means there is zero independent editing involved, and I can't imagine that getting a pass from any music WP regulars.
    It's also worth keeping in mind in general that when you really have to scrape the internet to find even the tiniest morsels of questionable-at-best coverage like this, your subject is probably not notable and you're better off not spending so much effort on it. QuietHere (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it part of a radio programmer's job to evaluate new music and determine which songs are worthy of airplay and which are not. I believe it is part of his job to evaluate unfamiliar music. In terms of Song content on WP, a person who evaluates music professionally for a national network seems to me to be a subject matter expert.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still literally just two sentences announcing the release of the song – that's not in-depth coverage. And I think "worthy" is not the correct word to use here... radio programmers choose the songs that are acceptable to their target audience, not necessarily based on quality. He doesn't have to be an "expert" at anything, just pick songs that aren't offensive to Disney listeners. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not true. I was a college DJ. Choosing songs for airplay involves selecting from a vast array of new releases targeted to the audience. In my day when you had to physically deliver new music for consideration, The ratio was dozens of songs per song added to the rotation. I imagine with simplified digital delivery processes and streaming formats, the selection process could be 100s of songs to select from. It is not just choosing a couple of songs from a handful of possibilities. Radio programmers have great influence on what the world thinks are notable releases. This guy is an expert on notability for his target audience and his reviews are done using this expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. for some reason you seem to imply that the Disney audience is a trivial audience. For some reason, I believe this implication to be far from the truth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely nowhere did I say that Disney was a trivial audience. And you didn't address that it's still his personal blog, unrelated to his previous job, and the "review" amounts to two sentences. I just think it's a huge assumption to make, that because someone used to program music, that automatically makes them an authority in the field. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is how to apply WP:SPS to this issue. It says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." and WP defines a subject-matter expert as "a person who has accumulated great knowledge in a particular field or topic and this level of knowledge is demonstrated by the person's degree, licensure, and/or through years of professional experience with the subject" Thus we have two elements: Is he a SME? Does he have work that has been published independently?
    1. In terms of whether he is an SME, I think it is fair to say he has years of experience of giving input on whether songs air in the rotation and how heavily they should be rotated based on his professional assessment of the merits of the song. When we are evaluating whether his experience is relevant we are assessing whether years of giving input on whether and how often songs should air counts as "years of professional experience with the subject".
    2. In terms of whether his work is published one could say that his opinion on whether a song should air is published by its presence in the airplay rotation, which publishes the song to the audience.
  • Thus a radio programmer for a national radio network does qualify as a subject matter expert on songs and based upon our own policy which should count his review as a WP:RS. The fact that his review which consists of a 2-sentence paragraph and a third sentence which describes the song as a landmark for the group does not diminish the fact that the song in question is the primary subject of the review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not been established by Wikipedia that he's an expert, that's still just your personal opinion, and neither has his work been published in the past by reliable sources. Anyway, there's no point carrying on this debate... I still do not believe that this is a reliable source, regardless of his previous work in the industry, and I do not believe that this constitutes in-depth coverage of the song. Other editors may disagree with me. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If WP has not established him as a subject matter expert, should I go somewhere to determine whether someone who is hired to be a music programmer for a national radio network and holds the position for in excess of 6 years is an expert on songs. Would that matter be resolved at WP:RSN. I do believe such an individual is a subject matter expert on songs. The more dubious question is whether for this field airing content on radio broadcasts counts as a form of publication.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I would take it to WT:ALBUM, that's usually where music sourcing questions end up since that project hosts WP:RSMUSIC. I'm personally not any more convinced than Richard is but maybe we're actually in the minority here. Never hurts to ask. QuietHere (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just want to be clear that this debate is around a single source and is such a stretch for notability that it really signals to me just how clearly non-notable this song actually is. I can't imagine 99.9%+ of editors giving this a pass when these are the grounds we're on. QuietHere (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Richard3120, I see that you have edited the song. I know some songs have live performance lists. Generally, these are lists of live television show performances (late night and morning shows). Now, Lollapalooza is one of the few major music festivals that is livestreamed ([15]). Is it appropriate to mention the few music festivals that are livestreamed in live performance lists especially since there is PD content that mentions the Lollapalooza video.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This song was performed as part of the set list. All bands perform songs as part of a gig. Are you arguing that every song performed on a livestream should be considered notable? By the way, the three new sources that you have added, none of them mention the song at all. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all honesty, I don't know what makes a morning stage performance on the GMA or Today prominent or a late night network show performance prominent and thus don't know how they differ from a Hulu livestream performance. I think the morning stage performances include set lists, although the late night network shows may only be a song or two. I just don't know. I don't do a lot of WP:SONGS articles. What I do know is that there is PD content surrounding the Lollapalooza performance and its video.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the slang term/non song articles are background showing that in 2021 the slang term "Sheesh!" became prominent, which is relevant here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is this source a good source? It was a source with several paragraphs of specific coverage on the song providing crucial detail about the history of the song?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Always hard to say with interviews because you can never quite know which parts are written based on interview quotes and which are from independent journalistic efforts. Typically I would try to avoid relying on interviews for notability because of that gray area, but you can definitely use that information in otherwise-notable subjects. I have plenty of articles which are full of interview quotes (e.g. Two Ribbons#Background) because that's usually where you get the most details about an album's background, but they've also got other sources confirming notability such as album reviews. In this case, there is a good bit of background info that would be valuable to add, but I still don't see notability so it doesn't really matter either way. QuietHere (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't what confers notability the fact that people focus on the subject in the public domain. Teaching us about when a particular song from their set was debuted confers notability on it. They don't talk about the first time they ever debuted any of their other songs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but the GNG makes clear that we need multiple unquestionably solid sources, and you haven't presented that yet in this AfD. You've presented plenty of questionable-at-best sources but pretty much nothing acceptable without question. When an article's sources are that hazy, and there's nothing else to present a pass of NSONG or any other SNG then I don't see how that article gets kept. QuietHere (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are bending over backwards to downgrade This BTS to questionable-at-best. It is a published print magazine and has an editorial board, so we are suppose to WP:AGF. Assuming they are scraping content together via questionable journalistic efforts. Either way, the result is a source that present significant encyclopedic content: 1. the production of the song, 2. the debut of the song, 3. quantification of the reaction to the song in a manner that is easily understood, objective, and meaningful. Although upper echelon streaming levels are in the billions and not millions, the fact that we are presented with an objective number is what matters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest problem with the MSN/Looper source isn't so much about the reliability of the source, but the content. It actually only tells you two things about the song: its name, and that it was used in a dance challenge. If you read it carefully, all the stuff about 109,000 TikToks refers to the "sheesh" sound and not the "Sheesh!" song at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. This source touched on an interesting subject but got the story wrong. Regarding the song versus the song, I have fleshed that out properly in the article. Nonetheless the conferred notability on the subject by their coverage regardless of whether they got the story right. P.S. I may add a bit that Sheesh! is also a meme as much as it is a dance challenge/ad lib/new slang term.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no. If an article only mentions as much about your subject as that one does then that's a classic case of trivial mentions which means that source doesn't meet SIGCOV and so it's no good for supporting the subject's notability. So far as I can tell, the "Sheesh!" thing has been around for a while and Surfaces just decided to name a song after a popular meme to try and capitalise on that popularity. If this were an article about the catchphrase then you could include a mention of the song in an "in media" section or something to that effect, but such an article doesn't exist. Sheesh is currently just a disambiguation page that mentions this song, another song by Benee, and the phrase. But maybe a page could be made about the phrase. That might be something to look into for your next project. You've already found a decent amount of coverage about it, why not start from there? QuietHere (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite sure about that source – it seems to ask for a lot of freelance contributions. Nevertheless, it does seem to be a published print magazine and have a editorial board, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's reliable. The problem is, at QuietHere has pointed out, is that it mostly tells you information about where the record was recorded and what equipment was used, which is useful information but doesn't contribute one jot to notability. The one statement in the whole article that might point to notability is that the song was streamed four million times in 11 days, but actually this isn't anything particularly notable, despite the hyperbole of the writer describing it as a "whopping" amount... popular chart hits easily have hundreds of millions of streams, so four million is nothing special. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Adele or Taylor Swift could get 4 million view of a new release within an hour of its release, but we are talking about a band that had never previously played a music festival. 4 million views is a lot of views for a first time performance by a band that had never previously played a music festival.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not playing a music festival doesn't mean they were nobodies at the time. Their big hit "Sunday Best" has gotten over 824 million streams on Spotify alone, and they have multiple other songs with more streams than what "Sheesh!" has even now (68m). That 4m isn't nearly as impressive as the writer wants you to think it is. QuietHere (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sunday Best" was used for an advert for Scott's Miracle-Gro that was shown during the 2021 Super Bowl. But there you've made another unfounded statement... "The true popularity is shown by its use in national ad campaigns." The only song by the Fall that I remember being used in an ad campaign in the UK was "Touch Sensitive", for a widely-viewed and well-remembered campaign for the Vauxhall Corsa car (General Motors). But this doesn't even feature in their top ten most streamed tracks on Spotify. So clearly simply being used in a national TV advertising campaign is not the only measure of popularity. Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all "Sunday Best" is a bomb-ass song. So I don't want to sound like I am dissing on it. However, you showed me that "Sunday Best" dwarfed "Sheesh!" with 12x as many streams, but I don't think a Super Bowl commercial is 12x as important as a Winter Olympics commercial and you certainly aren't pointing out 12x as many national campaigns. If they ever made a music video for the song, it would get a ton of streams. Like "Sunday Best", it has a feel good vibe and if you gave people a music video with a feel good vibe, who knows how many streams the song would get. The live performance video, is pretty feel good, but a scripted and themed music video would really do big things for the band and the song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. I'm not seeing enough coverage that is significant and reliable and independent. I found this AfD via RSN and I would not consider the Bessey source significant or reliable. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if this still has not gotten over the hump now, there is not much more I can do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Whether this article gets kept or not, is a matter of policy at this point. The content currently provides a great deal of encyclopedic information to the reader. Much of that will not be WP:PRESERVEd with a redirect. I am not a music professional and do not quite understand the foundations of notability in this arena. However, I am a bit surprised that WP:NSONG would not include something like independently selected for commercial use by a multiple notable entities or enterprises. To me, this seems as notable as the final element that the list includes "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." When I compare this to other non-charting songs I have written for WP, I think used in national campaigns for Toyota and Pizza Hut, is as notable as saying covers of the song has been included on album releases by Santana and Sheryl Crow and been covered by John Mayer (Sideways (Clarence Greenwood song)). Can someone explain to me why being covered by notable artists is more important than being used in national campaigns by notable companies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure your proposal would have the desired effect. We'd see a deluge of now-notable royalty-free "songs", stock music, Muzak, YouTube tracks for content creators, etc. Cadillac licensed "Rock and Roll" at great cost because it's famous—but more often than not, marketers will pick what's cheap or free. Reliable sources tend not to cover that because there's no story there, with maybe a few exceptions. (Kevin MacLeod, maybe?) And if reliable sources don't consider something worth covering, it's a good sign that we shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I don't know how to propose the desired change, but I think that the song is getting short changed. I don't understand what floodgate keeping an article like this would open, but not a lot of unimportant songs are on par with this song in pop culture. I am sure someone at Universal Music, could give you a half dozen significant episode sample credits for this song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. can anyone show me the proper way to cite a television show sample credit. I am getting errors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep IMHO, there's just enough here to support a specific article. Even if we strip out all of the background information on the tiktok meme and on the band's history, there's still enough to support the article as it is. I wouldn't object to merging the content to the band's article, so second best option would be a merge/redirect. If assessing consensus, the closing admin should also consider this a vote for that outcome.--Jayron32 12:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think as Jayron32 said above, there is alone just enough coverage here to have an article. Ss112 04:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. Sources presented above, except for Banger of the Day, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: just to note that the current discussion at WP:RSN is leaning towards Too Good Music also not being being a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Ciment

[edit]
Norman Ciment (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 able to locate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Many of the sources currently cited are primary sources and there are only very brief mentions of him in the reliable sources with the exception of the NYT article. That however, is about Miami Beach rather than the subject, so I don't think is useful towards meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am confused here. There is a significant amount of coverage of Norman Ciment in Miami Beach. He was likely the first Orthodox Jewish mayor in the United States. There were numerous articles covering his election and his tenure as Mayor of Miami Beach in addition to his career as a lawyer and real estate investor. Here are a variety of mentions in primary media including the Miami Herald and NY Times.
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/22/us/around-the-nation-mayor-of-miami-beach-is-fearful-of-refugees.html
  2. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article121246018.html
  3. http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/14/10/32/79/00001/FI15092802_transcript.pdf
  4. https://therealdeal.com/miami/2017/04/03/deco-capital-and-rwn-pay-7-4m-for-alton-road-retail-building/
  5. https://mdpl.org/archives/2020/12/the-white-house-hotel/
  6. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/the-norman-and-joan-ciment-foundation,656223081/ Jasonciment (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonciment: See WP:42 for a brief summary of what's required or WP:BIO for more. Those don't really help for the following reasons:
  1. Brief coverage providing almost no biographical information
  2. Already cited, some biographical content, but the subject of the article is Grover & Weinstein not Ciment
  3. Primary source
  4. Nothing more than a mention
  5. A brief mention and not a reliable source (at least for establishing notability)
  6. Primary source
SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand, are you as an editor questioning the veracity of the information in his bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Ciment) such that he was the Mayor of Miami Beach, and one of the founding attorneys of the Grover, Ciment law firm? I am just trying to get a handle on what sparked this initiative to delete the Wikipedia profile that has been up there for many years now. I see you talking about technical items suggesting his bio fails a standard. Yet if you do a Google search for his name there are 1,800 entries. There is no other Norman Ciment. The point of the Wikipedia page is to aggregate the relevant info from those 1,800 references right? Jasonciment (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonciment: No not at all, but simply existing isn't sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article and this discussion is to determine whether or not our criteria for inclusion are satisfied or not. The majority of sites that appear on google are not what we term 'reliable sources' so the number of google hits is a poor metric for helping us decide. As to what instigated this, we recently discovered that the account that created the article was manipulating our processes by using multiple accounts to appear as multiple people and was presumably doing this because they were being paid to edit, without disclosing that they were, as required by our Terms of Use. Consequently I have been reviewing their edits to remove problematic content. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what it sounds like to me is you want a list of more "reliable sources" correct? But it seems you want something more because by your comments, even when a source mentions Norman Ciment, the source is not enough on its own merits unless the content meets another criteria. Assuming for the moment that it's just about reliable sources, are these reliable sources? This is just a sampling of sites that are either government websites, books, or newspapers.
  1. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Authentically_Orthodox/Q1-lDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
  2. https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article121246018.html
  3. https://docmgmt.miamibeachfl.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=121830&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&cr=1
  4. https://www.ethics.state.fl.us/Documents/Opinions/82/CEO%2082-007.htm
  5. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/27/nyregion/about-new-york.html
  6. https://files.floridados.gov/media/32345/jewishheritagetrail.pdf
  7. https://www.miamibeachvca.com/core/fileparse.php/1368/urlt/pow-2016-2017.pdf
  8. https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/technical-educational-revolution-for-charedim-in-israel/2022/04/11/ Jasonciment (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonciment: Did you read WP:42 that I linked to? Because as explained there we "require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic".
  1. Reliable, but only seems to contain a very brief mention - not significant coverage
  2. Already discussed above
  3. Doesn't load for me, but from the URL looks to be a primary source
  4. Primary source
  5. Already in article and discussed in the nomination
  6. Potentially reliable, but the text isn't searchable so I haven't been able to judge the extent of the coverage
  7. Primary source, literally only contains his name
  8. Probably the best source yet, but I am not sure about whether it is a reliable source or not.
SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://files.floridados.gov/media/32345/jewishheritagetrail.pdf - page 42 lists his name as a Jewish politician.
Are these enough primary sources to validate this listing now or do you need more?
This list was 5 minutes of research. It seems based on the fact that the listing has been up for more than 6 years that it should suffice.
I mean there are enough Editors that they would have flagged this years ago as containing untrue information right? Jasonciment (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
btw maybe I am confusing terms but when you say Primary, is that a good thing or not a good thing. When I see a link from a government website for example, I am not sure of a more reliable source. Jasonciment (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia purposes, a reliable source is one that is independent of the claim it's being cited to support. The thing is, people can claim anything about themselves on their own social networking profiles or staff profiles on the websites of their own employers — for example, it would be entirely possible for me to assert on my Facebook or Twitter page that I won a Nobel Prize. I'd be lying, but that still wouldn't prevent me from being able to say it. So my ability to demand inclusion in Wikipedia as a Nobel Prize winner doesn't hinge on my own self-published claim, it hinges on whether real media have reported that I won the Nobel Prize as a news story or not, thus independently verifying whether the things I said about myself on Facebook were true or not. So reliability doesn't increase based on the source being closer to the subject — it increases based on the source being further away from the subject, representing coverage and analysis in third party sources that are independent of the claims. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of database access

[edit]
Comparison of database access (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)

Highly-confusing how-to guide that amounts to a random mishmash of two unrelated things. And that's after I removed a bunch of fluff that wasn't comparing anything to anything at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clearly against deletion in this instance. Merging List of Christina Aguilera concerts into this article may be done at the discretion of any editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Christina Aguilera concert tours (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 had created an article called List of Christina Aguilera live performances to cover all of her performances since the beginning of her career. When the article was up I thought this article was still necessary to focus on just concert tours. The issue was that there were a lot of problems that came up with that article because some performances like the ones on Top of the Pops had no references I could find for the venue or date they were held. So instead I just took the live performances article and reworked it into List of Christina Aguilera concerts which covers tours, residencies, festival shows, benefit concerts and stand alone shows. Now that the article is more narrow, I don't see a reason to keep this article. Aside from it being redundant, some references are outdated if I'm not mistaken. 204060baby (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 204060baby (talk) 15:16, 7 November 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 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. Star Mississippi 01:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Robson

[edit]
Garry Robson (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 appear to satisfy WP:NBASIC. – Meena • 14:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the previous PROD deletion was about a different subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oil reserves

[edit]
Oil reserves (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)

Proposed on behalf of Guy WF Loftus as I happen to have the ‘twinkle’ utility installed which perhaps he has not. Unlike me he seems to be a subject expert and says Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification supeceeds this article. I’ll leave him to justify why. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, as the discussion with 3mi1y proposed a more elegant solution to preserve value but achieve the overall aims by redirecting.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chidhk1 - the only twinkle I am aware of comes from the realisation that I have done it wrong - again. But I think you may have sorted that for this instance. Hopefully I've left a long enough discussion trail to deliver the right intent even if my (cognitive/Wikipedia) processes are in error... Guy WF Loftus (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all you and your expert helpers time in writing the new article. But I doubt people who read this have the patience to follow the discussion trail. Could you possibly summarise here why this article should be deleted rather than merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for deletion

[edit]

The article has been rewritten (and retitled Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification) to remove ephemeral content (obsolete numbers based on changing oil prices and subjective country-based reserves) and broadened to include gas reserves, which occur naturally with oil (sometimes referred to jointly as Petroleum, liquid fossil fuels or hydrocarbons) and follow the same economic accounting protocols. The article has also been broadened to distinguish between "reserves" and "resources", which form part of the same commercial scale but are often inappropriately quoted in the media because the relationship is not clearly defined in any encyclopaedic offering. Deleting this article will allow me to redirect commonly searched synonyms to clear a path to what is really sought for when searching for information on Oil reserves, expressed in the replacement article.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Christian75: - there is much in common because the original article was fundamentally sound - it just needed updating, which is why I originally petitioned for a merge but review editors had other ideas. Can you recommend how to reconcile this (with thanks)?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3mi1y: that is exactly the sort of thing I need - thank you - I will investigate. I want to preserve the history on the original article because the fundamentals and contributions made by past editors have been excellent - but the new version is so pervasive, I couldn't trust myself to make the changes without corrupting the original (if that makes sense). This would in effect then be a merge on deletion do you think?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...stupid question - so if I redirect to the new (target) article, what happens to that if the original is deleted? Or is the transfer of history just a one-off up to the point of deletion? Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see your confusion from this: what you may be missing is that a redirect is just a normal page that starts with #REDIRECT. You can edit an article to be a redirect, or vice versa, by just adding or removing that from it as part of a normal edit. That's a separate thing from deletion. Does that help? 3mi1y (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So "deletion" has a specific meaning - removing a page and its history, leaving nothing - which is explicitly not what we want here.
In this scenario, nothing would get deleted. There would be one more edit in the history of oil reserves, and the contents of that edit would be to remove all of the text on the page and add a redirect in its place. See Mythology for an arbitrarily chosen example: it used to be a full length article, and then it became a redirect. But the history is continuous through all that, because the page was never actually deleted. 3mi1y (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3mi1y:which in effect means if someone wanted to revert to a pre-redirect version, they could (that is correct - they should be able to). Would I then (in an edit) replace the contents of the article with the redirect (with the R with history line - although I'm not sure what the Rcat shell is)? Or just add it as a header? Please forgive the idiot questions :(... You have been very helpfulGuy WF Loftus (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd replace the whole contents of the article with:
#REDIRECT [[new title]]
{{R with history}}
The {{rcat shell}} thing is ignorable, I think.
3mi1y (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3mi1y: - elegant - and how do I close out this discussion and remove the application for deletion - just remove that line item?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination
As a procedural thing, I'm not sure you're supposed to, but as the only one who's supported it, I won't be bothered if you do it anyway. 3mi1y (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3mi1y:Done - I hope... I will have to wait until the withdrawal is approved before I can take down the banner, then redirect the article... I guess... Thank you for your patience and guidanceGuy WF Loftus (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 10:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Silan

[edit]
Serkan Silan (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)

Amateur footballer that does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A Turkish source search yielded stats sites and trivial coverage. Haberler is not sufficient for an article as it merely mentions his position, age and former clubs, so covers nothing more than a stats site would. Iyigunler mentions him as 2nd captain and says that he played 23 games but I wouldn't consider that coverage significant enough for a stand-alone either. Consensus from previous AfDs is that brief transfer announcements do not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the only way that this can be saved is if someone can find a way of searching Turkish newspapers that don't appear on DDG, ProQuest or Google searches. Given the extremely low level that this footballer played at, it's not reasonable to presume that such coverage exists without evidence. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish football doesn't have the lower league coverage like other European countries, but it does have it. But the Turkish-football side of wikipedia, bar the national team and the top few clubs isn't really the best. Wikipedia has a bias nature to be selective and where editors are working. You could probably say that there is an wiki-economy on what is covered and what isn't. I can't see this article serving the dreaded AfD, simply because there is a lack of wiki-economy in this area. Govvy (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This debate reminds me of this, this and this one. People have been arguing for a presumption of notability for lower-level Turkish players for a while now but it never gained consensus. This year, we have deleted Anıl Abanoz and Hüsnü Zeybekoğlu with no arguments against. Conversely, Ali Karnapoğlu and Murat Sarıgül split the community on this issue but were ultimately deleted as those in favour of keeping struggled to prove notability. I personally believe that there is no harm in 'soft' deleting a lot of the badly sourced BLPs of all nationalities which means that there should be no prejudice against recreating them should at least one source showing substantial coverage from WP:RS be presented. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about former footballer who had one season in the Turkish second division and spent the rest of his career in the third level or lower, which fails WP:GNG. I can only find routine and trivial coverage such as club press releases about injuries and contracts that were picked up by media outlets (This is typical - very little prose about Silan, and the source isn't really independent of the subject when it derives from the club press release). I don't see how this can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 10:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koray Karagözoğlu

[edit]
Koray Karagözoğlu (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)

Contested PROD but no evidence of WP:GNG was offered for this amateur footballer. Current sources are unacceptable as they are either fan sites, Blogspot or just basic stats sites. He therefore doesn't look to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches, including this Turkish search, shows that coverage does exist in WP:RS but it's all quite weak and most sources are only slight rewordings of the same transfer announcement. See NTV Spor and Hurriyet. I did also find a contract renewal announcement in Ogun Haber but this is also very weak and doesn't give any detailed content about Koray. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 10:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Shi'ithu Ghali

[edit]
Sheikh Shi'ithu Ghali (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)

If Banu Gha and Imam Ghali are hoaxes, then this one is likely to be one too. The article uses a lot of false references to books that don't exist such as The History of Al-Ghali Family which makes it hard to WP:AGF. My searches are coming back with Wikipedia mirrors only, exactly the same as all of the other articles created by this sock farm. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pierce the Veil. Liz Read! Talk! 10:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaws of Life (album)

[edit]
The Jaws of Life (album) (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)

It is WP:TOO SOON Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Would suggest a redirect but it turns out they haven't even announced an upcoming album so there's no information to put anywhere about an album under this name and no guarantee that the search term is even useful. QuietHere (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere: it's been announced now on their website [17]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And multiple publications have picked up on it as well [18][19][20][21]. I think it's still too soon for this article but I'd be fine with this being draftified and redirected to the band's page for the time being now that it's known to be useful. Comr Melody Idoghor Muhandes Richard3120 VersaceSpace Alex-h thoughts on a vote change? QuietHere (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 10:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ibrahim Shi'ithu Ghali

[edit]
Sheikh Ibrahim Shi'ithu Ghali (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)

Same case as Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila. Plenty of 'references', all of which seem to be false. Plenty of claims to notability but no actual evidence. Fails WP:V and appears to be a well-engineered hoax. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makaman Kano Iliyasu

[edit]
Makaman Kano Iliyasu (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)

Contested draftify. Can't find any evidence of existence or notability and fails WP:V too. Unlike Waliyi Abdurrahim-Maiduniya and Imam Ghali, the references appear to be to books that actually exist. I can find no evidence, however, of a "Makaman Kano Iliyasu" being discussed at length in any of these books. My own searches are coming up with Wikipedia mirrors only. The article creator has created several hoaxes so it makes it hard for me to WP:AGF with this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels. Star Mississippi 01:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Het route

[edit]
Het route (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 subject is not an important or widespread term, or even the primary topic for the page title, which more commonly refers to hexaethyl tetraphosphate pathways in chemistry. The only mentions of the subject are trivial ones that reference its in-house usage by Israeli security forces, and Wikipedia is not a repository/dictionary of in-house security or intelligence service terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator removed several sources from the article (now restored) that reference the subject, two of which they falsely claimed did not mention it. This Walla one specifically describes the subject: "Another possibility is that the terrorists who carried out today's attack reached the Israel-Egypt border from Gaza via the "Het route". Het route, in its operational name, is an axis through which terrorists infiltrate Israel from the southern Gaza Strip. The axis starts in the Palestinian Rafah area, passes through the tunnels dug under the "Philadelphia" axis on the border of the Gaza Strip with Egypt, and reaches the Egyptian Rafah. From there, the terrorists move along the Israeli-Egyptian border on roads that allow them to enter Israeli territory due to the lack of a fence." Number 57 15:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Yes, made a mistake with the ICT source, though still can't see any mention of the subject (by name as a term) in the Walla piece. However, the ICT source is just a reprint of the Israel Security Agency's 2006 report, so is hardly an independent reliable secondary source of any kind. As mentioned above, it is just an intelligence agency using its in-house terminology - something which the same intelligence agency is a primary source for (no help with notability): it says it right there in the quote: "operational name". And almost all of the mentions remain entirely trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've translated the Walla piece above. The first sentence in the final paragraph in the original Hebrew is "אפשרות נוספת היא שהמחבלים שביצעו את הפיגוע היום הגיעו אל גבול ישראל-מצרים מעזה באמצעות "ציר ה-ח'".", with the reference to the Het route (ציר ה-ח) bolded. Number 57 16:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels and mention it there. It amounts to a use of the tunnels. This is a piece of military jargon that there does not seem to be an awful lot more to say about beyond what is already on the page. SpinningSpark 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels as it seems to have no independent notability. The use of a bit of jargon doesn't establish notability. Zerotalk 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulpar Air Service

[edit]
Tulpar Air Service (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 meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 12:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turned up no secondary sources on DDG Roostery123 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Martínez

[edit]
Kathleen Martínez (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 meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It uses prose and flowery language with most citations being Spanish sources from the Dominican Republic. Others are orphaned. It's about a Dominican lawyer who is supposedly on the verge of discovering the "ancient tomb" of Cleopatra and has "led" many excavations in Egypt. No RS nor Egyptian sources confirms this. It seems like a vanity project leveraging Wikipedia to enhance local notability. Moreover, the same IP has been editing this article. A knowledgeable editor can take a look at this.2601:18A:C67F:8210:90D3:A523:9AB0:DAF9 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the generous mentions in the National Geographic provide a strong evidence of notability. Newklear007 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no policy-based argument for deletion has been put forth, and judging from a review of sources, the subject meets GNG. On a side note to filing user User:Finngall, this fails WP:AFDHOWTO. Sam Sailor 22:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:AFDHOWTO? They tagged the article, they provided an argument. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to completing AfD noms initiated by IPs in all but the most extreme cases, even those which seem like pretty clear "keep"s to me. These IP-initiated noms do indeed vary widely in terms of merit, but the same can be said for noms from actual accounts, and either way this does not mean that they have not been made in good faith. --Finngall talk 23:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the magnitude of Kathleen Matinez’s latest discovery, I hope this page can be updated and corrected rather than deleted. Thanks for considering reader input. 2600:1008:B10D:2755:8DFA:2031:E061:A8E0 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Russian Empire at the 1912 Summer Olympics. Liz Read! Talk! 09:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgy Vishnyakov

[edit]
Georgy Vishnyakov (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS. I have also noticed that usually Olympians have a short bio in the source of the article, if there is something to report on them which in this case is not the case. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steve Hewitt. Liz Read! Talk! 09:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystic Deckchairs

[edit]
The Mystic Deckchairs (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 orphan, fails WP:BAND, only claim to notability is one notable former member. I can find only passing mentions of it online, in bios of Hewitt. Storchy (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kids and Family channels on SKY TV (New Zealand)

[edit]
Kids and Family channels on SKY TV (New Zealand) (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, plus outdated page. Azeem1Hadzrie (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism in Hong Kong

[edit]
Historical revisionism in Hong Kong (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)

Article is largely held together by WP:SYNTH, as sources discuss the events themselves but not the greater topic of revisionism. For example, source 5 by The Atlantic only discusses the Hong Kong government's handling of the 2019 Yuen Long attack and the 2019 Hong Kong protests, but not any of the other examples in this article. Similarly, source 42 by Le Monde deals strictly with textbook and educational revisionism. The only article I could find connecting many of these events is source 9 by The Guardian, which discusses historical revisionism with regards to the 1967 Hong Kong riots, the removal insignia of colonial-era mailboxes, and history education.

As an alternative to synthesis, the information about individual events in the article could possibly be merged into their respective articles. Content in the "Textbook changes" section could be merged into Education in Hong Kong#Criticism or moved into its own article, as that is seemingly the only topic where revisionism is discussed in general. Yeeno (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sepulveda

[edit]
Julian Sepulveda (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)

Article about former footballer which fails WP:GNG. Aside from an interview at Cápsulas de Carreño, there is only routine and trivial coverage such as transfer announcements and statistical database entries. PROD was removed without offering any evidence that SPORTBASIC or GNG are met. Jogurney (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megalopolis (film)

[edit]
Megalopolis (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)

Megalopolis (film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Unreleased films are only notable when production itself has been notable. There is a myth that films become notable when a reliable source states that principal photography has begun, but that is a myth, because principal photography is a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability of an upcoming film. Neither the article nor the sources say anything about principal photography except that it was planned to be in Georgia, and that it had begun, and the statements that it would be filmed in Georgia were made before the start of filming. None of the sources are independent secondary coverage. They are the usual pre-announcements that are always made about films that are in the works

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 thefilmstage.com Announcement of cast signings No Yes Yes No
2 www.gq.com Long interview in Gentlemen's Quartery with Coppola No Yes Yes No
3 hollywoodreporter.com Interview with Coppola No Yes Yes No
4 deadline.com Another interview with Coppola No Yes Yes No
5 hollywoodreporter.com Announcement that Coppola will make the film No No (too short) Yes No
6 deadline.com Another interview with Coppola No Yes Yes No
7 showbiz411.com Announcements about casting No Yes Yes No
8 deadline.com Interview with Coppola No Yes Yes No
9 deadline.com Another discussion of casting No Yes Yes No
10 hollywoodreporter.com Another accouncement about casting No Yes Yes No
11 deadline.com A story about casting No Yes Yes No
12 productionlist.com A database about films Yes No Yes No
13 ajc.com Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Article that filming will be in Georgia Yes No Yes No
14 collider.com Article that filming is about to start No No Yes No

This article was one of two drafts about the film, but has been moved into article space. There had been a redirect from the title to Francis Ford Coppola, which the author moved to limbo. The originator has a right to move the article into article space, but the article does not have a right to be in article space. The other draft can be left in draft space to be reviewed when the film is released and becomes notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems like a pretty open and shut keep. Francis Ford Coppola is a notable and significant filmmaker. The film is currently in production and expected to release. It's a movie with a number of significant American film stars. The article is well sourced, as OP has shown. The page contains information of casting, budget, and production history. This is a notable and well written page for a film that will only increase in relevance as time goes on. Should the film not release in a year and a half or so, then I think the page can be reassessed for deletion, but all of the sources show that this film is in production and headed for a scheduled release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Little Alien (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fundamentally disagree this page doesn’t satisfy notability to be in mainspace. Frankly I find it incredibly frustrating how arbitrarily this topic is brought up, multiple drafts about films with sparse information get moved into mainspace with no trouble. If this was the regular for all pages I wouldn’t be experiencing this frustration but like I said it just feels very pick and choose. There is well over 20 years of coverage about this project detailed in the page, it’s not some random film that was only announced this year. The “myth” about films being notable when filming commences happens because at the guideline WP:NFF it states that an article is capable of being in mainspace if it can be supported that it has begun filming, which it has done so. That is besides the point anyway because it has been a long in development film that as stated has seen over 20 years of reporting on. Akira (planned film) is a page that exists in mainspace despite not even having any semblance of a current plan to begin filming in the near future but due to the years of reporting on was seen as being notable to be in mainspace. Additionally how are none of the sources about casting considered Secondary? Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter are entities independent of Coppola reporting on the castings. I also don’t particularly like that you boilerplated the sources down as if they aren’t being used for specific reasons. For example the FilmStage source marked simply as “Announcement of cast signings” is cited to confirm the director of photography for the film. The GQ source is utilized to corroborate the premise included on the page. Bottom line is this is a notable production that has begun filming. Rusted AutoParts 08:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t see why the other draft, Draft:Megalopolis is being paid so much credence. It only came into existence three days ago whereas the draft moved has existed for over a year and had seen activity from multiple contributing editors. Portions of the draft created by @CoJaSm79: are unsourced, and smack of just being reworded content lifted from the Megalopolis section of the Francis Ford Coppola page. This all ignoring why a second draft about the exact same topic warranted creation due to the existence of the page in question right now. I fail to see how the editor was not aware it already existed when typing the name into search to begin the creation process. Rusted AutoParts 08:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely, they didn't do a search first. And I agree that too.much attention was paid to an inferior draft. It just needs to be redirected to the main article. BilCat (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced and the coverage (due in large part to Coppola's involvement) goes beyond typical pre-release publicity. I'd question the criteria being used to label most of the sources as not WP:INDY. Even if information comes from an interview and therefore that statement may be considered primary, the publication and editorial decisions involved remain independent of the subject for determining notability. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources are independent in the sense that they are financially and editorially unaffiliated with the article subject. Nardog (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are wikipedia articles about films that were never made at all. This is a legendary procudtion (I first learned of it in 1997) by a legendary filmmaker, and it is happening. There are many articles about upcoming films whose 'production' is already less notable than this one. Deleting it would make no sense, as it will just be added back in a few months, anyway.Robbmonster (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per all the above. Clearly a notable film project by a notable filmmaker. (I'd even been considering moving it to mainspace on that basis per GNG even before filming began, but held off once a date for filming was announced, as the date was only a couple of months away by that time.) BilCat (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFF. Filming has begun and the production itself is notable enough. The Film Creator (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this does not belong in mainspace. I am not draftiying it because Draft:2023 Canberra Raiders Season already exists and can be improved. Given disruptive re-creation, I have salted the mainspace article to enforce AfC and/or assesment by neutral admin. Star Mississippi 01:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Canberra Raiders season

[edit]
2023 Canberra Raiders season (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)

Simply a case of WP:TOOSOON, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources because the season hasn’t even commenced. Has bee moved to Draft:2023 Canberra Raiders season, to allow it to be improved however despite being advised that it had been draftified the article’s creator has simply re-created the same article. As the previous PROD notice was deleted without addressing the issue a soft delete cannot be applied. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: all of which can be added to the Canberra Raiders, until the season begins or added to Draft:2023 Canberra Raiders season. Dan arndt (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other stuff exists, has never been a valid arguement in an AfD debate. This can be easily moved from draft space once more reliable sources are provided closer to the beginning of the 2023 season. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line Timmy Jones2000 is that it fails the requirements of WP:GNG, unless you can prove otherwise. Dan arndt (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do the now 9 sources not effectively cover the five tenets of GNG? A cursory stats search of the Canberra Raiders is an indication of their inherent notability, in addition to the several current sources, and the current splash page on the Raiders website detailing their 2023 backroom staff. I'm a little baffled here as all the basic boxes are ticked, and this needs to be improved, not attacked.Fleets (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Consider the possibility of Draftifying if this article is WP:TOOSOON.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the article does have several sources, I don't think any of them yet show significant coverage of the 2023 season. While the sources about player movements do relate to the 2023 season, they don't in themselves constitute significant coverage because they don't talk about the season itself. The article about the draw (which hasn't been released yet) would be an exception to this if it was about the Raiders, but it's actually about the NRL as a whole. Better to move it to draft space until it satisfies WP:GNG. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phillipsburg, New Jersey#Local government. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Phillipsburg, New Jersey

[edit]
List of mayors of Phillipsburg, New Jersey (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)

Another list of non-notable small town mayors. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. Sourced mostly to the local newspaper, but also politicalgraveyard.com (which is not a reliable source). Still, regardless of sourcing, with one exception, none of the people are notable in any way. In order for this to be a suitable topic for a list, either a number of the people in the list must be notable themselves or the topic itself should be notable enough that reliable sources discuss the group as a whole. Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This list has no reliable sources, is missing major parts of the list, all information was gathered in the past month, and no significant coverage was cited. It fails WP:LSC, and has no WP:Notability basis. Toast (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the morning call is a reliable source and has been included in several other lehigh valley specific articles. All the articles in the reference list offer significant coverage of the mayors in question. I don't see how the time of me retreiving the articles would make the list insignificant. Scu ba (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Morning call is a regional newspaper that has been treated as a reliable source in the past. Charles Sitgreaves is notable and has a page. Gloria Decker would be a second notable member of the list although she doesn't have her own article. she was the executive for Warren county and held a couple of roles in state government. Scu ba (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the newspaper isn't reliable, its that it is intended for a local audience. Every mayor in America has had an article written about him or her in the local newspaper, that does not give them automatic notability. Also, because one (or possibly two) members of this list are notable, it does not make the entire group notable. If say half the people on the list were notable, then you would have an argument, but that is not the case.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again the morning call has been treated as a source that passes notability in prior articles regarding issues in the Lehigh Valley. Phillipsburg is the largest city in Warren County and I feel that warrants its mayors as being treated as a group of notable people. Two of them pass the case for individual notability and articles can be made about them. Scu ba (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not work that way. Just because the source is notable, it does not grant auto-notability to every single topic that they write an article on. At a minimum, there should be multiple reliable sources and the sources probably should have a more widespread audience.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of non-notable people. Dronebogus (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phillipsburg is the largest city in Warren county. I feel like that makes its mayors notable enough to be listed. Scu ba (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The largest city where? Dronebogus (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Largest city in Warren County Scu ba (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Largest city in its county" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it literally does
"The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies."
"Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
Being the mayor of the largest city in a county makes the list of mayors notable. each individual mayor doesn't need to be notable, however, two of them do reach notability requirements. Scu ba (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User page of scu ba, creator of the page and commenter above: "I will keep filing this online encyclopedia with obscure peoples and factoids". Do we really want Wikipedia to be filled with obscure people and factoids? Athel cb (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact their refusal to get the point of the AFDs and desire to knowingly create additional work for other editors is borderline disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phillipsburg, New Jersey. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Djflem (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Madison, New Jersey. ✗plicit 02:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Madison, New Jersey

[edit]
List of mayors of Madison, New Jersey (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)

Another list of non-notable small town mayors. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. Nothing is known about these mayors except their existence which is sourced to the town's website. Rusf10 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As for Phillipsburg, immediately above. Athel cb (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rue des prairies

[edit]
Rue des prairies (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:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "Deprodding; not clear that reviews for a 1959 film are going to be readily accessible online; the existing source strongly suggests notability & everyone working on it is blue-linked; deserves at least an AfD so that a proper search for sources can be attempted" DonaldD23 talk to me 23:41, 22 October 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, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Security Operations Center

[edit]
University of Maryland Security Operations Center (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)

Completely unnotable. Only about 21 ghits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Gbooks and Gnews come up similarly sparse, with a lot of false positives for the UMD Cybersecurity Center and things like that. Apocheir (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Kamifusen Albums and Discography". AllMusic.
  2. ^ "Kami Fusen". Spotify.
  3. ^ "４５周年・紙ふうせん「希望の歌を共に」　芸文センターで記念リサイタル". Mainichi Shimbun. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
  4. ^ "紙ふうせん　兵庫・芸文センターでリサイタル　アフターコロナの未来を歌う". Mainichi Shimbun. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
  5. ^ "「冬が来る前に」紙ふうせん 大学で教鞭をとっていた". Nikkan Gendai. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
  6. ^ "紙ふうせんのTV出演情報". Oricon News. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_6&oldid=1121788098"