Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is about serious nominations. For April Fool's joke nominations, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2022.
< March 31 April 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahador Foladi[edit]

Bahador Foladi (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)

Actor does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is solely related to Kandahar (upcoming film). MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Sandstein 06:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist FAQ[edit]

An Anarchist FAQ (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)

Website appears to fail the notability guidelines. At first I believed the Infoshop sources would be sufficient, but they were written by the authors of Anarchist FAQ miserably botching WP:RSSELF Additionally, Infoshop itself is suspect to being an unreliable source since it does not name its contributors nor provide any form of verification, political partisanship aside. I attempted to find notability from many reliable sources and was unable to do so. All results pointed to their published books, none about the website itself. Jcmcc (Talk) 19:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick Google search for material citing *An Anarchist FAQ* on academia.edu shows numerous citations, of both the web project and published volumes, in mainstream academic publications by scholars respected within the field of Anarchist Studies. Libertatia (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sympathetic to the nom because my talk page comment on sourcing has gone unanswered since 2018. Absolutely true that it is often cited but also true that any significant discussion of the FAQ itself (as the subject) and its development from multiple reliable, independent sources (?) has eluded me for years. Even in relation to its publication and editing by McKay, there is little secondary source discussion of the FAQ, its editors, or its import. The brief lines mentioned in the article are passing mentions. Infoshop.org is not in itself a reliable source for statements of fact, but if the FAQ has strong association with the site, I considered a potential redirect to the Alternative Media Project but found no significant sources that discussed its connection. We can always restore the article if/when such sources appear. I also have an idea for a potential merge target but let's see if I can get it out of draft. czar 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the Legacy paragraph points at the end seems convincing enough to warrant its stay here. Being called the "most influential" or "greatest" or "easiest" to something surely means enough for it to stay, no? --166.62.226.25 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify in order that the above non-!voters (with whom I'm in sympathy) can preserve the reasonably well-sourced existing content in the hopes of a more suitable form than a stand-alone article. An article on Iain McKay, or one on something like "anarchism and the internet" (the context in which it's discussed in the Owens and Palmer article) would be obvious merge targets, but neither exist. The only source I've been able to find that contains sufficiently in-depth coverage is Colin Barker and Laurence Cox's "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?", which is a conference paper but is widely-cited and satisfies WP:EXPERTSPS. Another source like that would seal the deal, but nothing else seems to exist. So let's keep this around for the time being and see if anyone creates a sensible target to which it can be merged (or identifies one that's so far been missed), because sources exist for some sort of encyclopaedic coverage but also aren't sufficient for the FAQ to merit article in its own right. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the AK Press version of this appears to pass WP:BKCRIT #1 of WP:NBOOK.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Franks, Benjamin (2011). "An Anarchist FAQ Volume 1". Anarchist Studies. 19 (1): 111–112. ProQuest 868716093.
  2. ^ Bekken, Jon (Winter 2013). "An Anarchist FAQ". Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (59): 46-47. ProQuest 1323024810.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does complicate things. My sense is that judging this to be notable on that basis would require a WP:TNT approach or something similar. We can't have an article that's almost entirely about a website when the sources only indicate that the book version's notable. And that's assuming that the text is the same. But perhaps there's another solution I haven't thought about. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that if this article was about the book, it would solidly pass WP:BKCRIT. The problem is that this article is about the website. It would require an almost complete overhaul from it's current state. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The article fails WP:WEBCRIT. The website has never won a well-known and independent award and it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. In its favor are a well written text and some promise of future notability, that's maybe alrteacy extant out there somewhere but which your humble servant could not locate and not for want of trying. So, one more try would be the generous move here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify would only work if we had sufficient sources and simply needed to rewrite it. In this case we acknowledge that the article is cobbled together from mentions in a variety of sources and that the only reviews are in specialist/partisan journals. That would not meet BKCRIT for any other publication. czar 13:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation)[edit]

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

None of the articles called 'Russo-Ukrainian crisis'. No need for the DAB page. Olchug (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how DAB pages work. None of the linked pages are called 'Russo-Ukrainian armed clashes' by anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of the sock revelations, consider whether a redirect is preferable to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. As I've said several times lately on other Afd discussions, descriptive phrases are not proper subjects for dab pages. Also no redirect. The only articles that link to it are Russian crisis and Ukrainian crisis, which are equally bad. I'm going to nominate them for deletion as well, and with any luck this page will be an orphan they'll all be consigned to the trash heap. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem #1: Crisis links to International crisis, which states that it is "a widespread term without a single common definition."
  • Problem #2: "To some, it involves 'a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war'", and most of the entries are war-related. (bolding all mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:COATRACK? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok if you think this DAB page should be deleted, but nominating Russian crisis and Ukrainian crisis as well is kind of WP:POINTy. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A1C1:3A98:A9E5:AD32 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Day Network Ambassador[edit]

Earth Day Network Ambassador (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)

Largely overlaps with parent article Earth Day, ambassadors of this organization are not a notable topic by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Earth DayRathfelder (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete the article, Rename and refocus article to be about "Earth Day Network" and not "Earth Day Network Ambassador" (as Earth Day Network seems to be kinda notable), or Merge with Earth Day. Rlink2 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most of the sources are about Earth Day and not the actual ambassador. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Fire[edit]

Jada Fire (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)

Unfortunately, she does not meet the notability requirements on Wikipedia for pornographic actors. Had the award-win aspect not been deprecated, maybe that wouldn't be the case. Trillfendi (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder (gamer)[edit]

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

The BBC article is only a mention, and the other 3 sources cited no longer exist Ficaia (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Archives for the other 3 sources: Database profile, no coverage, passing mention, even more fleeting passing mention. Looking like little or no indepth and direct coverage exists, just a few name drops in connection to the team. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some better coverage found with WP:VG/S: fairly focused on Wunder, fairly indepth, fair amount of focus and a link to an interview. Note that he previously played under "Wunderwear" but shortened it due to a trademark/copyright issue. Searching on that finds a passing mention, a few sentences on his performance one week. -- ferret (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I waited a bit to see if anything else appeared but so far nothing has. Per the sourcing I looked at above, I don't think this individual really passes the bar. Very little coverages focuses on the player directly, with most of it in the context of the team. No particular awards or other noteworthy accomplishments. The above sources are all very specific media outlets that focus on esports (except ESPN which is more broadly sports), and it represents basically the totality of our usual reliable sources. Dotesports has been challenged in some FA source reviews, so with so much of the coverage coming from them, I don't see GNG met. There's nothing more to use. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The four sources already cited are: this one from the subject's sponsor, which is pure promotion; one BBC report about the team, name-dropping Hansen's name once and misquoting his nickname; and two dead links. Trying on one's own to scare up some more, one finds many sites by fans and gamers, e.g. that, wikimirrors such as this, and so forth. A case of (generously) too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Minnesota tornadoes[edit]

2017 Minnesota tornadoes (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 topic does not appear to be notable. While the year was above average in the number of tornadoes in MInnesota, they were not particularly impactful, with only two tornadoes meeting the technical definition of "significant." It doesn't really stand out among other potential "tornadoes by state and year" articles. This article also mostly depends on primary sources that routinely cover tornadoes. Most of the information in this article was already present in monthly tornado lists (which are a regular part of WikiProject Weather), such as List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2017. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rick Astley discography. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Mixes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dance Mixes (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)

Album was nominated for deletion in 2008 resulting in no consensus based on a couple "it's notable because it exists" !votes. A recent attempt to redirect to Rick Astley discography was reverted, but this release has never achieved in level of independent notability. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep — withdrawn by nominator, no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

David Sandner[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. I only found this single RS review of his work, and this, page 185, 32 of the PDF which is quasi reliable, in context. No WP:SIGCOV that I can find, although he was reached for commentary about someone's work being disallowed from a conference.[1] That's about all I can dig up, but I would be pleased if other sources exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Seaman[edit]

The Greek Seaman (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 BLP1E and should be deleted. The fact that it's at the title of the book rather than the author's name doesn't change the BLP violation at play here. The book itself lacks the kinds of reviews we'd expect a book to have instead we just have coverage of an internet fight. For instance "Big Al", the blogger who started this all, wouldn't normally be considered a reliable enough source to count for notability under WP:NBOOK. The Internet's Main Character of the Day should not have Wikipedia articles for time immemorial and so this non-notable topic should be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was actually going to nominate this if barkeep hadn't. This article is, for lack of a better word, terrible bordering on a BLP vio but it's very much WP:BLP1E. Neither she nor the book are or were notable - they received very minor coverage based on a kerfuffle with an unknown blogger. Even the Guardian piece is just an op-ed. CUPIDICAE💕 19:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I remember when this lit up the respective ire of the book blogging community, as I was a semi-active participant back in those days. This got a ton of coverage when it happened back in 2011, which can be evidenced in the article. I think that the coverage was partially fueled by the fact that there were actually quite a few such author interactions aimed at reviewers, so it kind of produced a perfect storm of sorts. Aware that there was ample interest in these "author meltdowns" as they were called in the community, the news outlets saw an easy news story since there was a built in audience as far as the blogging communities go. Why do I mention this? Because I want to explain how something like this got coverage in the first place and why ultimately this shouldn't count towards notability. Unlike some of the other kerfuffles, this has gotten no coverage past that point in time. It was ultimately just an easy way to get clicks on pages, as they knew that it would get passed around quickly and widely. Outrage sells and it was easy to portray something like this as the "author who can't take criticism against average reviewer/blogger". While this is still somewhat known around the book blogging world AFAIK, it's never turned into more coverage past that flurry of coverage in 2011. No academics or scholars have written on it, no newspapers have reflected on it, nor has the book blogging world. It's just a case of an author making a very stupid decision and it ending up getting reported on worldwide. This is of no lasting importance despite the wide amount of coverage and as such, spectacularly fails WP:BLP1E. We don't need a lasting monument to one person's mistake. If the book had gained any other coverage such as actual reviews and such aside from the kerfuffle then I may argue otherwise but that is very much not the case here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to vote for Delete too, as Reader of the Pack makes a good point here. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • To be honest, I don't think that the page was written to market the author or the book, rather to cover the kerfuffle. Someone with the same name as the author did edit the page in 2013, but it was just to add a link to the author's apology in the EL section. They also added a link to a play that was supposed to have been inspired by the Guardian writeup, but neither addition gives off the impression that they were trying to promote themselves. More just to make sure the apology link was there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did take a look at the play to see if it could count towards notability, but it didn't really get much attention. This is one of the better sources for it out there. It's not enough to make me change my opinion on this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing beyond BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like the content is more about the events surrounding the book rather than the book itself so I'm going to evaluate it based off of WP:EVENT rather than WP:NBOOK. Per ReaderofthePack, most coverage appears to be from around the brief point of interest in 2011-ish, which would suggest that it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. According WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4, we should avoid stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena. And I don't see this internet spat between two people as something that has become more than a brief point of interest, despite the number of opinion pieces covering it. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kobali[edit]

Kobali (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 apparent GNS-copying failure. Recorded only as a "populated place" which on GNS is specifically a level below village or town and implies no legal recognition (necessary for WP:GEOLAND). I have not been able to locate any non-GNS sources that provide any indication that this is a legally-recognized town, nor any that discuss it in any detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Pence[edit]

John Pence (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)

Run-of-the-mill political advisor mentioned only in routine campaign coverage. Deputy Executive Director of a presidential campaign is not a position that satisfies WP:NPOL. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign. KidAd • SPEAK 17:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heigh Speed[edit]

Heigh Speed (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:NSOFT. I was unable to find any mentions of this software outside of their own site and press releases, and a handful of entries on sites like alternativeto.net. Sunmist (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of many Web Accelerators that were just a flash-in-the-pan that was not widely known or used and was discontinued in 2016. It meets none of the criteria of WP:NSOFT; it is not discussed as significant, it's not the subject of instruction, I couldn't find any significant 3rd party manuals (such as a "..for dummies" book), nor did it break ground on the use of any significant technology. There are huge numbers of programs written every day, only a small number are notable.Jacona (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niyitegeka Gratien[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Bio, first nomination addresses similar issues but resulted in no consensus. Deppty (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N as well as sub group WP:CREATIVE. Jeepday (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Without English-language sources, it's very hard to be sure whether notability is merely local or more widespread. Deb (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Watch[edit]

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

Sources are very thin, mostly being tangential mentions or PR. No other sourcing found. Last AFD was in 2007 and kept mostly through invalid arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lot's of Wikipedia articles mention Search Engine Watch. list Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brunnock: Which has literally nothing to do with notability. Just because a lot of articles reference it doesn't make it notable. There are lots of websites that are reputable sources yet don't have their own Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Pierard, Cindy (September 1999). "Internet Reviews". College & Research Libraries News. Vol. 60, no. 8. pp. 656–657. ISSN 0099-0086. EBSCOhost 502828098.

      This is a 393-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Search Engine Watch was launched in June 1997, acquired by Mecklermedia later that year (though Sullivan retains all editorial control), and has gained acclaim as an important resource for Web site developers and Internet searchers--two categories in which many librarians currently find themselves. The bulk of the information is contained in four broad sections: Webmaster's Guide to Search Engines; Search Engine Facts and Fun; Search Engine Status Reports; and Search Engine Resources. A fifth section, The Search Engine Report, is also offered as a free, monthly e-newsletter, which covers developments with search engines and alerts subscribers to any changes to the Web site."

      The review further notes: "The immediate audience for Search Engine Watch--serious searchers and Webmasters--may not include all library patrons; however, it is an invaluable tool for librarians trying to keep up with the rapid development and fluctuation of Internet search tools."

    2. Feldman, Susan (November–December 1997). "Search Engine Watch: an outstanding and useful meta site". Online. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 62. ISSN 0146-5422. EBSCOhost 9711054192.

      This is a 626-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Search Engine Watch (http://searchenginewatch.com) is the first place to go for organized, up-to-date information on WWW search engines. Coverage is extensive and the site appears to be updated frequently by its sponsor Danny Sullivan."

      The review further notes: "I had a few quibbles with Sullivan's explanations of search engine technology, and the site could use the services of a good proofreader or at least a spellchecker, but this failing doesn't interfere with the inherent value of the information. Search Engine Watch is a new and promising collection of up-to-date information on any aspect of WWW search engines, important for Web developers and searchers. I've bookmarked it."

    3. Mickey, Bill (May–June 1999). "A Web Search Trifecta". Online. Vol. 23, no. 3. p. 79. ISSN 0146-5422. EBSCOhost 1801194.

      This is a 330-word review of Search Engine Watch. The review notes: "Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch is part of the collection of Web sites under the Internet.com umbrella. The site's main attractions are a Webmaster's Guide to Search Engines, Search Engine Facts and Fun, Search Engine Status Reports, and Search Engine Resources. Highlighting Sullivan's commentary is a generous supply of tables, screen shots, bar charts, and graphs."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Those in the previous AFD stated the article in USA Today confirmed notability, that reference in the article and looking over it I agree. [9] They also mention the New York Times article, but its hidden behind a paywall. Conard has found additional coverage of it. This website was and perhaps still is considered notable by people in the industry as the USA Today article starts off mentioning: Google's Matt Cutts considers Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website "must reading." To Yahoo's Tim Mayer, it's simply the "most authoritative source on search." Dream Focus 15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. The site was also profiled in Search Engine Visibility (ISBN 9780735712560), Search Engine Optimization For Dummies (ISBN 9780470392768), and was covered by the Scout Report on at least two occasions. - Eureka Lott 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kajjubi Lumbuye[edit]

Fred Kajjubi Lumbuye (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:BLP1E. If kept this cannot be a biography. It might work as Arrest and disappearance of Foo, but there has to be sufficient notability for that, which I cannot see. Notable only to those who love him, this is a WP:ROTM person 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrukh Khan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Redundant dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. The other item at the dab page, Shahrukh Khan Ki Maut, should not be there per WP:PTM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as cross-wiki promotion, not-notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirette El Hariri[edit]

Mirette El Hariri (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 person. Other versions already deleted on arwiki, arzwiki. Nominated for deletion on simplewiki. About article sources, most of them from unreliable websites: (1) promotional, (2) paid to request services (request a video from a celebrity), (3) mentions a phrase she just said, (4) elCinema is like IMDB, (5) + (6) + (7) + (8) + (9) + (10) + (11) articles written by the character herself, or just interviews with her, or a mention of something she published on social media. Also, the article contains false information, like she "winning the Best Actress Award". There's Draft:Mirette El Hariri --Alaa :)..! 15:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Mohamedabdell is a sock for HanyMarco. Both accounts trying to create an article about Mirette cross-wiki, as a kind of cross wiki promotion. Also, please see (Q111371156) history. Note that 156.213.77.1 attacked HitomiAkane a lot of times, using very bad personal attacks in Arabic Language --Alaa :)..! 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I don’t really have an opinion either way if the article is deleted, it was just a recommended article to translate which I fulfilled Naihreloe (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is part of a cross-wiki promotion. Deppty (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross-wiki promotion. HitomiAkane (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to promote things and it is a cross-wiki promotion Karim185.3 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content. SN54129 15:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 Comment: ( HitomiAkane ) < Someone is stubborn about downloading the creation of the Egyptian Wikipedia page and I think he is bribed He has an irrational stubbornness ،And he has friends in Wikipedia, Egypt, who support him. I think it's a gang I don't know how they work in Wikipedia Egypt. Mirette El Hariri She won the Best Actress award in the movie Hawi, directed by Ibrahim Al-Batout, and there is evidence!! Either the page will remain or will be deleted Mirette El Hariri From a well-known political family It is not desirable that a person has stubbornness to make it a war and send false information just because he does not want to create a page even though all the criteria are available!!
156.213.245.178, Don't threaten me, it's against Wikipedia's policies, which you insist on violating, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats -HitomiAkane (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: user:HitomiAkane Don't talk to me I'm not talking to you I'm talking to the wise Wikipedia administrators okay!! You are not the only one who owns Wikipedia..it is a respected encyclopedia and its rules are based on honesty and hard work and not for personal interests.

 Comment: OK, fine so you are talking to the wise Wikipedia administrators, OK so, let us see what will administrators like @Discospinster: and @El C: say about what you are doing, sock puppetry, vandalism in pages, insulting HitomiAkane so many times and being blocked so many times because of cross Wiki vandalism. 105.194.150.90 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: People who respect their opinion @Discospinster: and @El C:, whatever it is, and please, I think that you are a mature person for this behavior. I am really surprised!!!

 Comment: @156.213.245.178: what? I didn't do anything wrong or not mature, I thought you were the one who said "user:HitomiAkane Don't talk to me I'm not talking to you I'm talking to the wise Wikipedia administrators" I know lots of Wikipedia's administrators and I thought that we might have their opinion as well, that's everything. 105.194.150.90 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @105.194.150.90 Are we back at war again? Why is discussion a challenge? Why don't you want someone to express their opinion freely... I think you should stop

Delete cross-wiki promotion. 105.180.86.56 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect as I don't see anyone objecting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MyWikiBiz (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)

Seems to be notable for only one thing: getting blocked by Wikipedia. The coverage exists entirely from 2006-2007, when this whole event went down. The book cited, The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It, is available on Google Books. I checked the book's footnotes for their passage on MyWikiBiz, and all of them just trace back to Wikipedia pages (e.g. Jimmy Wales' talk page, the MyWikiBiz talk page), thus meaning that the book is a circular reference. I found a few articles about the founder that say "as the founder of MyWikiBiz, blah blah blah" on news outlets, but nothing whatsoever after 2007. Delete or redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in League of Legends[edit]

2015 in League of Legends (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 see no indication that 2015 was a particularly notable year for the game League of Legends. On a Google search, coverage appears to be nothing more than routine reporting of game/tournament results, which doesn't make for enough prose to clear WP:NOTSTATS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Vokal[edit]

Jim Vokal (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:BIO and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Power (TV series). Will move to draft space, though on shallow grounds, and create a redirect. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanan Stark[edit]

Kanan Stark (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)

Lack of notability. I originally changed this to a redirect to Power (TV series); article creator reverted, claiming 'reliable sources'. I am very far from convinced by the sources; run of the mill gossip 'n ting. TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the subject is clearly notable, although the sources cited may not demonstrate notability I assure that there are reliable sources. Raising Kanan where the subject plays the main role and the story revolves around him has been renewed for season 2 meaning more sources are still yet to come. Neo the Twin (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG, it's pure plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT). My BEFORE failed to find anything, GScholar gives zero hits, that's telling. The claim above that "I assure that there are reliable sources" without linking to any is just a poorly written WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES by the author of this article, to whom I'll point out the existence of Fandom (website), a much better recipient for content at this level. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: It is a known fact that sometimes I fail to cite reliable sources simply because I have a problem of choosing the right ones, I (personally) sometimes feel like the system is unfair, undeniably there are secondary sources but instead of improving a promising article you tag it for deletion, moving it to draft space (stating the article's flaws) would've been more adequate. Neo the Twin (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding notabilibity, I once mentioned the article at WP:Teahouse and reviewers requested more reliable sources like the 3 sources I have already cited, as far as I read the WP:Guidelines, an articles with at least few reliable sources is likely to stay afloat with the {{Sources}} tag at the top of the page. Neo the Twin (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to TV Series. I think we would be better served having it in one place. It could be easily be reinstated separately later. Jacona (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Concerning 'Merge' into Power, I happen to think that that is also inadequate, the article is promising and the subject will soon be reprised for another season which will surely produce more press articles, and the article is tagged as a stub which is more likely to be incubated or rather improved in main/article space as an administrator elucidated here.
Neo the Twin (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the TV series as a plausible search term. Wikipedia is not a fan site, but without any reliable secondary sources giving encyclopedic material (as opposed to a plot summary), then this page is not far off from something that would belong on a fan site. Despite the assertion that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I can't find anything beyond routine coverage of the show or actors involved: that is not sufficient to support an article about a fictional character, whether they're a major character or not, thus fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the TV series. Not enough secondary sources to show that this character is independently notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose redirect, As far as I have read the notability guidelines and as I have been instructed at the WP:TEAHOUSE, number of secondary sources does not matter so long as there is few available and cited as an article can largely rely on One source. Though the article may rely on few sources here, here and here it should stay afloat since it's a stub article and still has a lot of "In-universe information" to be added to it which can also use sources from other angles such as sources implicating protagonists like Tommy Egan and James St. Patrick since they were affiliated and crossed paths multiple times within the series. Please reconsider. Neo the Twin (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • [10] has no significant coverage of the character. It mentions a few actors who played him, but the sum of the coverage on the character itself is Raising Kanan travels back to 1991 and South Jamaica, Queens to track the origins of cold-blooded Power villain Kanan Stark, who was memorably played by Curtis Jackson, a.k.a. 50 Cent on the flagship series. We know how Kanan's story ends, with a setup from Ghost (Omari Hardwick), Tasha (Naturi Naughton), and Tariq (Michael Rainey Jr.) leading to his death, but prepare to find out how he became the Kanan who wouldn't hesitate to kill his own son., and most of that is plot summary. [11] is plainly an interview of an actor who plays the role, but has strictly nothing in terms of coverage of the character beyond a few trivial snippets. [12] has maybe one paragraph of coverage about the character, but it's again essentially plot summary: Smart, driven and still naïve, Kanan’s world revolves around his mother, Raq (Miller), who raised him by herself. She is his everything. At the same time, he is beginning to get a sense of not only the world around him but his place in said world. Kanan wants to be just like his mother — and that’s the problem. He’s young and wide-eyed and doesn’t know how the hustle works. And even more important, his mother is not nearly as keen as he is for him to follow in her footsteps. Theirs is a complicated relationship that only gets more problematic as time goes on. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. If you want to have an idea what kind of coverage should be used for writing articles about fictional characters, might want to take a look at stuff like the relevant articles listed in Template:Star Wars Trilogy or Template:The Lord of the Rings (deliberately picking higher quality examples for reference). If you can't find anything even remotely resembling that, then this is not suitable for a stand-alone article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, I would appreciate it if the article was moved to draft space for further incubation rather than delete or redirect. Thank You! Neo the Twin (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of India by education[edit]

List of prime ministers of India by education (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)

Indiscriminate collections of statistics. Theoretically, all of them could be sourced given the highest political position of the country. Yet, fails WP:LISTN and is simply WP:NOT. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Langston[edit]

Lindsay Langston (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 results in Olympics (WP:NOLYMPICS). Archery does not have its own SNG. NewspaperArchive.com did not find much notable mentions or sigcov. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mcall link has two sentences on her, it's a general article on the American team and archery events at the Olympics in general. Wouldn't be significant coverage. (I used VPN to access it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mccall link archived version (for those who can't access and dont have VPN): https://ghostarchive.org/archive/U1U7n Rlink2 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts sports rankings are not "well-known and significant award or honor[s]" nor (as demonstrated by the lack of SIGCOV) has Langston "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", so I fail to see what aspect of ANYBIO she satisfies. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being #1 ranked in the US, multi-time US champ, top 10 in the world... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources on the championships won? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed them above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an independent reliable source. I say on my website that I am the six time Trans-ScottFinland International Paper Airplane Champion of the World, but that doesn't mean it's reliable, or independent. We don't use the websites of companies subjects work for to a) establish notability or b) source awards and accomplishments. I offer Paper Airplane coaching services for 200 Pound Scots per hour. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts Those rankings stand-alone do not imply notability. Would a multi-time Cricket champ in Mexico be notable? Or the #1 chess player in Andorra? If there have been 1,000 top 10 players in the history of curling do all of them have notability? My point is that if those achievements are not enough for even local media to report significantly on her, then she wasn't a notable enough athlete in her prime. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. We're not talking about cricket in Mexico or Chess in Andorra. Please stop pinging me too, I'll see the replies on my watchlist. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pings, Lugnuts, I can see how that can get annoying! I tend not to watchlist many articles so I have the tendency to ping a lot (see my signature lol). Point is I am not making a "what about x" argument in favor of deletion (or redirection, which is probably best), but rather arguing that as the achievements you mentioned have no context at all, there is no way to know what implied notability they carry. Being the #1 chess player in the US for example is very notable as there are many chess players in that country, a very active competition scene, and significant coverage of chess players. If you could provide an argument for why being the #1 female archer in the US is a strong indication of notability then inclusion would make sense. Just throwing rankings at us when we are not fans or active followers of archery doesn't allow us to interpret that information in a way that is helpful for the AfD debate. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I last visited this page, the article has been expanded somewhat significantly by Bungle with a plethora of sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, Except those url stated by Lugnuts, I didn't find any url or sources where there is any significant coverage about her. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Olympedia can't be used to show notability as it is a database with wide, sweeping standards of inclusion per WP:SPORTSCRIT. McAll just has two sentences about the subject so not SigCov. We need at least two instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and at this point we don't have anything. The only source we have for her ever having been US no. 1 is Olympedia, the bios of which are of indifferent reliability (cf. the previous case of them getting a date of death wrong), and even if it is true nothing allows us to assess how notable having been US female no. 1 in archery really is - certainly no-one seems to have thought that it was all that notable otherwise they would have written about it. AmericanArcheryAcademy.com is not an independent source as the subject works there. Similarly the AP story is effectively an interview and as such not independent of the subject.
Oppose redirect as a Lindsay "Pop" Langston was a member of the Chicago Doo-Wop band the Foster Brothers and people are just as likely to be looking for them as they are for this person, since that band would also possibly pass our notability guide based on these sources (1 2). FOARP (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: I have found sig cov as per my !vote below and expanded the article. I'd be interested in your analysis of these sources with regards to determination of notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have the significant coverage to justify an article. Being top ranked in some area is not in and of itself a sign of notability unless we have significant source coverage of this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment USA Archery only seems to keep records of national championships online since 2011. It might be worthwhile to ask them directly. --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my expansion (WP:HEY) from historic newspaper sources, of which several are WP:SIGCOV, including numerous coverage from Albuquerque Journal, the largest newspaper in New Mexico. Several articles specifically about her in interviews from the 1990s, including this, this, this and this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bungle's sources seem to prove significant coverage as per WP:GNG, regardless of the achievements discussed before. --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All four of the additional sources noted by Bungle are interviews with her/her father. Interviews with the subject/her father are not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP: All four of the examples I offered are written by journalists independent of the subject (who are credited with authoring the respective articles) and published by newspapers or news outlets that are not associated with the subject. I do not see anything in the guidelines that prevents us using such sources that have been written with support of interviews with the subject, or someone associated with the subject. I feel it may be clutching at straws to suggest that interviews don't count as WP:SIGCOV and would suggest that you'd need to explain further if you disagree. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Interviews does state that interviews shouldn't be relied on to establish notability. That is, however, only an essay, and I agree that the articles are not solely interviews. --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 20:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about starting a discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:Notability, since it seems a bit off to me. I understand that the information would be primary sourced, but journalists, I assume, aren't picking non-notable people to interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is still voluntarily provided (or intentionally selected, depending on how you want to portray it) by the subject which poses NPOV issues. And given interviews require careful editor judgement (like other WP:PRIMARY sources), now with the added difficulty of their inherent non-neutrality, it would overall be a bad idea. An encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is, or at least is supposed to be) is usually based on secondary sources independent of their subjects (like academic reports or serious books or proper journalism): allowing interviews would be overwhelmingly counterproductive towards that purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When we don't consider non-independent statements by Langston or her father, the sources are not WP:SIGCOV which means WP:GNG is not met. There is also an WP:NPOV issue with sourcing articles primarily to non-independent sources, and a WP:PRIMARY issue with sourcing articles primarily to interviews. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: With respect, have you actually looked at all the sources added or are you taking it at face value that they're all literal interviews with zero independent editorial value? If we take two articles, say this and this, only a small proportion is based on interview/discussion to support, and in the case of the latter, the majority discussed the subject's events and achievements by the writer. Subjects wouldn't be written about, or have the opportunity to be interviewed or otherwise covered in mainstream media if they hadn't by that point gained some degree of notability. These are multiple articles, over a wide enough timeframe, by different organisations and different article authors, all writing about this individual. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per great expansion work by Bungle. Meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a couple more sources and re-arranged some things. The GNG source coverage is very clearly there to provide SIGCOV. Looks like the NewspaperArchive is rather inferior to the sources available in Newspapers.com (though the former does often have smaller local papers not found in the latter). Either way, the subject appears to meet notability standards with secondary source coverage about Langston across multiple years. SilverserenC 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion can't be justified in this case. Deb (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainly to show appreciation for Bungle's work in demonstrating this individual's notability with the addition of many sources. Canadian Paul 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete we still do not have the level of sourcing to actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: We're also not going to allow you to !vote twice. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. 10+ refs that are coverage from reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could any of the keep !voters please identify which source they believe gives the subject significant, independent coverage and why? Otherwise we're just having to deal with a WP:REFBOMB that appears to consist entirely of either interviews or brief mentions. It would be great to be pointed to even one source that is not an interview with the subject or their family, or a brief mention. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP: I guess it's important not to conflate the idea of an "interview" with an independent publication that uses aspects of an interview to support (or compliment) some of the material. An out-and-out interview, where the article is solely based on questions and answers is one thing, but that is not what we have here. I don't know if I can elaborate much beyond my response to BilledMammal above as my points there still stand. Even WP:INTERVIEW (which is an essay, not a policy), acknowledges that commentary in these cases can count as a secondary source. I already noted this article, which has perhaps only around 10% of quotation. With regards to WP:REFBOMB, not all sources in an article need to be there to demonstrate notability, but many can support other facts that are otherwise not covered elsewhere. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these are articles that use quotes from the subject but are independent coverage. There is a difference between using quotes in an article or report and a question-answer, question-answer printed interview which usually has less editorial oversight. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG with the significant coverage found by Bungle. Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work on the expansion and sourcing. Keep I find the concerns with subject interviews to be kind of troubling; most every news article is built from interviews, synthesized by the reporter doing the writing. Q&A articles where the interview is printed with minimal synthesis and editing contain the same information, just in a different form. (Entirely IMO as a working reporter.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Schintu[edit]

Serena Schintu (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)

While this article is still written in Italian - which can easily be remedied - it would appear to me that this article about Ms Schintu fails any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:SINGER, WP:ANYBIO and so on. I assert that I have done the WP:BEFORE due dilligence. While not in any way determinative, I also note that there is no corresponding it.wp article. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Gonsalves[edit]

Eugene Gonsalves (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:NBIO and WP:V. I couldn't find any coverage on him other than him issuing statements on behalf of the All India Catholic Union, which is trivial as per WP:GNG. Promotional article, likely created by the subject himself. M4DU7 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan E. Salzman[edit]

Alan E. Salzman (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 reads like a resume, the only discernable thing of note outside investing/venture cap is bad-faith investing in Tesla. Does not feel worth an encyclopedic entry. Thirty4 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is significant coverage, much of it already in the article. WP:RESUME is about attempting to publish non-notable information about oneself, not about deleting articles about people who have accomplished much that is widely reported in the business press...this article is backed up by so many references. WP:BEFORE should be performed before nominating an article for deletion.Jacona (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of quick clips from newspapers.com [13], [14] [15] which quote and mention Salzman prominently. There are lots more. Jacona (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the "significant coverage" here - all three of these are short quotes from him. Is there any source that is specifically about him? Lamona (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Of the 13 sources, 5 are bios that are not independent, 2 are about him selling his house, the remainder are mentions or very short quotes. I didn't find anything more substantial searching newspapers or online. Lamona (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the subject is notable. The article just needs to be improved a bit. FBedits (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 sources provided by Jacona are Significant coverage that demonstrate notability. Brian O'Conner 06:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that FBedits has been indef-blocked as a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: more sources Here's an "in-depth story on Salzman". He's also mentioned in several books, including Venture Capital Due Diligence, and Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century, There is also enough coverage about his wealth lifestyle including alimony/child support, outrageous parties and opulent houses that he might meet WP:NBASIC as well. Jacona (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources are not all helpful in establishing notability but there are enough to do so. Resume-feel notwithstanding. NiklausGerard (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is understandable uncertainty around political notability and over time, this may ultimately end up merged when the election is not a current event. However at the current time and given the sources identified during the discussion, there is consensus that Sin's career outside of the election has been noted so it's not a 1E situation. Star Mississippi 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checkley Sin[edit]

Checkley Sin (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 producer and non notable political candidate - fails WP:NPOL. CUPIDICAE💕 19:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - See 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, particularly the chart near the bottom of the article. You want to delete one of two candidates running?!!!! Deletion of articles on Wikipedia states "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article, for instance by conducting additional research.". Instead, this article was AFD when it was only 2 sentences and 300 bytes in length. Now, it's 5,000 bytes and much longer.
WP:NPOL Meets the criteria of having significant press coverage.
WP:ENT Meets the criteria by having significant roles in multiple productions.
Mr. Sin is a candidate, the first candidate, for Hong Kong's Chief Executive (akin to President or Prime Minister). US presidential candidates are considered notable, even if they are in the Libertarian or Green Parties. Note: HK does not have the Democratic or Republican parties. Hong Kong is currently subject to draconian censorship and threat of arrest from the People's Republic of China so some leeway is warranted for freedom and democracy. This quote may disprove the non-notability. "From Ip Man to CE: film producer Checkley Sin joins election fray | The Standard...Checkley Sin Kwok-lam, the producer of the Ip Man series starring Donnie Yen Ji-dan, said he wants to improve ...Sin has been a political commentator since the unrest in 2019. He is known as a key opinion leader (KOL) for the pro-establishment camp, and his YouTube channel has 150,000 subscribers. https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/186147/From-Ip-Man-to-CE:-film-producer-Checkley-Sin-joins-election-fray-%C2%A0%C2%A0 Also IMDB entry. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1641638/awards/?ref_=tt_awd Mr. Sin's Ip Man film WON an award in the Shanghai International Film Festival and was nominated for an award for the 2011 Hong Kong Film Awards.

NOTE: Mainland China probably wants this article deleted!

Problem: Some people may not know that Checkley Sin is his English name. His Chinese name is Sin Kwok Lam or Kwok Lam Sin. A Google search of Kwok Lam Sin yields 935,000 results with the first 10 pages almost exclusively about the man. Checkley Sin yields an additional 151,000 results.Charliestalnaker (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can be a candidate. That alone does not make him notable. CUPIDICAE💕 19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, not anyone. It is difficult to become a candidate in Hong Kong. Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is the first person to declare his candidacy for the Hong Kong Chief Executive Election, so he is notable in a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studious Human (talk • contribs) 01:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I read the article he fails WP:GNG in general, and fails WP:POLITICIAN in particular. Notwithstanding the film Ip Man: The Final Fight he fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:ENTERTAINER. The alleged wish of Mainland China to see the article deleted is irrelevant. See below: Springnuts (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets WP:GNG
    • www.scmp.com%2Fnews%2Fhong-kong%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2F3163894%2Fhong-kong-film-producer-kung-fu-master-checkley-sin-throws&usg=AOvVaw0kgvxKkwbcgtuWhGMzxem_
    • https://sg.news.yahoo.com/sin-kwok-lam-donate-lau-kar-leung-39-035300979.html?msclkid=6a3822beab3e11ecb75791d962c57f83
    • https://sg.news.yahoo.com/sin-kwok-lam-dennis-needed-ask-084800228.html?msclkid=6a380825ab3e11eca3088c7cb12ea8e9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliestalnaker (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong-kong-film-producer-says-he-wants-run-become-new-city-leader-2022-01-19/
    • www.dimsumdaily.hk%2Fcheckley-sin-kwok-lam-announces-decision-to-run-for-chief-executive-on-youtube%2F&usg=AOvVaw174X7hSVHKEthDU2o0aZZb
    • www.wsj.com%2Fmarket-data%2Fquotes%2FHK%2F8393%2Fcompany-people%2Fexecutive-profile%2F74810848&usg=AOvVaw3kV8CJqua7pScjRiP12rPI
    • www.thestandard.com.hk%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsection%2F4%2F186147%2FFrom-Ip-Man-to-CE%3A-film-producer-Checkley-Sin-joins-election-fray-%25C2%25A0%25C2%25A0&usg=AOvVaw3zCbTlMPymcKIDiB59W5S9
    • https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/926450-hong-kong-filmmaker-checkley-sin-intends-to-run-in-citys-leadership-race
    • www.marketscreener.com%2Fbusiness-leaders%2FKwok-Lam-Sin-074P0V-E%2Fbiography%2F&usg=AOvVaw1oruwRU8iO9u1fkXCIgFFW
    • www.fandango.com%2Fpeople%2Fsin-kwok-lam-624744&usg=AOvVaw3WLtddHCHBZu0lgfp0IpOu
    • blackbeltmag.com%2Fproducer-of-ip-man-hong-kong-leadership&usg=AOvVaw3SURO1IvMsc_krddJMPsE3
    • www.themoviedb.org%2Fperson%2F1296142-kwok-lam-sin&usg=AOvVaw2iR54Z6paoAki1nIkRfkyo
    • sg.news.yahoo.com%2Fdennis-sues-mentor-sin-kwok-lam-090700161.html&usg=AOvVaw1UWvb7WqYJ5kOAkcaplR1w
    • www.jaynestars.com%2Ftag%2Fsin-kwok-lam%2F&usg=AOvVaw0tn89tlLnsn_aTwnVWhZp7
    • www.hkcinemagic.com%2Fen%2Fpeople.asp%3Fid%3D19287&usg=AOvVaw2wQesFU2kjcsZtrsW7U8Lq
    • www.devdiscourse.com%2Farticle%2Fentertainment%2F1888403-hong-kong-film-producer-says-he-wants-to-run-to-become-new-city-leader&usg=AOvVaw26YWlDasoi-RGOHKDIgqJG
    • usa.chinadaily.com.cn%2Fus%2F2017-12%2F03%2Fcontent_35175430.htm&usg=AOvVaw33I4XdOnEFqwocrRfmsa6o
    • www.gettyimages.com%2Fdetail%2Fnews-photo%2Fcheckley-sin-kwok-lam-director-and-general-manager-of-wing-news-photo%2F1126337965&usg=AOvVaw0DfWrAgC7h-Dphl1a12poV
    • www.malaymail.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2F2022%2F01%2F19%2Ffilm-producer-and-kung-fu-master-checkley-sin-wants-to-run-hong-kong-as-lea%2F2036137&usg=AOvVaw2xauDa2q0fhFxnCP_MDtx8
    • www.taipeitimes.com%2FNews%2Fworld%2Farchives%2F2022%2F01%2F20%2F2003771748&usg=AOvVaw2cyuGqTqq8NYwkO1Xa_Kik
    • kungfumovieguide.com%2Fproducers%2Fcheckley-sin-kwok-lam%2F&usg=AOvVaw0JdRCrqbu43Ze7jPwDsNmg
    • www.aastocks.com%2Fen%2Fmobile%2Fnews.aspx%3Fnewsid%3DNOW.854671%26newstype%3D61%26newssource%3Dhk6&usg=AOvVaw3hb6HAatSr4GPuD3M0Cz6i
    • cityonfire.com%2Fw020120515302250712841%2F&usg=AOvVaw35vt1OztIh-MecpTTxHedP
    • movie.douban.com%2Fcelebrity%2F1327358%2F&usg=AOvVaw2o-7q1h9ibaE8ZYfgiUyYI
    • peopleai.com%2Ffame%2Fidentities%2Fkwok-lam-sin&usg=AOvVaw0LB0nzvyBbscj-jL0nMPfo
    • www.businesslive.co.za%2Fbd%2Fworld%2Fasia%2F2022-01-19-kung-fu-master-in-a-bid-to-rule-hong-kong%2F&usg=AOvVaw1CKGrjZrzh8smszVaGDJwK
    • wow-master-kung-fu-dan-produser-film-silat-sin-kwok-lam-calonkan-diri-jadi-pemimpin-hong-kong%3Fpage%3Dall&usg=AOvVaw1HFZnRZsbXvX3-HyBHx1nS
    • jateng.inews.id%2Fberita%2Fmaster-kungfu-sin-kwok-lam-umumkan-maju-di-pemilu-hong-kong&usg=AOvVaw2Rc6okGmR9KDc95UhMymQO
    • www.chinastory.cn%2Fspxqy%2Fenvideos%2F20210404%2F1012800000046191617520564042898794_1.html&usg=AOvVaw3W-UZysAG7O5wbBUSqgU0P
    • https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3881007/
    • hkmdb.com%2Fdb%2Fpeople%2Fview.mhtml%3Fid%3D41729%26display_set%3Deng&usg=AOvVaw02pdCqDxV16sjn-ijT1yPv
    • www.digital-morgue.de%2Fperson%2F20359%2Fkwok-lam-checkley-sin%2F&usg=AOvVaw0bE4QdohcLa0qX4G8GH47q
    • www.vudu.com%2Fcontent%2Fmovies%2Fdetails%2FIp-Man-The-Final-Fight%2F451744&usg=AOvVaw1J44gxZ7bnLqOVJ93_Tpi6
    • www.thestandard.com.hk%2Fsection-news%2Fsection%2F4%2F238291%2FSin-homes-in-on-lamma-%27super-jail%27&usg=AOvVaw1atoMdQkw79gMQ5jUiTXC-
    • www.straitstimes.com%2Fasia%2Feast-asia%2Fhong-kong-chief-executive-hopeful-is-not-afraid-to-shoot-from-the-hip&usg=AOvVaw0NJo_6s4QI4oxdfMV9zJzf
    • hongkongfp.com%2F2022%2F03%2F05%2Fselecting-a-new-chief-executive-delayed-and-disrupted-hong-kongs-first-election-cycle-since-beijings-overhaul-nearsits-end%2F&usg=AOvVaw2XjwsURUAb7g3jyWEnY73c
    • echo24.cz%2Fa%2FSiPNp%2Fmistr-kung-fu-chce-do-cela-hongkongu-behem-nepokoju-podporil-policii&usg=AOvVaw2eUl2Y5dvRmQyx5nCRwpOB
    This is, by far, not a complete list. Charliestalnaker (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide the best WP:THREE sources? Just skimming this list I see WP:IMDB, Douban, and The Movie DB, all of which are WP:SPS and not reliable sources. Jumpytoo Talk 17:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about the WP:THREE essay but I randomly chose this citation https://sg.news.yahoo.com/sin-kwok-lam-donate-lau-kar-leung-39-035300979.html?msclkid=6a3822beab3e11ecb75791d962c57f83 and learned that Mr. Sin is Vice President of the World Wing Chun Union, made a HK$5 million (US$650,000) donation to the Lau Kar Leung Charity Foundation (which funds stuntmen's costs due to injury), and that Mr. Sin is a film director and producer. That's quite a bit of information that has nothing to do with his candidacy for head of government of Hong Kong, which is a big topic. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election. Most of the person's notability is related to this election. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Problematic because his other professional achievements and biography would be censored and banned from the election article. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify ivo Charliestalnaker's impressive list of sources, and also the current state of the article (undergoing extensive revision, so no actual content at the moment) Springnuts (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:NPOL, a bunch of mere announcements, press releases, and sources which I can classify under WP:QS I don’t know how this is mainspace worthy. Furthermore WP:1E largely applies here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This person has many, many citations. This person exceeds WP:1E. He is at least a 2 event person (film producer and leading presidential candidate). Even President Biden is only a 3 event man (Senator, VP, President). Some citations are from news organizations more reputable than others (like Reuters, Straits Times (of Singapore), South China Morning Post (akin to the Washington Post or more famous), etc. Just because he has some weak sources doesn't mean that all of his citations are bad. This is akin to a Presidential election and this candidate is the #2 most likely to win. That would be like deleting the Joe Biden article prior to the 2020 election! Even if he fails WP Politician, he passes as a movie producer. Both of those combined make him WP noteworthy. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not delete this article. We should improve it instead. He is a notable candidate for the 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election. The serious grammatical errors in the page that causes the page to be unreadable to a number of users should not be the reason for deleting the page. Deletion should not be used as a tool for the improvement of the article at this moment. This last resort should come much later, as improvements are ongoing really fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studious Human (talk • contribs) 07:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did the absolute minimum, searching for English-language sources using Google, excluding the term "election" and found lots of stuff, including [16],[17],[18], and [19] (some of which may be listed previously here). IMO, he meets WP:NBASIC without even considering WP:NPOL, which he may meet as well. Jacona (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject seems to be notable as a film producer, although the article seems to exaggerate some of his credits. For example, he is listed here as director, storywriter, martial arts director, and publisher (?) for The Legend Is Born: Ip Man, although our article about the film and IMDb both say that Herman Yau was the film's director, with Sin only being a producer. Also, Sin being the first declared candidate for Chief Executive of Hong Kong doesn't have any particular significance, except perhaps to some Wikipedia editors who are looking for content to write about in the article about the election. Unless Sin can secure 188 nominations from the 1,500 members of the Election Committee, he will not even be eligible to run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that John Lee (government official) has reportedly been tapped as the Beijing-endorsed candidate for Chief Executive, which suggests that Checkley Sin is unlikely to be a candidate in the final vote. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Szentendre Sleepwalkers[edit]

Szentendre Sleepwalkers (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)

Unable to verify any facts that would prove notability, even from the club's website. Unsure if this subject is noteworthy enough for an article. GlassCobra 02:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments are fairly mainstream policy wise but some of the keep arguments are a stretch to land them in a solid policy basis,p. In terms of assessing the strength of argument that really does put the consensus in the delete side and the source analysis has not really been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 09:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidance (song)[edit]

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

It may be popular on TikTok, but I'm not seeing any evidence of GNG here, even though the creator tried his very best to spin an article out of a few dubious sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some more reasons why you believe the sources used to be dubious. In terms of notability, I do believe that this was previously settled in an articles for speedy deletion discussion, where it was decided that yes, the article is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"where it was decided" — nothing of that sort. The sources are clearly not reliable, nuff said. But it is an artfully-written article! Just a pity the subject itself isn't notable. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be awkward, but you still haven’t answered why the sources used are not reliable. . Even if they are clearly not reliable, I would like to know why in order to improve in future. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works a lot in the music content area heavily, none of the listed sources are very prevalent in the industry. I've never heard of any of them. None are listed at WP:RSMUSIC or even WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Not that they have to be, in just saying, they're probably not heavily cited historically if they've never been discussed before. If we're dealing with such obscure websites, it might be more persuasive to outline why they should be viewed as reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I think the problem is that the subject is notable as a internet fad, not a song, if that makes sense, and therefore, maybe we should be looking for reliable sources within the sphere of internet culture. I would say then, seeing that as far that I am aware the sources used are not sponsored content, self-published or user generated, it would be safe to say that, while obscure as a source for music content, for content about internet culture, the sources used are reliable, thus establishing the notability of the subject. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may be generally right in your approach to this , but I'm still not sure about some of these sources. For example, The Music Man UK. It looks like it's just a self-published blog started in 2022 - that's would be only a couple months old. And I couldn't find any notable background about it or it's writer(s). I can't quite see any reason in favor of its credentials beyond the fact that exists. That's not generally what we're looking for in reliable sources to assert notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for pointing that out. However, this is not to say that all the sources used are not reliable. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would Capital FM be considered a reliable source? I’ve found a source about this song’s popularity from this organisation: [20]. The song is discussed in the article, so it might be able to establish notability. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also got one from cartoon brew, it discusses the article non-trivially about how it’s been used in promotional material for a film: [21]. It was already in the article. If these sources are reliable, which at least I think they are, I think we can conclude that the subject is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can try asking the people at the Reliable Sources noticeboard for a more technical answer, but as far as I'm concerned, the sources simply aren't good enough. Sometimes you just know that a source is unreliable when you've been here long enough... Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I’ve dug through the Reliable Sources notice board archives, and found a discussion about the status of Cartoon Brew as a RS where the consensus was that it was a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#VDARE (the discussion was under the heading “The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as WP:RS”, it was part of a more broad discussion). I’ve yet to check about capital FM, but from this, we can say that we have a reliable source which discusses the subject. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if CB wuz reliable, it's not good enuf to justify keeping this--we need significant, in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources. I'm just not seeing any evidence of that. Happy hunting, Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll ask the reliable sources noticeboard then about the sources (I’ve also checked the perennial sources list) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: so what if it's popular? Are the sources here and elsewhere reliable and do they establish notability? Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The song is popular, and therefore, multiple secondary sources have documented it. Surely that establishes notability? HenryTemplo (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources, sure, but the ones so far are pretty iffy. As is, Randy's stance is a complete violation of WP:POPULARITY on its own. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth mentioning that I was unaware of this songs popularity on TikTok (for that matter, I’ve never used the platform and despise it with a passion, but that’s not relevant), and therefore I only learned about the song’s popularity from the sources I used. At least in my case, I don’t believe this is simply subjective popularity being used in the debate. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the song is well documented in 3rd party sources. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So far the discussion has focused on the notability requirements for a song. But this thing is not a song, it's a comedy video that happens to have a song within it. So perhaps the matter of "reliable" sources should be evaluated under the general guidelines at WP:GNG, or possibly WP:NFILM (though that one's a bit of a stretch). Personally I'm not quite convinced that this video's coverage is in reliable sources, and some folks above are advised to check out WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d largely agree with the point here about how the sources should be evaluated, although it’s not just a comedy video, it’s a internet fad, which I have mentioned previously. Most sources treat the subject as such, a fad (or meme, but that’s up for interpretation).Regarding Wikipedia:SOURCESMAYEXIST ,I have just found another source, see above, which at least I think is reliable (please do let me know). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it odd that a single video would be worthy of an article while the creators themselves are not. It's true that things "go viral" but they don't spring forth magically from the Internet - they have creators. The more substantive sources here (Interobang, See it Live, and Music Man) have equally as much about the creators as they do about the song - which is logical. I could see information about this particular video being an entry in an article about the creators if there are enough sources for such an article. To me this is similar to the viral Fleetwood Mac Dreams video, although perhaps because it wasn't his own song Apodaca didn't get a WP article. But the viral video does not stand alone - it has a context. Lamona (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. I did actually start writing an article about the creators (it’s still in my sandbox), but from the sources, it seems that the song and accompanying dance/fad are more notable. However, I would be up with getting together an actual article about the creators, and merging the content of the article with that article, as long as that article would be considered notable, as I know the rules for BLPs are a bit more stringent (and rightly so). HenryTemplo (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Capitalfm 2020 Yes No meh at best, it's a radio station with a side in tabloid and listicle journalism ~ not more than, like, 50 words ✘ No
Handsome Dancer 2015 No YouTube video, primary source Yes No Primary source ✘ No
Handsome Dancer 2017 No Spotify link, primary source Yes No Primary source ✘ No
The Music Man 2021 Yes No No evidence of editorial oversight- in fact, this looks like a heavily stylized one-person blog. Blogs are excellent and all, but they ain't for here. Yes ✘ No
The Interrobang 2015 Yes ~ Appears to have staff and some kind of content oversight, but this doesn't look like more than a niche outlet. Not the stuff of notability. ~ Not more than 100 words ~ Partial
Callora 2020 Yes ~ Editorial staff, i suppose - reputation for quality content, not so much. No Not really, no ✘ No
de Wit 2021 Yes ~ Not a blog, but not exactly NYT 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}}.
Thanks for the analysis!
I guess sometimes though it can be subjective wether or not somethings a trivial mention, for some of these sources, I would dispute the analysis of triviality for some of these mentions (for example, the seeitlive article has about 500 words on the song and the accompanying dance craze, or the vast majority of the article). Even in the interrobang article, the majority of the article is discussing the song and dance craze, and goes into (relative) detail into the development and production of the song. I wouldn’t dispute the triviality of the CB article (although the subject is referenced in the title), however, I would have to dispute the reliability, as a previous discussion on the R/S noticeboard did establish that it was reliable (I think), the link is above. But again, thanks for doing the analysis, even if we disagree. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me again, just found another source: [22], which I have added to the article. I did think this was a user generated website at first, but it turns out, it’s not, it’s got a editorial team, sources (well in this case, one source), and a corrections process. I checked the reliable sources noticeboard archives and couldn’t find anything on this website, so if this is a reliable source (which I, an inexperienced teen, at least thinks so), we may have another source establishing notability. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a talented editor but this is really drawing blood from a stone... Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why, sincerely, Thankyou! Maybe I am trying to draw blood from a stone but… I guess it is my stone I’m trying to save… if you get the metaphor. Anyway, that aside, with this new source, we might want to review the notability of the subject, as far as I can tell, it is a reliable secondary source which goes into detail about the subject. Plus the interrobang article (which actually contains more than 100 words on the subject) we have at least 2 reliable sources. At least, I think so, please let me know if any of my assessments are mistaken. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DUCK test can apply to sources too. I've always steered clear of pop culture topics like this. The latest source you've provided just looks so bad and I can't imagine anybody on the RS noticeboard thinking otherwise. I hope you aren't disheartened but I'd sincerely advise you to find other stones to save. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know the source looks bad, I ignored this source for a while, but you know what they say, never judge a book by its cover. I thought this was a urban-dictionary-type user-generated… dump, but no, it seemed to have a editorial process, a corrections process, even if it was a bit rough around the edges. Either that or I’m grasping at straws, but hey, it’s only Wikipedia, in the end.
PS: if there are any “stones to be saved”, or stuff to do, please do let me know. I mean, there’s loads of stuff that needs doing but, where to start! I’d love to continue lending my time and (questionable) talent to something. But I’ll probably stick here for now. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The song's popularity doesn't make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While being popular doesn’t make this notable on its own, because of its popularity, it has been covered and discussed in several reliable secondary sources (well that’s disputed, that’s why we’re here), and because of this, the subject is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the concerns noted by LeakyCauldron and myself above. I've given some time, and I'm not convinced by the WP:VAGUEWAVE keep arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The song may be popular, but still fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to repeat myself, but one thing we have discussed is that we shouldn’t be judging this as a song. The sources all treat it as a internet trend/fad, and we should be judging it so, or at least I think so. HenryTemplo (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HenryTemplo Then prove to us that it meets GNG. Present to us sources about the song that you believe are reliable enough. You have no choice. SBKSPP (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, while others dispute the reliability of the sources I am about to mention, in my humble opinion, I believe Interrobang, Capital FM and Time out to be reliable enough to establish GNG. I also think that in the case Capital FM and Time Out the subject is discussed more than a passing mention, even if the 2 sources are lists. I also think Cartoon Brew to be a reliable source, however I would largely agree with the assessment that the mention of the subject in the source is trivial. There are a few other sources which I feel are more “borderline” then what other editors seem to think as well, like the Music Man UK. HenryTemplo (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried a source analysis table… and it broke (that’s why I undid a few edits, should’ve tried it in my sandbox first, silly me!) HenryTemplo (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are just passing mentions though. 3 sentences in a listicle - or 1/18th of an article if you will - is a hard sell for "significant coverage". Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d say the same though for a trivial mention…. Hard sell either way… it’s in a sort of triviality grey area, or at least I see it that way. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not meant as a seven day additional run, but to get it back on the log. See note coming momentarily
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither one of those are anywhere near the significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Yahoo is a passing mention and Timeout is a listicle entry of merely three sentences about how the song placed 14th...out of 18. And I'm not even sure if we call Timeout reliable to begin with. This shouldn't really move the dial... Sergecross73 msg me 10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Time Out (magazine) is a notable publication with a 54 year history and a significant distribution in over 50 countries. It did not rank the song 14 out of 18, it ranked it the 14th out of all global songs of this genre. I have searched WP:RS noticeboard and it doesn't say much about Time Out, but I see no reason to discredit it. I with reference to WP:GNG I think the content of the article is more than a mere trivial mention. GNG does not require the subject to be the main focus of a citation, it requires more than a passing mention (edit, acknowledging you probably know this, but for everyone's benefit, my re-read of this comment alert me that this line sounded patronising, sorry) and I consider this to satisfy that requirement. CT55555 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that Time Out is probably a reliable source (most that started as a hard copy paper publication are) but disagree that three sentences on a listicle constitutes significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a reasonable point to disagree on. So I won't labour the point too much. I'll just say that music is their domain, so when they say it's the 14th best funny song of all time, I won't pretend it's a very credible piece of research, but it's not nothing. Combined with all the other factors, I could maybe be persuade to downgrade to a weak keep, but I'm still in "keep" territory. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the analysis of sources by theleekycouldron. The Interrobang appears to be an established website running for over 10 years, I don't think being "niche" discounts it from being used for establishing notability. Looking at articles on The Music Man, it is not a "one-person blog" as I counted at least three authors publishing. I also don't agree with the dismissal of Capital FM as unreliable. Add the sources shared by CT55555 above and I feel there is enough here to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youre free to disagree with the source assessment, but that's not really much of a rebuttal. Is your counterpoint really they're reliable simply for having "3 writers on a blog started in 2022" or "existing for 10 years"? Is that your personal clearance for assessing reliability of sources? Sergecross73 msg me 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate my comments and the sources being misprepresented. Where did I write "3 writers on a blog started in 2022"? The Music Man has been around since at least 2020.
    The comments from Theleekycouldron were either wrong ("in fact, this looks like a heavily stylized one-person blog."), or just plain vague ("not a blog, but not exactly NYT").
    I stand by my counterpoints. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're nitpicking on details that don't particularly matter though. It doesn't matter if it's a one person or three person blog, it's still a self published amateur blog that's existed for 3 months with writers with no credentials. I have serious concerns about your understanding of how to identify reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: Now it's shaping up to be "no consensus" based on the helpful input of a couple of editors :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After all, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (and by extension determine the outcome of AfDs...) Oh well. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it hasn't existed for three months, it has existed for over a year, at least. I'm not convinced you read my comment. NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's say it's a blog created a year ago, by three guys with no credentials self-publishing on a random blog platform. Why would we accept that as a reliable source? You keep debating things that simply don't change the overall assessment. We determ reliability by things like whether or not there's editorial policy, writers having credentials, and if they have any importance in the industry, not how many months some random nobodies have been self-publishing their amateur blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above thorough analysis of the sources. The sourcing just isn't there; it's all passing mentions or questionably reliable sources. Anything can be said to "go viral" these days, especially on a platform such as TikTok. This is just fleeting discussion by a few blogs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination + above reasoning. As for Capital FM, whether the website is generally reliable, that page only mentions this subject briefly in a long list of other songs which on its own does not prove notability for a song. Definitely gonna need more than that, and from my own search I don't see anything more that makes this worth saving. QuietHere (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am taking this to WP:ANRFC, as there has been no discussion for over a week, and consensus is unclear. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_1&oldid=1081740407"