Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 30 June 01 >

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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniusz Olszyna

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Eugeniusz Olszyna (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 last month's AfD, which was a pretty decisive decision. Onel5969 TT me 00:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the coverage of this player’s death amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not significant. The player's death was a routine announcement per WP:ROUTINE. Adler3 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, significant encyclopedia entry sourced and cited in the article from 2003. Also you cannot expect Internet sources from the 70s and 80s can you. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the above User has been blocked indefintely so probably should be discounted. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article was expanded from 3 to 7 sources, and was significantly expanded in content, so a lot has changed
  • the previous nomination was in no way decisive, misleading to claim it was.
  • there's a solid reason the speedy delete failed and appeal was successful, so the article us not the same is it.
  • the previous nomination said wanted more sources, wider range and include something that was not about his death: all these points have been met.
  • top player in the 70s, for two clubs that are still 2 of the top teams in the country
  • we would not be having this discussion if it was a Carlisle United player from the 70s would we? WP:BIAS.
  • All the sources are WP:RS
  • Radio Eska, Interia, and sport.pl are among the country's biggest news outlets. Lech Poznań themselves are a big European football club so also a good source. The Fuji encyclopedia is a massively popular vademecum on the subject, even if by now a bit dated. 90minut.pl is also a reliable news outlet although very niche.
  • The man retired over 40 years ago, so still in the PRL-era and way before the invention of the internet. Unless you happen to have a copy of the local paper from 4 decades ago lying around I'm not sure what sources you exactly expect; and yes if I find better ones I will add them.
  • There has to be some degree of common sense somewhere.
Abcmaxx (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As at the first AfD, the Eleven Sports Poland obituary posted by Interia, and Radio Eska (without clear attribution) is the only clear source of SIGCOV. The editor who re-created this article days after deletion has added another source (apparently copied over from another wiki): Encyklopedia piłkarska FUJI - kolekcja klubów, tom 8. My concern is nobody has access to this source, and it is unlikely that it contains SIGCOV on Olszyna. If someone does have access, I would greatly appreciate if they could paste anything covering him here. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per norm. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 14:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Clearly topic of interest in Polish football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - much better state than at last AFD, although a big fat trout to Abcmaxx for creating an article after the last deletion, rather than seeking undeletion. GiantSnowman 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It did go through undeletion, and this is a throughly different article since the last AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I had to restore the page history, so you're talking nonsense. GiantSnowman 17:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman, which sources do you think contribute to GNG? You called the obits "fairly brief pieces about his death" at the first AfD, and nothing was added from any new sources this time, so...? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3 sources on the deleted version, 7 on this...? GiantSnowman 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources mentioned in the first AfD were the 90minut.pl obit, the club website, sport.pl, Radio Eska, and Interia Sport. That leaves the 90minut.pl stats site and Encyklopedia piłkarska FUJI, which no one appears to have access to (the statement it supports is actually from the Interia piece quoting FUJI, so zero additional information or sources have been made available from RS between the first and second AfDs). JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should re-read both discussions carefully. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying those sources weren't discussed at that AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I participated in the first AfD, and I can unequivocally state that JoelleJay is correct about six of the seven sources having been discussed at it. As I stated here before, the only new source is the Fuji encyclopedia entry which nobody except you has seen, and based on your description it is not SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that comment said "keep" and wanted those sources added to the article, whereas all the deletes did not say much at all; so it was discussed in favour of keeping the article not deleting as you're trying to infer here Abcmaxx (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is untrue. I participated in the discussion of each of those 6 sources and I absolutely did not !vote keep. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but you're making it exceedingly difficult. Jogurney (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The keep !vote that wanted to add sport.pl, eska.pl, and interia.pl was rebutted by delete-!voter @GiantSnowman as All look to be fairly brief pieces about his death. The next delete !vote said Sources above are not SIGCOV. And the final !vote agreed that there was a lack of in-depth coverage to meet NBIO.
    Anyway, the point is that it is very puzzling that GS, having !voted to delete based on the initial 3 sources in the article and having reaffirmed his delete !vote when evaluating the 3 proposed sources as insignificant, would now !vote to keep based on a single source being added (supporting exclusively material already present in one of the 6 discussed sources) that no one here can even access and for which there is no evidence SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the comment by User:Das osmnezz which you happily ignored. But even your 1st comment was a neutral comment. Also people are allowed to change their minds. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? Is there some kind of language comprehension issue here? The comment by Das osmnezz is obviously what I have been referring to, as evidenced by reading the above comments: this subthread starts with me quoting directly from GS's response to it; you refer to it in response (adding the false claim that all the deletes did not say much at all); and I reply by directly referencing that !vote and rebutting your "deletes" assertion with the assessments of the three sources by GS and subsequent delete !voters. No one is contending that Das osmnezz didn't list those sources; the relevant fact is that three editors dismissed those sources, contributing to the consensus for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and User:Das osmnezz listed them in favour of keeping the articles, so not at all dismissed them. Besides this is not an extension of the 1st AfD so your comment is moot. Pinging the user in case wants to comment. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Is it not obvious that by referencing "the keep !vote who brought up those three sources" I am acknowledging there was a keep !voter who did not dismiss them? That still leaves three editors who did dismiss them, and a fourth editor who obviously disputed that the sole non-trivial source (interia.pl) was sufficient for GNG. And it absolutely is relevant because, as AfDs are supposed to be conducted based on the available sourcing, not the state of the article, it is incongruous for an editor to dismiss all the possible content that could be gleaned from a set of sources at one AfD and then to say the identical set suffices in another AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No additional significant coverage has been identified since the last AfD, so the article appears to fail WP:GNG. If as I noted above someone has access to the Fuji encyclopedia entries covering Olszyna (assuming it covers him at all), I'm willing to reconsider if they paste or summarize the contents. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not copy from another wiki nor made it up; I had access to it. When it was published it was easily found in all Polish bookshops for many, many years. It essentially has a paragraph about him in a mini-section, as it does for all capped Lech players in this volume. It essentially says exactly what it is attributed in the article. Anyhow, how can you possibly say the other sources are not significant here. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's all that the Fuji encyclopedia says, it's not SIGCOV. As far as the obituaries, we already went through this in the last AfD: The club's press release isn't independent coverage; Radio Eska just published information taken from the club's press release (Jak informuje Lech Poznań w komunikacie....); the 90minut.pl obituary is very brief; which leaves the Eleven Sports Poland obituary (published by Interia) as the only SIGCOV available. The only small improvement over the article deleted by consensus is the addition of the Fuji source, and it doesn't get us where we need to be. Jogurney (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you have massively misunderstood WP:SIGCOV. As a reminder: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All the above mentioned sources are the main topic of the source material and no original research is needed to extract the content and none of it is just a trivial mention. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and you need to read the entirety of that section which includes this important piece: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. So the club's press release doesn't count towards notability whether its published by the club or an independent news outlet. Jogurney (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't been affiliated with the club for 40 years, in no way this is advertising or a press release, but even not accepting that point, Radio Eska, Interia, and sport.pl are all unquestionably independent of the subject. By your logic any death announcement is not notable, which is just nonsense. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strawman. Like the last AfD, I already said the Eleven Sports Poland obit looks like SIGCOV. As we covered in the last AfD (and many others), sports organizations including clubs have a vested interest in promoting their athletes, coaches, etc., even long after those people have retired from serving the organization. It doesn't matter if a news organization publishes the press release, or if the sports organization posts it on its own website - both are not independent of the subject. Jogurney (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it looks like SIGCOV then it is SIGCOV isn’t it WP:DUCK. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with anything? One piece of SIGCOV does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG, and a big waste of everyone's time.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Interia piece is decent, but more than one obituary by a journalist from Poznan in a sport-specific publication is necessary for GNG. A smattering of near-identical obituaries is not evidence of sustained SIGCOV, nor is anything from his former clubs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG, and SPORTCRIT. Yeah, a lot hinges on prominent obituaries - because we don't have many (any?) archives of 1970s Polish media. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. In my opinion one piece of significant coverage should be enough for a topic like this; Olszyna played nearly 40 games in the top-flight league, so I think he's almost certain to have received coverage in the newspapers of his time, its just they're all offline and nearly impossible to find nowadays. When we've found at least one piece of SIGCOV I believe it is sufficient for notability in circumstances like this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially, this is a WP:IAR argument (ignore the GNG). If we look at Olszyna's career with a critical eye, I don't think it justifies an IAR argument. He averaged 12 league matches (out of 30) for three seasons and then played just 3 matches in the fourth season with a club (Lech) that finished in the bottom half every time (narrowly avoiding relegation once). He wasn't a regular starter, and his club didn't accomplish anything of note while he played for them. I don't think it's ever appropriate to ignore the GNG for a middling performer like this. Jogurney (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ignoring GNG is it though, your comment is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT by applying arbitrarily varying degrees of the same rule depending on personal opinion. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is complete nonsense. I've said the GNG should be met (consistent with NSPORTS2022). BeanieFan11 has indicated that GNG need not be met in this case. I'm disagreeing with BeanieFan11. Jogurney (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere did he say that at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the coverage added after the first AFD is enough to pass WP:GNG. Not by flying colors, but enough that the page should not be deleted. Also, I recommend a big fat barnstar for Abcmaxx for WP:BOLDly creating an article after the last deletion rather than dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy in the refund process. Frank Anchor 12:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how the one new source added since the last AfD (the Fuji encyclopedia entry) indicates the GNG has been met? Nobody except Abcmaxx has access to that source (and they haven't pasted it here), so it's really strange that multiple editors are viewing it as somehow overturning the clear consensus from the first AfD. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, the coverage added after the first AfD is exclusively from the sources dismissed by consensus as trivial/not amounting to GNG at the first AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely not true at all, I suggest you re-read the original, which by the way, is not that relevant given this is a new article. Stop bludgeoning other peoples votes. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What added material was not available from sources that were discussed in the prior AfD? The diff between the last version before deletion and your recreation contains content from the interia.pl piece (discussed at the AfD), content "sourced" to FUJI encyclopedia but also clearly entirely contained in the interia.pl article, a ref swap from his club to the Eska source (discussed at the AfD), and content sourced to sport.pl (discussed at the AfD). JoelleJay (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say was true, then the speedy delete would have applied, which it didn't, because as I sucessfully appealed it, the article got restored after wide consensus the aeticle is not the same. Thus AfD is not the same as the 1st and us not the same as the original article. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    The speedy delete is only when article content is substantively similar, not when the underlying sources have been discussed and found lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement with Abcmaxx. Also the sources mentioned by Das osmnezz in the previous AFD were most certainly not dismissed by consensus as much of the delete voters did voted and commented before the sources were posted. They were disputed only by GiantSnowman who considered them to be "brief pieces about his death" followed by two generic "delete" votes that did not specifically refence anything. A relist would have probably been most appropriate at the time to further address these sources, but we are here now which is basically the same thing. Frank Anchor 12:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TimothyBlue specified (emph mine) Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything beyond stats and ROUTINE news which meets IS RS with SIGCOV showing N and pl.wp has no sources for them. Sources above are not SIGCOV. That is not a "generic delete !vote". Furthermore, the only substantive source referenced by Das osmnezz had already been discussed by Jogurney, who clearly disputed that there was enough for GNG, so that makes three participants who demonstrably engaged with that source and one more who AGF tells us also did. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay correctly summarizes the first AfD discussion of the sources presented by Das osmnezz. I didn't !vote in that AfD, but I clearly disputed the sufficiency of those sources. I find Abcmaxx's comment that the reversal of the speedy deletion of this article as somehow approving of his editing behavior deeply troubling. As GS noted above, Abcmaxx deserves a TROUT for disruptive editing. Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digimon#Manga. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Next

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

No evidence of notability. The article just relies on primary sources. Xexerss (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. No argument for notability has been presented to rebut the well-supported nomination statement; moving to draft instead of deletion as this nomination was in response to a contested draftify, and because the film's release means that there may yet be new coverage to be found at some point. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phalguna Chaitra

[edit]
Phalguna Chaitra (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)

Phalguna Chaitra

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy future film guidelines. This is a contested draftificiation; it was moved to draft space correctly by User:Onel5969. Unreleased movies that have completed production are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. There is nothing in this article about significant coverage by independent reliable sources. A review of the references shows that they all say that the movie will be released on 12 May; we knew that.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 simki.com Movie announcement on a movie web site Not really No Yes No
2 thenewshashtag.com Movie announcement Not really No Yes No
3 web.archive.com Wayback machine - Machine translation fails Yes Probably not ? ?
4 odia.celebrity.com Announcement that teaser was released Yes No Yes No
5 orissapost.com Advertisement of movie No Not really Yes No
6 orissapost.com Announcement that movie will premier in Australia No Not reall y Yes No
7 odishabytes.com Advance publicity, and announcement of date No Not really Yes No
8 timesofindia.com Advance publicity for movie No Not really Not always No

The references show that, like many articles on unreleased films, this is a good-faith but misguided attempt to use Wikipedia for movie advance publicity.

The Heymann criterion will be if a Reception section is added between 12 May and 18 May referring to two reviews in reliable sources, which will be an entirely different article than this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert McClenon, since this movie is an Odia language movie, most of the references are available in Odia. Even, I've added a few new references from notable Odia news papers like The Samaja. Sangram Keshari Senapati (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is very little point in adding references, whether in Odia, in Bengali, in Sanskrit, or in English, before release of the movie. Any references will only say that the movie is about to be released, and will not provide significant coverage because there is nothing to review. Any references at this point will be more of the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I understand your point now. Thanks for your valuable feedback. Since I created the article on Odia Wiki, so thought to create it on English too, but never thought about this point. Sangram Keshari Senapati (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the original nomination rationale was flawed and the editor was blocked as a sock, there is nonetheless a consensus between the two editors who discussed notability considerations that this falls short of our guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Eddine Tilsaghani

[edit]
Nour Eddine Tilsaghani (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)

A highly promotional article, with a lot of sockpuppetry surrounding its history. It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again. Nominated at 06:45, 12 May 2023 by AnaphoreJT

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Photography, and Morocco. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for AnaphoreJT. You say that this is "A highly promotional article". This surprises me, in two ways. First, it's not apparent to me that this is a highly promotional article. But before you bother to explain, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Being highly promotional is not a reason for deletion. The closest is number 4: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". (I'll admit that I don't know what "relevant" means here -- relevant to what? Anyway, feel free to interpret "relevant" as you wish.) Are you saying that this has no encyclopedic content? You also mention sockpuppetry. The worst I can imagine would be if the article were proven to have been created by a block-evading sockpuppet. "Creations by banned or blocked users" are reasons for speedy deletion and thus reasons for deletion via AfD. The creator is indeed blocked as a puppetmaster, but they created the article in October 2022, and was blocked this month for sockpuppetry that only started last month. (Yes, I've looked at the lists of puppets' edits, both extant and deleted.) Are you suggesting that articles should be deleted if their creators were blocked for activity that only started months later? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Tilsaghani appears to be a notable award-winning photographer, with exhibits and resume. The article itself seems to contain badly translated names of shows and galleries. I don't know enough French or Arabic to clean the article up completely. I think there are some phrases in quotes and parenthesis that are translations to English. I have tried to wikify. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Changing !vote to Delete WP:TOOSOON WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is badly translated due to it being created as a result of cross-wiki spam. The articles’ other language counterparts were deleted for the same reason. B3251 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't see the a article as being "promotional". Am I being overgenerous in thinking he is notable? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the person at the top copy-pasted the reason from another deletion request of somebody else whose article was created by the same account, I wouldn’t 100% go by what was said. As for notability, I couldn’t really find any sources about them to consider them notable enough, in my opinion at least. B3251 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coolin' (music video)

[edit]
Coolin' (music video) (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 do not believe this music video has received significant enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to warrant a separate article. Out of the sources currently used in the article, only the Vibe and InStyle ones are appropriate, while the other sources are either primary or not the best quality sources. I could not find anything further in my before search. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The song itself does not have a Wikipedia article, as it is not notable enough. Most of the refs were spam/junk. The remaining refs are from the QT hotel where the video was filmed (not an RS), and Vibe, which is just a promotional piece announcing the release. The video never achieved any real notability and appears in no quality independent RS as a SIGCOV on the video from my search. WP:FANCRUFT. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Niles Canyon Railway#Railroad equipment. ✗plicit 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 5623

[edit]
Southern Pacific 5623 (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 individual locomotive. Thousands of GP9s were built and many still operate today. And either way, there's no significant coverage available to justify a standalone article on this individual locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, no one is trying to list all the locomotives that have ever existed, as the nomination poses. This is one of few surviving historical artifacts of this specific type which have been placed in museums (counting heritage railways as such), in effect. Significant investment has been made in preserving it. And, the general argument that there cannot be articles about all locomotives is irrelevant: there is a sourced, valid article about this one. And it is part of an organized documentation system: the list and linked articles.
So there is simply no way that this article should be outright deleted, and this item should not be at AFD. Should it be merged, would a proper merge discussion (which allows more time for interested, informed editors to find their way to discussion and to deliberate collaboratively) end up judging it should be merged? I think not: the article has more valid information (including relatively large-sized photo(s) than can comfortably fit into the list of preserved locomotives. And the list of equipment within the Niles Canyon article, to which some want this redirected, is inadequate. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is sourced to the museum's own website and a self-published railfan site on trainweb. Do you have any actual sources to show notability, or are you just here to complain about an AfD from a year ago? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Primary School

[edit]
Park Primary School (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)

Disputed prod about a non-notable primary school. Currently zero references, but searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animes Roy

[edit]
Animes Roy (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)

Notability isn't automatically inherited. Just beacuse the person featured on Coke Studio Bangla doesn't guarantee an automatic wikipedia article. Most of the cited sources on the article talks about Coke Studio Bangla.

Also all of the sources are primary, either interview or passing mentions. Unable to see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST.

(Note that It is most likely a "Paid-article". See this facebook post, where the subject thanks someone called "Md Younus Shepon" for creating this article and also recommend others to contact him if they need a wikipedia article. I can see article creator allready blocked for sock-puppeting.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: After creating this Afd, it looks like they deleted that facebook post. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Singh Solanki

[edit]
Rajendra Singh Solanki (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 politician who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. DreamRimmer (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to further discussion of potential merges. signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libreboot

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

Fails WP:GNG. My assessment of citations is at Talk:Libreboot#AfD_or_Merge?, except a book cite I added, which would rate as passing mention. I have been unable to find sufficient sourcing to justify a stand-alone article on Libreboot.org (and/or the associated business). My suggestion is merge and redirect to Open-source_firmware, which also currently is not well sourced; however, PhotographyEdits prefers to merge into Coreboot, so I am here to ask for impartial opinions on delete, merge, and to where. Background: Since the approximate peak content in August 2021,[2] the article has been stubified, mostly by PhotographyEdits, partly by justified deletions of some poorly sourced living person information. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Yae4 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have found a few more, more or less reliable and independent sources covering "Libreboot", such as coverage in PC World. This gives more background, including existence of more companies' efforts to sell products with "Libreboot". I now feel, we will be able to have a decent article, after spending some time at WP:RSN, and probably WP:COIN, and maybe WP:SPI, unfortunately. This assumes proponents of one particular effort to sell products with Libreboot are unsuccessful in their painfully obvious efforts to control the article in biased directions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into coreboot, as already stated by the nominator. Coreboot meets the WP:GNG and Libreboot is essentially the same software without proprietary binaries. If merged to Open-source firmware, this would put undue weight on the Libreboot subject, in the coreboot article it would be appropriate. The current content of the article can be kept since it is reliable sourced. In case more in-depth articles can be found about Libreboot, I am open to change my mind and vote for keeping the article, but for now I agree with the nominator it does not meet the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Libreboot now is essentially one paragraph, not counting the repetition in the lead. One paragraph is hardly an over-weight addition to a stub like Open source firmware, which needs additions.
    Factual correction: As I understand it from citations, Libreboot from Libreboot.at will be "the same software without proprietary binaries." Libreboot from Libreboot.org has "some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot", quoting Libreboot. The existence of two separate "Libreboot" projects currently, and whether to mention this fact, with cite, is a point of contention. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be merged into coreboot, as already stated by the nominator. Libreboot does not meet the general notability guideline. It still has has some verifiable facts, so it might be useful to discuss it within the coreboot article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edidds (talk • contribs) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)— Edidds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge into coreboot per PhotographyEdits. Dawnbails (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Libreboot article should be deleted. It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. It has clear sources provided, from notable organizations and people. I can point to countless other articles on Wikipedia that are similarly light, but otherwise meet guidelines. If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it. The Libreboot's own homepage shows how different it is to coreboot; merging with coreboot would be like talking about GNU Emacs on the Linux article, just because Emacs happens to run under Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.0 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.219.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and geolocates to UK, home of Libreboot org and their business.[reply]
    Emacs is an application that runs on Linux. Libreboot isn't an application that runs on Coreboot. Libreboot's own homepage explicitly says it's largely the same software, and characterizes the difference as: In the same way that Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution, Libreboot is a coreboot distribution.
    In a hypothetical world where there aren't very many Linux distributions, and one of them was notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia but not enough to get its own article, redirecting to a section of Linux seems like a reasonable thing to do. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a misleading argument anyway: Red_herring? In fact, GNU Emacs is written about, or at least mentioned in a couple places, in Linux, but I still think Open-source firmware is a better place to merge into. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.
    Per WP:3REFS, please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, secondary, reliable and independent coverage.
    >If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it.
    This is true and a good reason to prefer keeping the article in my view. But for this, we need the sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (Nominator) I wish to withdraw the AfD, if possible. I've concluded it won't help to merge with Open-source firmware, as the same issues have already come up on Talk there, and it won't help to merge with Coreboot, which is better left as a more focused article. The problems here are probably better handled at WP:COIN and WP:RSN. Other suggestions from uninvolved editors would be welcome.
  • The surface issue here is sourcing. The root issue here is WP:COI. Some editors want Libreboot to be solely about (i.e. advertising for) the latest manifestation of a small business trying to sell computers that boot with what they now call Libreboot. They want to include some self-published (or is it primary, or secondary?) cites for including selected, marketing info, such as devices available from the marketing arm of Libreboot-ORG. On the other hand, they want to exclude other similar, but maybe more reliable, cites for even mentioning Libreboot-AT, and what they also call Libreboot. It seems these editors also want to exclude basic history: What is currently called Libreboot-ORG, was previously called Gluglug,[3] but oddly this is only mentioned now in Coreboot. Gluglug and Libreboot-ORG were previously working with the Free Software Foundation, et al., on again, off again, naming, re-naming, all basic facts that should be included in a history with OK cites.
  • Example: A glance at Crocfarts short, WP:SPA, and targeted edit contributions and Wikimedia uploads shows clearly what they did here: add to Libreboot and take away from Coreboot. Also, they ignored discussion of Phoronix as a source (no consensus, with puppetry), at User_talk:Crocfarts, and deleted Phoronix-cited info, at Coreboot. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has changed substantially since this AfD was opened, with many good edits by Yae4, so I think it would be prudent to accept the withdrawal of the AfD. The topic is in flux so there will be more work ahead, but that wouldn't be made easier by a merge to another article. Nemo 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support the withdrawl of this AfD since other people already voted for different viewpoints. If everyone revises their standpoint then sure, but for now the closer needs to evaluate the consensus of this discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, an AfD with only keep or merge opinions is SK1. AfD isn't intended to be the place for merge discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep look good to me, certainly not delete - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not sure what consensus Barkeep49 saw at the second relisting but I just don't see a consensus here right now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Joshi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Priyanka Joshi (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)

Recently tagged for notability by JoelleJay and detagged by Andrew Davidson; template instructions say not to war over its inclusion, and as it has been 2 years since the last deletion discussion, it seems appropriate to renominate. It is clearly far WP:TOOSOON for notability under the WP:NPROF guideline, the question comes down to whether she is notable for being included in various early career listicle-type articles, including Forbes 30 under 30 and a similar (but perhaps weightier) item from Vogue. I am not convinced; but similarly to the last discussion, please consider my !vote here as weak delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking weak, per convincing argument by XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if it's the same person. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She received some buzz in lay media around 2019 as being a "young scientist to watch", however, four years on it seems that this coverage would qualify as BLP1E. Her citations are ok-ish for a post-doc in this field -- Scopus has her at 250 citations across 7 papers (plus two errata), with her top 5 at 148, 47, 30, 18, and 4 citations. She has 3 first-author research papers totaling 33 citations, plus the book chapter at 47 citations. This is very, very far from the profile expected for NPROF (to put this into perspective, my PhD mentor also publishes on aggregating proteins in neurodegeneration; a student of hers who graduated last year was first or second author on two papers that total 300+ citations, and a current grad student already has ~200 citations from 3 papers she was first or second author on). JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The VOGUE(Vogue) entry (together with Forbes) seem to me to allow the entry to meet general notability (and might pass WP:Prof 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity). (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Msrasnw, 30 under 30 + Vogue 25. Also, four years is just four years (with a pandemic in the middle). Joshi recently received an award for entrepreneurship from the NIA.12 and an award from MBC Biolabs 3. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those awards are grants for doing more work in the future. That's at best a very indirect indication that a person (or, in the latter case, a company they co-founded) is already influential. I don't think either of them help the wiki-notability case at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Msrasnw and Jaireeodell. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources presented in the first AfD, continuing coverage in DNA India, and an invitation to speak before the Royal Institution[6], both in the last month. Satisfies GNG. pburka (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She fails NPROF, but possibly passes WP:SIGCOV, based on media/press coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure "30 under 30" type-coverage or the types of awards she has won are really GNG-significant. I'm more inclined to agree with JoelleJay that the citation record looks comparatively weak. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . This seem to meet WP:ANYBIO for having won several awards and WP:GNG.Hkkingg (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forbes "30 under 30" lists are what TV Tropes would call overly narrow superlatives. The sum total of her profile there is two sentences. That's neither in-depth coverage nor an example of an award where a mere listing would go a long way. (If you win a MacArthur, you're probably notable, even if all that the source says is that you won a MacArthur.) The Vogue item does not provide much more weight; it's a listicle of 25 women that allocates Joshi a paragraph. The DNA India item is also just a blurb, so superficial that I can't in good conscience call it "sustained coverage". Researchers giving talks is just part of what researchers do; unless it's something like being selected to give a lecture in an annual series where the selection itself is a high honor, it's not enough to argue for wiki-notability either. So, I am seeing neither a WP:PROF pass nor the significant coverage necessary to support a pass by any other means. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if Keep !voters would expand on how they think the brief "listicle" type coverage adds up to SIGCOV. I do not believe !votes focused on awards are policy-based, as the awards are all very early career (like the best PhD award in the article) or grants for future work. (I do think we all probably agree that the subject is likely to eventually become notable, but as usual, WP:CRYSTAL applies.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of opinions, but we need some more policy-based discussion about this person's notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I'm not seeing a pass of NPROF, and I'm unconvinced that Forbes is enough for notability. A lot of people get on Forbes lists (hundreds, given the ten categories and multiple geographies; versus thousands of nominations, so the chance of winning if nominated isn't that bad). It can be argued that the selection for Forbes/Vogue is more about being the sort of person who gets yourself nominated than being truly notable in a Wikipedia sense. NPROF is a far better measure because it doesn't depend on the subject's attitude to their own publicity. She was clearly a very successful student and post-doc, so maybe it's still WP:TOOSOON? Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the Vogue article as a source of notability: With respect to the list of The Vogue 25: Meet The Women Shaping 2018. I think all have Wikipedia pages (except for: HANNAH ANDERSON). So it would seem a bit odd to delete this one. Someone reading that page could want to look up these people and it would seem to be odd to have the academic missing. I think Vogue notability is a different thing from WP:Prof notability but... (Msrasnw (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    Even if avoiding mild oddity were a policy-based reason to have an encyclopedia article, this presumes that anyone reads back issues of Vogue from half a decade ago... XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think XOR'easter summed it up best. This person doesn't pass WP:NPROF, and if someone tries to take the GNG route, those Forbes and Vogue X under Y articles are not really suitable for establishing notability, in part because those become expansive indiscriminate listings, but also because what is there doesn't really amount to WP:SIGCOV. Those can be an indication to keep an eye on a person in coming years, but we have WP:CRYSTAL policy when it comes to speculating like that in the here and now. As I was reviewing this AfD and the subject, I have to admit the keep WP:!VOTEs really didn't give me any substance to work with and would be something I would not be able to weight very much in assessing WP:CONSENSUS so far. KoA (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after relist on GNG. I'll just reiterate that this pretty clearly doesn't meet GNG either. WP:NOTNEWS is policy, which deals with the kind of fluff those 30 over 30 type lists from Forbes and Vogue are. That's not the level of WP:SIGCOV needed to satisfy GNG, but instead are the type of sources often used as WP:PUFFERY that can catch people, including editors, off guard. KoA (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we're closing to consensus than we were after the first relist but not quite there. Relisting again given that this is already a second nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : as is failing WP:Prof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portwoman (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a big fan of basing our content on listicle-like publicity coverage but that's the fault of using GNG for notability, not the fault of the subject. As long as we're using GNG, I think the Forbes and Vogue coverage and the Indian newspaper followup coverage are in-depth and reliably published, and I think the Forbes and Vogue coverage are independent enough of each other to not be a problem with respect to WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is clear consensus that WP:PROF is not met, but opinion is evenly divided as to whether presented coverage is enough for GNG. Further comments and analyses of this question would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that satisfies GNG. The first link is to an event description for a lecture already discussed above as WP:MILL. For the remaining ones, simply being in an RS does not equal notability. Those listings of X under Y are typically pretty indiscriminate and cover a large number of people rather than SIGCOV. This doesn't address the problems brought up with those sources above. KoA (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by writing system

[edit]
List of languages by writing system (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:OR WP:SYNTH WP:UNSOURCED. Any language can be written in any writing system, many languages have in fact historically been written in multiple scripts, and even today – as we speak (or, I guess, as we write) – some languages are currently being written in multiple scripts (Serbo-Croatian, Kazakh language, Uzbek language, Japanese language, Berber languages; it looks like Ukrainian language will also transition from Cyrillic to Latin after having approved an official transcription standard in April 2022 etc.). The only difference is that some scripts have been officially approved and used, while others have been unofficially used, each all to varying degrees. There is no way for writing systems to "claim" particular languages, nor the other way around. These are constantly changing, dynamic interrelationships. You can categorise Berber Latin alphabet as a Latin writing system (so a List of Latin-script alphabets is perfectly legitimate), but you cannot claim the Berber languages for any particular writing system. That's just not how it works. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “writing system” is poorly defined (is the Esperanto alphabet a writing system because it has unique letters even though it’s overwhelmingly based on the Latin alphabet?) and some languages have no (native) writing system or multiple writing systems (Korean and Japanese for starters) Dronebogus (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To answer your question: the Esperanto alphabet counts as a Latin-script alphabet. The Latin script is a writing system. 'Script' and 'writing system' can usually be used interchangeably. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep With respect, the complaint that Any language can be written in any writing system seems utterly specious. The fact is that in the real world specific languages do get written in specific writing systems, and this is information that can be useful to know. Many languages are national, and the nations have officially recognized scripts. For example, I recently wanted to check which writing system is used to write Slovok nowadays: is it Latin or Cyrillic. And I don't see how the statement There is no way for writing systems to "claim" particular languages, nor the other way around. makes sense: there is no implication in the article that the connection between a language and a script is set in stone: it just reflects reality. I note that the argument that some languages are written in multiple systems or change system is built into the article: entries note where this occurs. Also, I disagree with the claim that "writing system" is poorly defined: there is a link to a Wikipedia page that provides a very clear definition; whether you agree with that definition or not is hardly the point: it is the definition used by this page. (While I am at it, I disagree with the claim that Any language can be written in any writing system: it ignores the problems of homophones, tones, stress which may not have adequate apparatus in a given writing system: for example, pinyin has five tone markers which is good enough for Mandarin, but not adequate for the 9 tones of Chinese.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 01:59 3 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect, the complaint that Any language can be written in any writing system seems utterly specious Иф со, ыоу wоулд нот бе абле то реад wхат Иьм wритинг хере. Θερε ἰς νο ῥυλε ωιχ σαις θατ θε ᾽Ενγλισ λανγυαγε, φορ ἐξαμπλε, νεεδς το βε ωριττεν ἰν θε Λατιν σκριπτ. Kidding aside, if we're talking about officially recognized scripts, that is an entirely different scope, see for example Official scripts of the Republic of India. Without 'official' in this article's title, it's a free-for-all catch-all. I'm inclined to agree Walt Yoder's point that List of writing systems does a much better job at this, and am open to Iseult's suggestion of perhaps reframing this article to List of writing systems by language, but perhaps both these points need to be accompanied with official status in order to prevent the same problem of arbitrary lists of writing sytems arbitrarily connected to languages.
it just reflects reality How do we know that if it's completely WP:UNSOURCED? Anyone can claim anything without needing to provide evidence.
I disagree with the claim that "writing system" is poorly defined: there is a link to a Wikipedia page that provides a very clear definition WP:CIRC. One article cannot rely on another article to do all its defining and sourcing, it still needs its own WP:OR for WP:V. As it stands, this whole article remains completely WP:UNSOURCED.
it ignores the problems of XYZ I'm not denying that it may be more difficult to express language Foo in script A than in script B, or that it may be more difficult to express language Foo in script A than it is for language Bar to be expressed in script A. That is not the point. The fact is, it's possible (and my Cyrillic and Greek-script joke at the beginning illustrates that). Even if in the case of, say, the Vietnamese language, you'll need to invent lots of extra letters and diacritics in order to preserve the proper pronunciation etc. Or, in the case of the supposed "Montenegrin language", you feel the need to invent extra letters to distinguish yourself from the supposed "Serbian language" for political reasons, even though pronunciation is nearly identical, and linguists may make fun of you. Where there is a will, there is a way. The Kazakhstanis struggled for a bit in the late 2010s (due to the overus'e of apos'troph'es ev'erywh'ere in the pres'iden't's propos'ed alph'abet), but seem to have settled on a Latin alphabet to write the Kazakh language in henceforth. You can always make it work. No writing system "owns" any language, no language can only be written in one or certain writing systems alone, and Wikipedia shouldn't claim or imply such nonexistant static relationships between them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cat in a Blender

[edit]
Cat in a Blender (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)

Prodded by Onel5969 with rationale Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting coverage. Declined by Special:Contribs/2001:569:be8c:4400:1fd:8a6a:5dbb:ccb with summary No sir, this is not news. Look up "Cat in a blender video" to get information. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 14:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following bullet point 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT, this is clearly shock news. A Google search shows sources centered around the WP:1E of that video going viral (and immediate Twitter policy change as part of that WP:1E). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Cruelty to animals article. 2001:569:BE8C:4400:CC06:CF17:6B8D:C01F (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it's obviously a horrific video, but we don't have individual articles dedicated to the 2006 video where a kitten was crushed to death with high heels, which is covered at Crush_fetish#China, or to every ISIS execution video either. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is heartless. There are no reliable sources that cover this video separate from Twitter's moderation issues, it's all sensational. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cover the Holocaust and 9/11 in extensive details, that's about as caring as this site can be to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body Central

[edit]
Body Central (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)

Notability does require verifiability. Businesses are not inherently notable. Various claims in this article are not reflected in its cited references, such as the claims that it: "Was immensely popular through the early 2000s, and was comparable to Wet Seal, or Aeropostale," or "Had about 300 stores across the United States," or that it was "Famous for its large shiny blue tiled facade" (which seems like trivial information anyway). I could not verify them in other sources. Most articles that mention this store discuss its filing for bankruptcy. The number of articles that mention its downfall does not make up for the apparent dearth of quality content. Trivial coverage does not make this any more notable. One of these sources (and others) are local sources, which, again, do not make for notability. There just is no substantial coverage of this company that warrants keeping this article unless there is another Body Central that I am entirely unaware of. Apologies if I have done something wrong. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find more than routine coverage, store openings, then closings. The company wasn't in any way revolutionary in how they do business, so I can't find any sort of lasting impact. Not discussed in business journals. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used in mathematics or physics in peer-reviewed journals, it's unrelated to this commercial outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth is My Prison

[edit]
The Earth is My Prison (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)

Lacks notability. The one review is a site where you can pay to get your book reviewed, and nothing better can be found online among the 23 Google Hits[9] and zero Google News hits. Already repeatedly created and moved to draft, time to put an end to this. Fram (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After improvement, there is a rough consensus for keeping the article. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hehir

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

Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:NACTOR. Was a regular cast member on The Sullivans, but seems to have otherwise played relatively minor roles. (I'm unfamiliar with Australian cinema, so I could be wrong). No online sources other than IMDB, etc. I was able to find several mentions in old newspapers on TWL, but they were all very brief and didn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. PROD was removed by Kvng with the rationale 26 incoming links indicate potential importance. I checked a few of the incoming links and they were all from cast lists, with none of the pages mentioning the article subject in detail. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should have read voorts comment properly, add a lead in The Hour Before My Brother Dies to the list of significant roles. Film with multiple AFI nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if the keep-voters can explain more about GNG in the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial roles perhaps, I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please justify that throwaway comment about "trivial roles perhaps" against the above identified significant roles especially considering the Sullivans role acknowledged in the nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my limited knowledge of the series involved and what appeared to me during a cursory glance at the information. I haven't done a deep dive into each, frankly, I'm not that invested. I couldn't find anything that supported GNG. Others can disagree and dig further if they choose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should not have been relisted. The relisting of this afd is essentially a supervote. There has been a clear demonstration that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR. That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome. WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" such as NACTOR. GNG is a companion piece, it does not trump the SNG. Relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce their own interpretation of policy. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional to that can I ask those that claim he "fails" gng (especially commentators after the identification of significant roles) to identify what attempts they made to find offline sources given that Hehir's most prominent roles occurred pre internet saturation. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is for those seeking to keep an article to provide sources, not for those seeking to delete it to prove none exist. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep regular actor in a major Australian cultural work. Additionally has roles in numerous notable works as per blue links in article. Clearly satisfies WP:NACTOR and WP:N
Relistors and original AfD deletion advocates have still yet to address the concerns raised by duffbeerforme Jack4576 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disruptive BLP PROD removal. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things Timothy. 1 Can you justify your claim that subject fails BIO given that NACTOR is part of BIO and a passing of NACTOR has been asserted above identifying pertinent roles. 2 Most of the plethora of policies and guidlines you link in your boilerplate are about the contents of an article, not about the existence of the article. Yes WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and any contentious material in a BLP without that must be removed but it doesn't say the whole article must be deleted. (Side question, How active would you be if you weren't semi retired?) duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacking evidence of significant multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now improved the article. There is now a link showing the existence of a collection of Biographical cuttings on Peter Hehir at the National Library of Australia that provides evidence of coverage for GNG so I'm expanding my !vote to say he passes both NACTOR and GNG. Pinging other previous !delete commentators LibStar, SamX, Oaktree b, voorts. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not persuaded the subject meets GNG or NACTOR:
    1. I can't review the biographical cuttings since they're not digitized, so I can't opine on that, but if they are what I think they are (effectively a scrapbook), I'm not sure how that establishes notability.
    2. The first source, an article titled "Movies available on tape in Canberra" from 1983, does not contain SIGCOV of the subject. The second source, a review of The Unquestioning, is a short plot synopsis. The third source is a link to a library catalog page. The fourth source just states that he was nominated for an award, but WP:NACTOR requires winning an award to establish notability under that test.
    voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks voorts for looking again. On your points in reverse order:
    2. Each of those four sources attest to the significance of his roles in each of the productions, directly addressing the NACTOR#1 criteria of significant roles in notable productions. (Note that number 2 is not about The Unquestioning, thats just the opening two words)
    1. By maintaining a delete position you are opining that the cuttings are not good enough. And I don't understand your point about a scrapbook. How would cutting a newspaper article out of the paper and placing it in a scrapbook make it any less valid?
    duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Criterion 1 of NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis added). His roles might have been significant in each of the films you've cited, but there's no evidence that any of those films are notable under either GNG or NFO. I think the sources you've provided, while reliable, are the equivalent of TV Guide synopses, not reviews by established critics such that the films are notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to the Peter Hehir article to show that other subjects are notable. But anyway: The Sullivans is clearly notable and has won 5 Logies. Fast Talking (three AFI nomination) has multiple reviews such as in the New York Times by Walter Goodman 23 April 1986. Also in Cinema Papers *2, Sun-Herald, The Age. It is also covered in depth in Australian film 1978-1994 : a survey of theatrical features [10]. I Live with Me Dad was reviewed in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times, both major Australian newspapers. The Last of the Knucklemen (7 AFI nominations) was reviewed in Cinema Papers, Sun-Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, Adelaide's Advertiser and The Age and is preserved by the The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia where the curator notes [11] "The Last of the Knucklmen received some of the best critical notices of any Tim Burstall film" and they also hold assorted papers relating to the film [12]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please share links to the reviews you've cited? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated some film articles, including some links to reviews, to better show their notability. Should also add Two Friends to the list of good roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to keep per sources provided by duffbeerforme. The subject has had at least two significant roles in notable projects: The Sullivans (which nobody is disputing) and Silver City, which was nominated for several Australian Film Institute awards, including Best Supporting Actor for the subject. If other users think the sourcing done by duffberforme is insufficient, then I would be okay with draftifying this article so that better sources can be added. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Art of Fighting#Characters. ✗plicit 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting)

[edit]
Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting) (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 minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions. Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and some listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Ulyanov

[edit]
Sergey Ulyanov (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)

Clear WP:GNG fail. No google books hits, article is a CV likely written by the subject. Kges1901 (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only 1 !vote. Relisting twice only produced a comment. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn It Ani Barach Kahi

[edit]
Damn It Ani Barach Kahi (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)

Book fails WP:GNG, almost no critical reception, all source book launch info AShiv1212 (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment reviews look arguably OK as they are right now; the article has been updated somewhat since nominated for deletion. Merge to Mahesh Kothare is a sensible ATD since this is an autobiography, if we're not going to keep it standalone... but again, that's difficult to evaluate. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2022). ✗plicit 07:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Raqqa attack

[edit]
2022 Raqqa attack (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:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems fine. Not a very notable battle outside of that context. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stick it to the Stickman

[edit]
Stick it to the Stickman (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)

press-releases sources, advertisement, etc NortonAngo (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brückner

[edit]
Christian Brückner (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)

Please nominate this article for deletion that fails WP:NACTOR, but completely no sources per WP:GNG. 112.204.206.165 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Poor article, but according to de:Christian Brückner, he meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dewritech. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Rising

[edit]
Atlantis Rising (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 recording with no third-party sources. Also, have multiple issues that aren't resolved. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manilla Road: found no third party coverage myself aside from the AllMusic review already present. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote as I haven’t gotten a chance to look over the news sources which Schminnte provided. If I remember to, I may return and give this a second look. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After a BEFORE search, I did find coverage of the album in a book by Gary Hill (three pages, going into some depth on each song), a review from Metal.de and a paywalled review from Rockhard.de, a review from powermetal.de and a review from Nightfall in Metal Earth. Together with the Allmusic source I think this constitutes sigcov and meets WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am uncertain on the conventions in metal genre articles, let alone albums. In this case, combined with the foreign language sources I have found (and my inability to read them!), I do not think it would the best interest of the article for me to be the one to add these sources. I have tried, but discarded an edit already. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least until the references found by User:Schminnte can be looked over by someone better with those languages, to assess publication notability in the music industry. I'll try to add in what I can today, see if that makes a redirect less automatic. Rockaway.HTM (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pray, let us not be hasty! The album 'Atlantis Rising' of Manilla Road boasts German sources, unverified due to our linguistic shortcomings. Are we to cast aside our brotherly tomes simply for their foreign tongue? It reeks of imprudence to nominate for deletion without first piercing the language barrier. Withhold your axes, until thorough examination is possible. Patience, I entreat! Jack4576 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The page can easily be restored should references be obtained. Currently you are operating on "there's source" without proof. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manilla Road - per QuietHere. I see three keep votes here, but they are all predicated on the existence of a few mentions of the album, particularly in German language sources, that none of them have read. Anyone can google translate those sources, but in any case, having read them, I note these are hardly a ringing endorsement of the album. For instance, the reviewer at metal.de tells us that the album could not get positive reviews, and the reasons were obvious, the sound being muddy, drums too thin, guitars distorted etc. What we have here is a group that is notable, and one of their albums that has coverage because the group are notable. It deserves the mention it gets on Manilla Road, but there is not enough information, nor anything significant about the album sufficient that it should have an article too. Specifically the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy if I've understood what you wrote correctly then it appears you're saying that the review from metal.de is invalid because it is a negative assessment of the album. To be clear, no, that is not a reason for non-notability. Coverage of the subject, regardless of its opinion on said subject, is still coverage. That is the whole point of music criticism. And if that was not what you were trying to say, then it would help if you could restate yourself as to clarify why you are rejecting that and any other sources. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No you have not understood me correctly. Apologies for not being sufficiently clear. I have said that the sources provided show that this album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Although you would expect some mention about any album by a notable group, these reviews do not demonstrate any reason why the album itself is notable for an article. Specifically these do not meet "multiple, non-trivial", the widest catchall of those guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you say that because I've had a look at the sources just now and I'm changing my vote to keep based off of them. These are four full reviews and one large section of a book all discussing this album directly. Unless they're all known to be unreliable for some reason -- and I don't see any immediate reason to question any of them -- then this looks like a solid list to me. I wish I'd seen all that earlier when I was searching. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting. This wasn't an exhaustive list that I provided, but these were the best I could find. There were some reviews in other languages that I am more unfamiliar with (I can read some French). I agree with @QuietHere's analysis. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed interesting, because if the existence of a review of an album, when the album is released, and where it is an album of a notable band, were sufficient to establish notability, then it would be the case that all albums of notable bands would be inherently notable, because all such albums will generate some reviews at that point. Yet WP:NALBUMS says:

    An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence.

    Per WP:SUSTAINED,

    Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time,

    so in analysing what amounts to significant coverage for an album that does not inherit notability, the sources must demonstrate this aspect of significance. They must be sustained, and these reviews do not meet that threshold.
    However, I am more inclined to consider discussion in a book to be a better indicator of notability than magazine/press reviews. So the book by Gary Hill is important to consider. I don't have access to this book. What I was able to do was view page 52 using Amazon's look inside feature, and also search the book and view the index to show that this page (and possibly some of page 53) are the totality of its coverage of the album. So I read the page, and found that the section is actually talking about the band. It does, however, briefly mention the album, because of what the author sees as Lovecraft inspired elements in it. So a book about Lovecraft inspired music talks about this band and says this album is pertinent. Possibly pertinent... except then I saw that the book is self published. Note that the publisher is Lulu.com, which Wikipedia does not accept as a WP:RS.
    So what we are left with is a few ephemeral reviews, some of which actually tell us that the album was not well received, thus explaining why there is not more significant coverage, and a self published work by a Lovecraft fan. This is a clear fail of WP:NALBUMS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also from WP:NALBUMS: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. Yep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't appreciate that about the Hill book (though saying that, it is written by a known journalist (wrote for AllMusic) and proofread). However, I don't follow your logic. As @QuietHere said, just because a source is negative of something, it should not be disgarded. Any significant coverage in independent reliable sources is enough for WP:GNG. NALBUMS states that it is not the baseline, that would be GNG.
    I also don't see what you mean by It is indeed interesting, because if the existence of a review of an album, when the album is released, and where it is an album of a notable band, were sufficient to establish notability...: it is not simply the existence of a review. From the sources in the article and those I have provided, there are five reviews in all, not just one? In addition to that, nobody was claiming that there was any inherited notability. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I don't follow your logic. Your summary of my position seemed to miss my "thus". thus explaining why there is not more significant coverage. My argument is simple. The paucity of reviews, and lack of sustained coverage is why this fails WP:NALBUMS. You think five is a lot, but it is not. It would be more telling if these five were across a long period, and not just reviews of a new album by a notable band. That would go some way to demonstrating that the coverage is sustained, and you might be tempted to think that the article dates perhaps show this. But take a closer look of these sources. For instance, this one [13] has a date of 2010, allegedly 9 years after release. But that is clearly not the copy date, because the review begins with Die eindrucksvolle und verzaubernde Rückkehr einer der stilprägendsten Bands metallischer Epik. - That is talking about the return of this influential band. It strongly implies it was written when the album was new, otherwise the phrasing makes no sense. This one is also clearly written in 2001 [14], speaking about how good 2001 is (in the sense of currently is). Allmusic and metal.de are undated but again appear to be contemporary to the release. For instance metal.de has “Atlantis Rising” ist ein ordentliches Comebackalbum, das vor allem Zeit braucht, um sich richtig zu entfalten. which is “Atlantis Rising” is a decent comeback album that needs time to really unfold/develop. (enfalten being the idea of development over time, the gradual revealing of something). So that was clearly written when it was new too. What about the last one? [15]. That is marked as 2008, but again, reading it, I suspect strongly it was written closer to the original release. These are music site reviews (some of them niche) about a new album by a notable band. They do not demonstrate independent notability, and indeed they make clear that the reviews are given because this is a comeback album of a notable band. They do not demonstrate the coverage is sustained.
    My point about inherited notability, once again, is this: all albums of notable bands will garner some reviews (not just one review, but a few) on release of the album, because the band is notable, but WP:NALBUMS is clear that notability of the album is not inherited, and that to be a notable album, there must be more than the ephemeral coverage that all such albums receive on release. It is necessary to show that the notability is sustained over a period, beyond the initial release.
    As to the self published book: well being self published, whoever wrote it, no one has reviewed it, fact checked it nor, as far as we know, edited it. It cannot be used as a reference nor as a demonstration of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they albums aren't notable, neither is the band and vice versa. I can't find any critical reviews either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about all there is, from a French magazine [16] page 64. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you meaning that including the references I found or with out them? Thanks for finding more information anyway. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I couldn't find and the information you provided. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional holidays

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

No evidence this random obscure topic is at all noteworthy. Also conflates the use of fake-in-universe “holidays” as gags with actual, significant fictional holidays and doesn’t even have citations for almost all its examples, at least one of which is wrong (“Decemberween” is a nonsensical version of Christmas, not a “Christmas Halloween hybrid”). Overall nothing salvageable from this WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT mess. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 07:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Taghvaee

[edit]
Babak Taghvaee (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 be a non-notable freelance journalist. The only substantial coverage is from a local student newspaper, and it's an interview. The rest of the sources are things he wrote. Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. Juxlos (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of William III of England

[edit]
Cultural depictions of William III of England (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 very short article consisting only of trivia (and is tagged as such since 2016); plus, i believe the topic is much better handled at the parent article's "legacy" section. I propose deletion, possibly after merging anything usefull in the aforementioned section. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about the comment about the prominence of depictions in Northern Ireland and Johnbod's comment below, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. Smirkybec (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - depictions of William III are rare but highly notable, e.g. in Northern Ireland. There is perhaps a case for renaming the article or editing its scope.
Godtres (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is no doubt this is a notable topic. Despite the assertions of the topic's rarity, the article shows already that he is depicted in a wide range of media and can be cited reliably as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poor article but William of Orange has had (and does have) a huge cultural influence in parts of Ireland, and even today appears on the gable end of many houses in the North of Ireland. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of a series on British monarchs, and I do not see a reason to exclude William III from that series. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wonder Woman storylines

[edit]
List of Wonder Woman storylines (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 refs on the page for many years. Seems like a fairly indiscriminate list of books that the character has appeared in. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kasganj level crossing disaster

[edit]
Kasganj level crossing disaster (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 news story. No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and I also found some more sources.[20][21] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. Sources definitely meet WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is quite a difficult one and I'm undecided; the Economic Times source is a passing reference of no informational value. The BBC report states quite openly "Accidents occur frequently on India's vast state-run rail network", which is not a great indicator that the BBC regarded this accident as particularly unusual or notable. The remaining reference is the primary accident report itself. I really hate the very idea of deciding that an accident that cost so many lives isn't "notable", but it's unfortunately true that India's rail system, combined with a very large population, has a very high casualty-rate (two per hour).[22]. It's certainly not fair to ask Thebiguglyalien to take more care; the sourcing genuinely isn't great. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since people are asserting GNG without evaluating the sources:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Thebiguglyalien
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Commissioner of Railway Safety ~ Not sure whether to mark a government report as independent in this case Yes No Routine WP:PRIMARY source ✘ No
BBC Yes Yes No Primary news source, only routine coverage ✘ No
The Economic Times Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sources can't be patchworked together to create significant coverage where it didn't previously exist in any individual source. Either a source provides SIGCOV or it doesn't, and none of these do. Unless someone can provide a source that meets all of the requirements listed at WP:GNG, the keep !votes are based in a misunderstanding of the sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Day of My Wedding

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Lacking coverage and no sources to back the statement "The film received critical acclaim and won several awards at international film festivals". LibStar (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gsearch returns Imdb, an Amazon listing, some quote website and this Wikipedia article as the first four hits. I'm not sure how notable the film is if it gets almost nothing in Google search listings... There is nothing in Gnews, other than quotes about weddings. There just isn't coverage on this. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even using quotes around the film's title and a Gsearch limited to .bw sites, there is nothing for this film. Almost appears to be a bad case of PROMO? Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- completely fails WP:NFILM. No outside coverage of this film other than IMDb and a press release that may or may not be related to this film.
Mike Allen 23:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Argeseanu Cunningham

[edit]
Solveig Argeseanu Cunningham (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)

Solveig Argeseanu Cunningham does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NPROF. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People are so quick to say "nothing found". Here's an entire NY Times article[23] about the 2014 article in the New England Journal of Medicine of which she's the first author.[24] She's not a slam dunk for notability, but it's also far from "nothing". Jahaza (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find the NYT article and it's paywalled, I stand by my statement. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Associate profs are nothing to be overlooked. Give me an associate professor from Harvard or MIT over one from an Alaskan Community College. BostonMensa (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. ✗plicit 03:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (Call of Duty)

[edit]
Ghost (Call of Duty) (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 shows no evidence of SIGCOV and has been tagged for notability concerns since December 2022 with no effort to improve or address these concerns. Cited reception does not provide notability for the character either. Additionally similar concerns were brought up in a previous AfD in regards to this character under a different name, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon "Ghost" Riley, with a vote of redirect at the time. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vollmer

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

Not notable and primarily written by subject. It reads like a CV and sources are all primary or links to minor awards won by the subject, I could not identify any non-primary sources.Gnisacc (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_31&oldid=1159105669"