Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 12 April 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirtek[edit]

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. A search for references reveals lots of mentions-in-passing or announcements//news relating to the subject's sponsorship in racing but no in-depth information on the company. HighKing++ 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5225C, was there any particular reference you think meets NCORP notability criteria? Perhaps I'm missing something. HighKing++ 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see the article deleted because it is frankly undeserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but I have struck my !vote because my core rationale (no significant coverage) is clearly no longer applicable. Whether the coverage is credible enough is a different matter all together and I am not so invested in its deletion to commit to that argument. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, I have not switch to a keep !vote, I struck my delete !vote because the reasoning for it no longer applies. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Size suggests notability at some level. Also sports sponsorship is what they are best known for so I am not surprised about the mentions about their sponsorship. Gusfriend (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that the page is currently rather promotional and could easily be tagged as such. Gusfriend (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might suggest notability but there isn't anything to prove notability. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything useful. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a well-known and notable company in Australia. Their association with motor racing can be part of it. There should be enough sources to demonstrate notability. Deus et lex (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well known and notable? I mean yes, I have heard of Pirtek, but where are the sources? A WP:BEFORE check doesn't turn anything up. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually just done a proper search or just looked at the first few pages of a Google search? You need to look at company information sources, magazines, etc. Pirtek is well known and notable in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're largely the same thing. A you would already know, it's impossible to prove a negative, but if you can show me some indication of what these sources are then I will reconsider my vote. Simply asserting there are sources does not do much to prove the subject is notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some digging through the newspapers and found Florida Today [1] (part 1) and [2] (part 2). Southtown Star [3], Evening Standard [4], Arizona Daily Star [5], The Cincinnati Post [6]. There's also Machine Design [7], Inside Tucson Business [8], Bizjournals [9] and [10], Australian Financial Review [11]. There's a lot of passing mentions that come up in my Library and Google searches (and aren't usable for notability purposes so I'm not having them here), but I believe what I posted is enough to meet WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article expanded significantly since nomination with additional references NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the additional references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The added references like the ones linked to by Jovanmilic97 all rely entirely on information provided by the company or by persons who are connected with the organization (eg have taken a franchise) - they fail ORGIND. I can provide reasoning for each reference if required. Most of those references are puff profiles instigated by the company or based on an announcement by the company - there is no in-depth analysis/opinion (of the company) provided by the journalist or someone not affiliated with the company. The volume of references (that don't meet the criteria for establishing notability) doesn't matter - we require multiple (at least two) references that meet the criteria. HighKing++ 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see this. I am leaning keep but a good source assessment table or something similar could sway me. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing multiple significant independent coverage in the financial press of business activity and also in the motoring press about their racing sponsorship. Once notability is established they are of course a WP:RS for some aspects of the article. Springnuts (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a !vote count. There are a number of Keep !votes above and while some reasoning was provided, much of the reasoning is opinion and not based on guidelines. For example, "size suggests notability" and mentions of "sponsorship" do not feature as criteria. Similarly, "well-known and notable" because of their "association with motor racing" with a "should be enough sources to demonstrate notability" gets to the heart of the matter in some respects. We require in-depth "Independent Content" *on the company* and not on the publicity generated by a racing team with their livery. Stating a company is "well known" without providing actual references is not a compelling argument. Commenting that the article has been "expanded significantly" is true (and fair play) but in terms of meeting the criteria for notabality is equally unconvincing unless references it can be pointed out that references were provided that meet NCORP. Essentially, that is what AfD boils down to in most cases. Another editor, GhostOfDanGurney, requested a source table but the basic source table template is for GNG and not NCORP and is therefore largely unhelpful for analysing sources under NCORP. Nevertheless, here is an analysis on the sources (omitting obviously primary sources) in the article.
    • This from Independent is an article on franchising in general (with info provided by the British Franchise Association) that mentions the topic company in the first two paragraphs and again at the end. There's no in-depth information provided in the article beyond the standard description and numbers reported for that year and there is no "Independent Content" provided by the journalist, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • Evening Standard reference is about an award provided by the British Franchise Association to the topic company with a good description of the company. Since the British Franchise Association is a "corporate partner" that advertises the topic company's franchise operation, it fails as a source "unaffiliated" with the topic company, fails ORGIND.
    • Wall St Journal article was written in 1993 (notably not attributed to a journalist) relies entirely on this Press release from the Halifax Group the previous day. Fails ORGIND
    • This from Speedcafe discusses Pirtek Racing - an entirely different company that is sponsored by the topic company but omits and in-depth info on the topic company. Fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This from Fox Sports mentions the topic company's sponsorship of the "Pirtek Enduro Cup", fails to provide any in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This next from Fox Sports also fails for the same reasons as above - mentions the topic company because of their sponsorship but omits in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • There's then another bunch of motor-racing themed references. This first from btcc.net, a similar one from Autosport, another from btcc.net discussing the livery of the Pirtek-sponsored cars and this final one from btcc.net as Pirkek "bow out". Then we also have this from speedcafe about sponsorship of NNASCAR Camping World Truck series entry of Austin Cindric and buying the naming rights for a stadium, all fail for the same reasons, no in-depth info about the company, all fail CORPDEPTH.
    • Finally, we're left with these two refs from afr.com. The first, in my opinion, is a "puff profile" which is unfortunately all-too-common. Puff profiles generally follows the same formula and this is no exception e.g. "State Problem, describe bad things about life-without-company, state solution, describe success story, position some vague future growth" and although it includes quotes from the fouders, it is lacking the almost-mandatory photo of the founders. This article is promotional, an ad masquerading as news, fails ORGIND. The second reference relies entirely on a "rare interview" with the 49-year-old director of Pirtek International, private equity firm Vision Capital. Obviously affiliated with the topic company, fails ORGIND.
Based on our guidelines, none of the references meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note to closer - HighKing, I strongly disagree that the AFR articles are "puff pieces", and I really get tired of when editors malign articles to support their point of view. There is no indication whatsoever that the articles are paid advertising or anything like that (so comments like "obviously affiliated with the topic company" and "an ad masquerading as news" are unsupported claims and entirely unhelpful). There is no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company. The AFR has always had a significant business section and regularly profiles companies, and it's a reputable newspaper in Australia. These two articles provide independent coverage of the company, and the sponsorship of racing is also a relevant part of their work - there is enough here to support NCORP. Coming from Australia Pirtek is a notable company here and the AFR coverage shows that - something minor or insignificant would not be profiled. Please reconsider these comments (and your support of them too, 5225C and GhostofDanGurney). To whoever closes this, a discussion on sources should not be swayed by unspported claims about puff pieces and the like. There are articles where paid advertising is clear and is the only thing backing up notability, but that isn't the case here. The claim is not persuasive and it's not a good rationale for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Nowhere have I associated "puff profiles" with "paid advertising" - that's a connection that might be true in some cases but I would say is not true in the vast majority of cases. Instead it is a label for articles which follow a well-worn structure and rely *entirely* on the company or their execs for the information within the article. Usually all positive (hence the "puff"). It also has nothing to do with the "reputation" of the publication. You say there is "no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company" and that is true. But, there's a big difference between using a reference to support information/content within an article (essentially, so long as it is WP:RS it is pretty much usable) and using a reference to support notability. It is this second use where references come under additional scrutiny and this is covered in the WP:NCORP guideline. Specifically, the "Independent Content" section of WP:ORGIND unequivocally states that in order for a reference to count towards establishing notability, it must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you can point to any part of those puff profiles where the journalist provided information that is clearly unaffiliated with the company, and that this information meets WP:CORPDEPTH, then (and only then) can that reference be used to assist in establishing the *notability* of the company/organization. So, instead of asking the closer to "not be swayed by unsupported claims", you instead need to show that there is in-depth information contained in those articles that can be classified as in-depth material/information containing "Independent Content" - original and independent opinion, etc. If this company was truly notable beyond its involvement in motorsport sponsorship, we should be able to find at least two references that meet our guidelines. HighKing++ 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - HighKing's assessment of the last two sources in particular are quite convincing at exposing the lack of independence in them and I will support deletion per all of these assessments. Beyond those two pieces, all we really have are "we sponsor a lot of motorsports", which is a fail of WP:INHERITED from a general standpoint, in addition to the relevant NCORP subsection. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the closure was reverted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to Deus et lex, simply asserting notability doesn't really do it. The AFR articles, even if they aren't "puff pieces" still don't prove Pirtek's notability. Like you I am also Australian and I had only the vaguest idea Pirtek was a Supercars sponsor. So our experiences are contradictory and neither count for anything when considering Pirtek's notability.. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:14, 16 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 23:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana[edit]

List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana (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)

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 13 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. consensus is the sourcing is enough, when coupled with the roles to meet the bar. Star Mississippi 01:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeno Peluce[edit]

Meeno Peluce (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:NACTOR. Non-notable former child actor who never had any significant roles. His half-sister is notable, but notability is not inherited. Originally prodded but the prod was removed by a brand new account with no other edits. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Netherlands, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He didn't have a very long career, but it was a very prolific and written about one. He was a regular on four different television shows albeit none that had long runs, three with articles, Voyagers! being the one he seemingly is best remembered for and his roles in Don't Go Near the Park (a truly horrible movie though) and The Amityville Horror seem significant enough too. He also got a lot news coverage over his career (not common for child actors normally), especially during the run of Voyager! so he easily meets the GNG as well. A sampling of those. Related to Voyager! 1, 2, 3, 4. Related to his other work 5, 6, 7, 8. Where are they now type coverage 9, 10. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per sources identified above, WP:NACTOR #1, and the WP:GNG. Per WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected, this article should NEVER have been prodded. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, so not expecting opposition to deletion would be really steep. Kudos to SellerLake for detecting the problem and to GoldenAgeFan1 for finding excellent sources. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to only have had bit parts. The article doesn't have much beyond a simple timeline of what they did. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm. Did you look at any of the pages of movies and shows he appeared in or the multitude of sources cited above that greatly detail his life and career up to that point? He was the co-lead along with Jon-Erik Hexum on Voyagers! and he was a regular on three other TV shows (The Bad News Bears, Best of the West and Detective in the House). He played a significant part in Don't Go Near the Park and had a large enough part in The Amityville Horror. An unknown, bit part actor wouldn't have been written about so many times in such detail. Would you consider checking out those sources cited above and see if that changes your vote? The state of the article doesn't necessarily indicate the notability of the subject. (WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST) GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies are timelines of things that people did and a bit beyond. It's exactly what it is supposed to be in a biography. Delete opinions disregarding the roles and sources of subjects should be read as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gidonb (talk) 21:14, 16 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. Consensus that WP:GNG is met for this biography. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyne Gallarde[edit]

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

Lacks independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwardx, this article was a school project for my LGBTQ studies class at my universities. Most, if not all, the sources used were collected by my university's library. Wikipedia also allows for use of well established newspaper articles as resources. Therefore, the sources are reliable and are meeting the Wikipedia guidelines . NerdyAlo (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another important thing to note is that, from my knowledge, Wikipedia has a minimum 3 source requirement. Of the sources I listed, there are at least 3 sources that go in-depth on the artist as they exclusively interview him and/or write about him (I'd recommend you take a look at the advocate article, and the star-advertiser articles titled "best face forward" and "MTV taps Hawaii artist to showcase Video of the Year Nominees" as examples). I do think there is room for improvement for the page and am willing to take suggestions as this is the first article I created. However, I do not think deletion is necessary. Cheers NerdyAlo (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very sorry, NerdyAlo. I am sure it must be disheartening for you to have someone suddenly nominate your work for deletion. It really is nothing personal, and it did look rather "promotional". For example, the exhaustive "Bibliography" section. The good news is that the process takes a week, so there is plenty of time to properly consider things and to improve the article. Edwardx (talk)
    Honolulu Star-Advertiser only lets me see a tiny bit of those two articles (I am based in England, and don't want to pay $13 per month to subscribe!) BUT, I can see enough to see photos of Gallarde atop each article, so we can infer they are likely both primarily about him. Both are written by Nadine Kam, and she still works there, Pieces by Nadine Kam reviewing eateries. Is there any way to view The Advocate piece online? Perhaps I was too hasty in nominating this! Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interviews as sources are not independent nor necessarily reliable, yet still meets GNG in regards to the rest. Article could be adjusted in tone. But also certainly suitable for the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A WP:BEFORE search reveals that there is indeed significant coverage in independent reliable sources on this illustrator. He clearly meets WP:GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 18 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 23:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Thompson (racing)[edit]

Don Thompson (racing) (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:NSPORTS. Disputed draftification, so here we are at AfD. If I draftified this I would be move warring 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original dratifier here - the page creator Mishra18Hex has created several other similar articles, which might need dratified or deleted. I only did one because I didn't want to get bit for mass dratifying. As for my !vote, I'd have to say weak delete for now. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 20:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources appear to exist which satisfy GNG and no claim to significance is made in the article. subject is a part-time driver in a 4th-tier racing series (equal to High-A in baseball or League 2 in English football) and has very low WP:POTENTIAL to meet GNG in the future, thus making a draft also inappropriate in my opinion. According to their Racing-Reference entry (a primary source ineligible for establishing notability), they have competed in a total of 21 races over 10 years. NMOTORSPORT is not met. Wikipedia is not Racing-Reference. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I found what appear to be his LinkedIn and a pic on his Facebook, plus another database, but no evidence of extended coverage of his racing career. I'm going to add both databases to the article, since this is an unreferenced BLP with a DOB. Why wasn't it PROD'ed as such? If there are indeed more of these in mainspace, they should be BLP-PROD'ed immediately. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator reverted the draftification after 2 minutes, so to me at least, it seems like a safe bet that they would have dePRODed for the same reason as their revert. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. When I looked at their talk page, I saw that the importance of its being a BLP with no sources was there in the notice of draftification, but was not so emphatic that a new user would necessarily have realized that is a serious policy violation here. I have now spelled that out in a note at the bottom of the page. However, BLP-PROD is explicitly different from other PRODS in this respect: see the intro and the section on removal, the tag must be reinstated if there is still no source (no reliable source, in fact). If this editor's other articles are the same, they're all BLP-PRODable, and the person needs to stop creating unsourced BLPs in mainspace immediately. That takes priority over notability, I believe. (If there are database entries on all these people that include their dates of birth, then we don't have a violation of privacy of non-public individuals, unless the databases are as unreliable as IMDb, which from your !vote I gather is not the case? But we still in that case have obvious BLP violations, and if they're all like this, they should be treated as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDATABASE 79.73.102.134 (talk) 10:37, 20 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 23:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fit in or fuck off[edit]

Fit in or fuck off (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)

Dictionary definition of a neologism, don’t see how this is discretely different from what squares like me call bigotry or prejudice. Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, solely a dictionary definition. Hgual (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 22:37, 13 April 2022 Ponyo blocked Hgual with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Long-term abuse: WP:BKFIP)[reply]
  • Delete might be notable if it's a catch phrase for some television character, this isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking the article at hand, without yet getting to researching it independently, I went through all of the books, and none of them are actually discussions of a concept. There's a dictionary of slang, a reference to a letter that someone once wrote to a newspaper editor, and everything else is either a quotation, or worse a quotation within a quotation, with no explanatory content. The actual article sources are no better. The Sabotage Times does not appear to exist any more; the Barrett article is about sexual harrassment at a specific company; and the Saunders article is about sexual harrassment too, it's sole relation to this subject being that it uses the phrase in censored form as headlinese. Searching, then, I could not find anything that discusses a concept by this name, which is not unexpected since good sources will use an actual name for whatever they document and not slang, or a potential way to refactor that isn't something that we already have by a non-slang name. The best redirect target seems to be social norm, since it is pressure to conform to workplace norms that good sources discuss this subject as. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is for Wiktionary at best. This is not a notable, encyclopedia-worthy topic. All we have here is a list of different people using the phrase. Banks Irk (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:DICDEF. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable/not encyclopedic. Llwyld (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting digression from the merits of whether the article should be deleted or not Banks Irk (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Expurgating/Bowdlerizing and marking up the article so that a whole section and references do not show skews this whole discussion. Rigged game would be a fair characterization. Please take your thumb off the scale. The article and the question of notability ought to be decided on the merits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, your accusation that the section was commented out in order to rig this AfD discussion is poor form and not in keeping with WP:AGF. Also, the edit was made before the AfD started. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you were confused about the timing. Thanks for answering Dronebogus's question. That the material was "disappeared" is not in doubt. which you now admit. Since the article is now restored, you ought to WP:AGF, too. That would be in better form, not griefing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the misunderstanding is at your end, since the commenting out was done before this AfD was created. Therefore would you like to retract your accusations above that it was done to rig the AfD?

WP:AGF means that I will consider that your reply was due to your misunderstanding, rather than an attempt to gaslight me.

What do you mean "the article is now restored", since it wasn't deleted in the first place? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Griefing Stop it! You are wasting everyone's time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is that supposed to mean, the Chewbacca Defense? Dronebogus (talk) 05:48, 18 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 23:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My way or the highway[edit]

My way or the highway (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 original rationale (which I support until evidence is provided otherwise) was “just a dictionary definition. It was functionally contested at WP:ARS by User:7&6=Thirteen or whatever their name is, meaning it can’t be prodded as non-controversial. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lot of news results to sort through. https://gimenez.house.gov/2021/7/gimenez-votes-against-my-way-or-highway-bill Common expression. Not sure if it can be made anything more than a redirect to the wiki-dictionary for a definition of it. Dream Focus 21:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere. Venerable, has variations, even parodies ("my way or thy way" in religion, as an example). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It seems fairest to properly tag the person quoted 7&6=thirteen I assume CT55555 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I proposed the deletion, and as mentioned, my rationale was that it's just a dictionary definition. Hgual (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 22:37, 13 April 2022 Ponyo blocked Hgual with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Long-term abuse: WP:BKFIP)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Wiktionary (whichever is normal for Wiktionary entries), due to WP:DICDEF. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed my previous "redirect" !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Fit in or fuck off (AfD discussion) this is a slang title which good sources do not use for actual subjects, and of course in 7 years the article has progressed little beyond a list of person A using the phrase in respect of person B, which does nothing to discuss an actual subject and is just cargo-cult writing. The actual subject that good sources discuss is leadership styles, and in particular the self-same autocratic leadership style that we already have at leadership style#Autocratic. ISBN 9780761861645 pages 111–112 makes this linkage explicit. So this seems like an obvious redirect there, with a note to future Redirects for discussion participants that they can always take that (or one of the many other books that explicitly links this to Douglas McGregor's "Theory X" and "Theory Y", such as ISBN 9780198834304 page 52 which is an OUP book, for example) in hand and write the linkage into the article (as well as perhaps mention McGregor, too). Yes, the leadership style is the primary topic, and this page should not in my view go back to the redirect to My way or the highway (disambiguation) that it was in 2010 or to the Scrubs episode that it was in 2007. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idiom just means non-negotiable and it can be used to describe many things besides a leader. I linked to 8.500 sources, and most are reliable and many are not about leadership styles, though many are. They often refer to someone's personality generally, who is not in a position of leadership. If this article is deleted, the best way is to make the the article into a primary topic dab page and the first line says: "My way or the highway is an idiom describing a non-negotiable position, person or leadership style usually in a disparaging way. It can also mean:". This makes navigation clear because when someone searches this term we don't know if they are looking for meaning or song or album etc. GreenC 14:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't link to any sources. There, you linked to yet another quotation that isn't discussing this subject, it being a fruit picker quoted on xyr personal experience of unionization in 1973, which is not a source for anything at all, and below you linked to a search result. Search results are not sources. Phrase matching is not research. You are not finding sources, and you are not doing research, which involves reading what the searches turn up, which would have revealed that a fruit picker in Florida interviewed by a magazine for a piece about United Farm Workers in 1973 isn't anything about this subject. And etymologies are what lexicographers do. Try to find the concept denoted by the title. When you do, you'll find that it's a slang phrase and what people are really talking about, including expert sources in management (such as the OUP book which is written by a university assistant professor), is autocratic leadership as I said. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I encourage readers to look through those 8,500 sources linked and decide for yourself what they demonstrate as a whole. Uncle G's assertion they are all or mostly about leadership style doesn't hold up on inspection. Leadership style is one, but not the only. Redirecting this page to leadership style#Autocratic is a bad idea for a couple reasons. As noted the phrase has more meanings, and secondly it can refer to actual disambiguations as listed at the dab page. -- GreenC 17:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent a good hour skimming through 8,500 sources at archive.org (not all). The oldest I can find is from 1973. It's a hoard of sources. Disappointing could find no sources that discuss it directly. Given it's popularity, such sources likely exist in journals, such as Comments on Etymology, which has been a good source for Wikipedia etymology in the past. But its archives are offline. GreenC 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is for Wiktionary at best. This is not a notable, encyclopedia-worthy topic. All we have here is a list of different people using the phrase. Banks Irk (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dronebogus (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable/not encyclopedic. Llwyld (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this could be merged to the list at English-language idioms? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Googlengrams is OR, and the rest is just examples of times various celebrities have used the phrase. Doesn't seem to be much SIGCOV of the phrase itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:14, 17 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. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder (gamer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
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 article was deleted on the 8th of April after this AfD. An editor then went into overdrive and, unilaterally and without the text getting any approval, had the article back up after two days, now with some 85 instead of 4 cited sources. But does quantity translate into quality? I propose the article be deleted and salted. For a forensic analysis of the sources, or, more accurately, the lack thereof, check the talk page. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging participants in the previous AfD discusion as well as the editor who posted the article up again: Ficaia, ferret, Chaddude14. Also, the admin who decided on it: Liz. -The Gnome (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete Most seem to be name-drops, some coverage, not sure I see notability, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed since the last AFD. I checked several sources and found that they didn't even mention Wunder. Refbombing doesn't make GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 13 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) 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll be honest, I was surprised to see the revamped article moved to main space so quickly. I restored the page on the condition that I would move it to User space where I thought it would be gradually improved and be submitted to AFC for review, which I also requested. I've seen other admins who patrol AFD honor requests such as this one with similar conditions. Of course, I'll let another admin evaluate the consensus on this 2nd AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches here and here do not show any sources that qualify as WP:SIGCOV nor establish WP:NOTABLE. The article appears to have been ref-bombed, giving the appearance of being a well-referenced article, but all 85 "references" are either trivial mentions, routine coverage or don't mention Wunder at all. Article appears to be a slick attempt (by whomever) created it to give the appearance of notability where little or none actually exists.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking previous vote; changing to Keep - article appears to have been fixed since I originally voted !delete. The way Pbrks edited the article appears to have addressed both the refbombing as well as the SIGCOV and RS issues. The way the article was in its original state would've warranted deletion (in the absence of additional sources), but the way Pbrks edited the article with much higher quality sources seems to be enough to save this one from AFD (seeing as all of the arguments for delete are from before Pbrks's rewrite).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I fail to see how articles such as these[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] count as "trivial mentions", as all of them are focused on the player specifically. Having 9 All-Pros, 4 Championships, and an International title make him one of the best Western League of Legends players of all time, and I think some of the people voting don't realize the significance of some of these "passing mentions". In most major sports just appearing in a single regular season game qualifies a person as notable, so when you note that the the League World Championships have has more viewers then the NBA finals for the past 4 years in shows that there are clearly some criteria lacking in what makes any esports player notable. Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world, and he has 2 ESPN articles exclusively focused on him. Not only should this article be kept, the Wikipedia policy for League of Legends players should be clarified, preferably by those who have some knowledge of the scene in general. Chaddude (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world": That is, essentially, the totality of the argument promoted by the Keep suggestions both here and in the previous AfD. An assertion using circular logic, precisely as described in WP:ASSERTN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Shout Out To Denmark | By Martin "Wunder" Hansen". The Players’ Lobby. 2018-03-16. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  2. ^ Hester, Grey (2016-11-29). "Wunder Re-Signs With Splyce". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  3. ^ "Wunder: Splyce's strategic woes are 'easily solvable'". ESPN.com. 2017-03-09. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  4. ^ "Wonderboy: the rise of G2's Wunder". ESPN.com. 2018-10-26. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  5. ^ Suárez, Pablo (2021-11-16). "Sources: Fnatic signing Wunder as new LEC top laner". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  6. ^ "Wunder: "I'm showing what I stand for to my team"". Hotspawn. 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  7. ^ "YamatoCannon: "I think Wunder is GOATed. [...] His level of professionalism is exemplary"". InvenGlobal. 2022-02-11. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  8. ^ "Watch Wunder's huge outplay in extraordinary 1v3 against Team Vitality | ONE Esports". www.oneesports.gg. 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  • Source 1: Doesn't aid WP:N as it's written by him. #2: Says he re-signed, and that's it. Routine coverage. #3 and #4 I agree (and posted in the last AFD) are pretty decently in-depth. These are the best sources about him. #5 is kinda routine coverage and doesn't really say much about him. #6 doesn't seem like a source generally used by Wikipedia and may not be reliable, but is also an interview which are given less weight for GNG, as they aren't independent. #7 Non-independent interview. #8 is less about him and more a play by play of a specific match. I don't think the specific source is one we'd consider reliable either. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright how about [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]? Also it's worth noting that although some of these are "kinda routine coverage" they have more info they just "he resigned", they talk about his accomplishements and statistics and his pllay. Chaddude (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ciocchetti, Cecilia (2021-12-15). "Wunder thinks G2's LEC roster for 2022 is not 'looking that strong'". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  2. ^ "Report: Fnatic agree to buyout for Wunder as team's top laner for 2022". Upcomer. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  3. ^ Vukobrat, Petar (2021-11-18). "Fnatic Have Reportedly Bought Out Wunder from G2". Esportstalk. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  4. ^ Heath, Jerome (2021-04-06). "G2's Wunder changes username to 'NoWowFreeWin,' climbs to Masters in League solo queue". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  5. ^ "Splyce's Wunder: "In mid and late game, we're the best team in the league right now"". ESPN.com. 2016-07-09. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  6. ^ Geddes, George (2019-09-16). "G2 Esports fined for showing Wunder playing WoW Classic". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  7. ^ Li, Xing (2019-06-16). "Wunder clowns Vitality in Pro View". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  • Source #5 is a repeat, you already used it above. #1 is covering a twitch stream of Wunder, so I'd treat it as semi-non-independent, almost self-interview. Just reporting what he said. #2 I'd like to see WP:VG/RS mull on for reliability, but they're also simply re-reporting Dotesports, as stated at the beginning. You already gave that source the first time above. #3 is re-reporting Esportstalk (#2), who as noted, is re-reporting Dotesports. This is just esports sites mimicking each other's news. #4 is a little better, but not much actual substance exists here from a weak source that while reliable, is dedicated to covering this very thing. #6 and #7... I mean. More routine Dotesports. Are you really arguing that the fact that Dotesports reported Wunder trolled another team mid-match is a seriously noteworthy event? This mostly boils down to two good ESPN sources, a lot of routine coverage by Dotesport, and a few sites reporting what Dotesports already reported (and crediting it to boot). -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The searches by Mythdon are done incorectly, adding "Gamer" will not find results, as that is not a term used by any form of media or people in the scene. Try seaching -- "Wunder" League of Legends -Wikipedia --. Chaddude (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a significant rewrite, as I noted on the {{cleanup}} tag on the article. After some digging, I found a decent amount of sources. The best sources I can find are the following (which are duplicates from above):
The following are significant pieces (not routine, not non-noteworthy) from Dot Esports, which has been recently been discussed at WP:VGRS, and the consensus is that it is reliable:
The following are a bit less in-depth, but still pretty solid:
In addition, he has appeared on CNN, although the video does not seem to work anymore, so I can't really see what it is, so take it for what its worth (looks like just an interview though). – Pbrks (t • c) 03:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truly do not understand this. I presented in detail the invoked sources and showed how they're almost always referring to the team and not the player himself. If the team is notable, and it is on the basis of sources, this does not mean that all its players or its best players, as the case might be, are notable. It does not, no matter how we twist the data. Notability is not distributed Nor inherited. That's all there is to it. The effort of gaming enthusiasts to have an entry for a "great gamer" is admirable but this is the Wikipedia; Not a directory of egaming. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you actually read these sources if you think that they're about the team and not the person, particularly "Wonderboy: the rise of G2's Wunder", "Splyce's Wunder: 'In mid and late game, we're the best team in the league right now'", and "Wunder is the player to watch in the EU LCS Final" which are entirely about him. The one twisting the data here is you. And I hope you didn't intend this, but that last sentence of yours comes across as extraordinarily condescending and patronizing. Mlb96 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the feedback, I don't appreciate the implication that I am trying to somehow misrepresent the coverage of the above sources due to being a "gaming enthusiast." In fact, my first inclination was to vote delete, since the article contains a ton of bloat, as you noted on the talk page. However, a list of inapplicable sources towards demonstrating notability is not grounds for deletion. I have presented a handful here that, frankly, clearly demonstrate notability. While they do indeed contain some coverage of the team's performance — of course, he is a part of that team, after all — they have solid coverage of the subject specifically. There are many esports articles currently published that are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but this is not one of them. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources mentioned by Pbrks, particularly these three sources, are more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per source analysis by ferret and Pbrks. I think there is enough material specifically about him to write a short article, although I do wonder what would motivate someone to go to such lengths to salvage an article about an individual who is probably borderline notable. If there is a suitable merge target, like an article about one of his teams, I suppose it could be merged there as an alternate to deletion, but no one has so far argued for that position yet. Haleth (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A constructive proposal this. It would be quite appropriate to Merge this (actually very weakly sourced) text into Splyce, the article about the team to which practically all sources are referring anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to strike my Delete at this time. The two ESPN sources, which I noted at the first AFD, are great. However I have a lot of concerns about Dotesports being used to judge notability. It's a weak source, which is regularly rejected at FAC, and wholly dedicated to reporting 'everything' esports. Additionally, I don't view Redbull as independent as they sponsor and host ESports. I'd really really like to see two more in-depth sources that aren't a specialist site or re-reporting Dotesports. I understand my position is likely stricter than others, but notability being decided on essentially the backs of two specialist sites (one general sports, one wholly esports) feels off to me. A merge or redirect is also a fine outcome. So much of the news is routine team updates. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you'll reconsider your position on determining notability this way. For example, video games articles seem to be just fine when there are sources from reliable gaming sites, e.g., PCGamer, GameSpot, Eurogamer. I understand that this is a whataboutism, but I don't see why would we set a different bar for esports articles and reliable sports sites. I do agree that, as with just about every news outlet, a generally reliable site does not necessarily mean that every bit of its content is applicable when determining notability, but the Dot Esports articles that I provided are good, in-depth articles — not fluff pieces. Tag those along with the ESPN ones, and I just fail to see how this does not pass GNG. As a note, Dot Esports was questioned once at FAC (I double-checked with a search, but correct me if I am mistaken), which led to the discussion at VGRS, so "regularly" doesn't seem appropriate. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little less about specialist sites, though I'd like to see non-specialist, and more than it's hinging on literally two publications. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pbrks, the discussion at the link you gave concludes with a resolute "All but one references to Dot Esports have been purged." It speaks for itself, this. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Gnome: Please look at the entire context. The references were removed to appease one reviewer, yet a follow-up, full discussion at WP:VGRS determined that it is reliable. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum to demonstrate notability is generally two to three high quality sources. Pbrks has presented at least three, which I pointed out in my !vote. Whether Dot Esports is a "specialist site" is wholly unimportant, as it has been determined to be a reliable source. Mlb96 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bare minimum is (typically) three high quality sources. That doesn't mean that three demonstrates notability, simply that it's the bare minimum. A discussion can always determine otherwise. I don't feel the bar is met, especially for high quality, and I've explained my reasoning, is all. I'm well aware you disagree, that's fine. -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your position is in accord with policy. I feel that you are setting a much higher bar than WP:GNG actually requires. Mlb96 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We know where the bar is. Take as an example, one among many, the bar set for actors. The relevant guideline requires that, to post up an actor's bio, the actor must have had significant roles in multiple notable films. Emphasis added. There's your bar. We require multiple and significant reports, they must come from reliable sources, and they must be specifically about our subject; not simple mentions, not name-drops, not interviews, and not reports about something else. Actually, ferret is trying here to keep the bar from hitting a very lowpoint. -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)lb96|Mlb96]] (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please just stop, this is embarrassing. Not only did you not read any of the sources, you also don't seem to know the difference between GNG and SNGs. Mlb96 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nitpick, but WP:N and WP:GNG are a guideline, not a policy, and they set lines in the sand for presumed notability, very clearly stating that a discussion and review of sources may find otherwise. I believe this is an otherwise case, you don't. That's fine! I openly admit I set a higher bar than many do. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pbrks and Mlb. I consider ESPN to be a very high quality source for it's subject area, so that & the Dot Esports which has be regarded as reliable per consensus I consider that good enough for GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the ESPN reports are game reporta, series coverage, and the like. Same goes for most Dot Esports links. Why not vist the talk page and see the analysis? -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not? That's just an objectively false statement. Did you click on any the 10 links provided by Pbrks? Not game reports, nor series coverage, they are pieces on Wunder as an individual. Same goes for the Dot Esports Links, the three listed in no way fall into the categories you claim they are a part of. Chaddude (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this does not affect most of the above arguments, it should be known that I have rewritten the article, alleviating the REFBOMB issue. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Despite the bloated feel and apparent circumvention, subject is notable and has enough independent and reliable sources to warrant an article. After rewrite, does not seem to have an issue. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The presence of any reliable source coverage discussing him independently probably makes this article above-average for a biography of someone mest known competing in team sports. I'm sympathetic to the notion that sometimes we let non-notable subjects slide by through inheritance. When I think of that, though, I think of cases where coverage is "a mile wide and an inch deep". That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:27, 16 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. consensus is the sourcing just isn't there for this school. If someone thinks they can ID more sources without the ticker of afD, happy to provide in draft space. Star Mississippi 01:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Christian High School[edit]

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

This school has received barely any coverage and lacks significant notability. It also appears to be a magnet for OR in the past. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • del - nonnotable private high school. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any time to find sources today, but I will check tomorrow. It's an American school with more than 400 students. I have never failed to save a large High School's article from deletion after a Newspapers.com search. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a segregation academy. Articles about segregation academies are vital in documenting the very incomplete struggle to achieve integration in US education. We have some editors that have put in considerable work on that subject. 174.212.227.189 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The segregation academy in question is barely mentioned in the article by a small inclusion in a book. If this should be kept just by a passing mention of a segregation academy, then shouldn't another article on the previous school be created instead? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We've always followed the institution, not the name or the building. Same institution, just a different name, likely to seperate it from its history. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh The sourcing is at best dubious. This contains a one-line trivial mention The city of Houston, Texas, cooperated with the new $1.5 million Northwest Academy building by extending a four-lane street in time for its opening., and the other sources are not suitable in determining notability (a non-selective private school directory and a mere map of schools in the area). Looking for more sources does not yield much besides high-school sports coverage (which is at best routine and insignificant). This would suggest it fails WP:GNG. And as we all know, notability is not inherent, even for schools (see WP:ORGSIG and WP:NRVE), so that would make the case for keeping this really week. I'm not sure if there's an appropriate redirect target here, so holding off on that for now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the endless local newspaper sourcing and these regional stories. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Those look like at best trivial mention or routine-ish coverage of high school sports. There is no coverage of the school itself, only of the sports events. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they not count? I'll probably search more after work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine coverage of routine events (high school sports) is WP:ROTM. Combine that with the fact that those sources contain almost exactly no coverage about the school itself (there's in-depth match reports, and a few interviewed quotes from involved participants, but very little coverage of the school as opposed to the routine event...), and yes, they do not count. See WP:SIGCOV, as I was linking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do more searching then. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched around for it, but I could only find more WP:ROTM stuff. I'd suggest that we close this out if we can't find any more sources. That IP also doesn't look like they will put in much of the work. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions13256, found any sources yet? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CollectiveSolidarity Sorry. I have been sick for the past few days, but I only just now started to feel better. I'll work on it right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone tried looking up "Northwest Academy"? That name gets more results. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the links went to a place in Ohio, and there were a few notable alumni. I could not find any alternative links but Google is still an option (I use an alternative browser) CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything on Newspapers.com? I will refrain from changing my !vote until a specific editor tries to salvage the article. However, I concede that it is not looking good. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my absence, as I had some major schoolwork to do. I wasn't able to get on Newspapers.com because it charges a subscription service, but there might be some secondary sources talking about the school on its official website. I will check there. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can get to Newspapers.com free free via the Wikipedia Library. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source [12]. I'll deposit in into the article CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com has a TON of sources just like that one. However, I am not sure if they count because they are local. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have any Houston city newspapers. Most of the nphits are sports roundups. I have access to NewsBank of the Chronicle post-1985, and most of the hits are sports-related there as well. I have a very long 1999 Houston Press article titled "Winning in the Wrong Way: Rock Knapp transformed little Northwest Academy from gridiron patsy to playoff powerhouse. So why are some parents calling for his head?" After the name change, there are some 2000s articles of note: "Houston Christian opens new campus - Area churches collaborate for high school" from the Chronicle in 2000 and "Christian High sees increase in students" from 2001. If you'd like me to put up excerpts of any of those, let me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add them to the article or link them. If they don't count, I am willing to change my !vote. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:17, 14 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! 19:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the commendable but unsuccessful effort above to locate significant coverage. For better or worse, the community consensus is schools have to meet GNG. This doesn't. AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Although there were great efforts by Sammi and Scorpions to find sources for this article, I just don't think that there is enough coverage beyond local newspapers to warrant significant coverage in WP:GNG CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll accept the L this time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:34, 18 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 Battle of Hürtgen Forest. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 400, Bergstein[edit]

Hill 400, Bergstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure if this mess is rescuable (WP:TNT). The article, effectively unreferenced, is structured as about a hill that doesn't appear to meet WP:Notability (places). Possibly the battle for Hill 400 could be notable, sample source, although even here I am unsure about the name, as neither the above-red lined title, nor battle of Hill 400, nor battle of Bergstein seem to generate much hits (BEFORE was done in GS and GB). In either case, the article isn't about the battle, anyway (it has an unreferenced newspaper quote about it, and then 'in popular culture' list of trivia seems to be mainly related to said battle). Ugh. A mess, as I said. Even if it is rewritten into a battle article, it will pretty much be a totally new article that will require moving. PS. To muddy the waters, the German wiki article about the hill is relatively long, but very poorly referenced, so it's hard to say that it shows we can "do better", as WP:OR issues arise... Oh, and it also further showcases the mess that our article is, as the German name, Burgberg , means castle hill or city hill, and the name Hill 400 is an unoffocial Allied WWII name given to this location and not used by the locals, past or present, obviously. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:46, 6 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! 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's something odd about this one. Normally medieval castles at least have some reference someplace online, but the one referred to in this article doesn't seem to, other than in references that seem linked back to this article. There's a lot of mirror clutter radiating out from this article onto the web that I can't really get past. Overall, since the fighting was part of a notable battle, I think a redirect as noted above, and a merge of anything worth saving, is the best route to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 13 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 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Gimnàstic de Tarragona season[edit]

2014–15 Gimnàstic de Tarragona season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2014–15 Real Oviedo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Played in the Spanish third division, fails WP:NSEASONS. Sakiv (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that these are equivalent. The Oviedo one has much more substantial info and sourcing. It should be in a separate AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Sakiv: Wrong bundling in my view, I was looking at the season in the template at the bottom;
  • As you can see, there are a number of other seasons, some notable, some not. I am talking about those ones. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a viable article topic but functionally unsourced at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 8 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! 19:48, 13 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 23:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahant Kirpal Das[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only notable for one battle, has no sources other than one mentioning his name 1 time. I don't think he is noteworthy. I'd want to keep it if we can find more sources on him. Réunion (talk to me) 16:20, 13 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 speedy deleted by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovepantii (series)[edit]

Lovepantii (series) (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 was moved out of draft by recent editor, so only option is AFD. Sources are main pre-publicity puff pieces, one source from post release but no real information used from that source. Article needs something to show notability, but the existing sources and article text don't have that. A decent production section, some reviews from after the show began - something. As it is now, this should be in draft but we can't move it back there. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage through and through. Sock spam with no reliable sources, and no indication that it's a notable series. CUPIDICAE💕 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been moved to Lovepantii page title. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for noting that. For more drama, see the logs at Lovepanti which was finally protected due to Leofrancis355 repeatedly moving a junk article with multiple declines out of draft space. Some sources use a single 'i' at the end, others use two 'ii' at the end. I'm pretty sure the current creator is the latest sock of Leo, need to get that SPI up. Ugh, so much fun... Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could see only one reliable source for this article. Not notable. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:09, 14 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 Sofia Carson discography. ✗plicit 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Carson (album)[edit]

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

PROD deleted. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS - trivial, mostly primary source coverage, hasn't charted on any county's national chart. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was considering nominating this myself – I'm not sure whether I'd go for outright deletion or a redirect... the problem with the latter choice is that the artist (the redirect target) and the album have the same name, and given the article's edit history, I'm not convinced it wouldn't be restored almost immediately. This really fails WP:NALBUM – it's been out almost three weeks but there is absolutely no coverage or reviews of it in any reliable sources, it hasn't charted anywhere, and really the sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY... they are Ms. Carson talking to lightweight celebrity gossip websites about her vision of the album and how excited she is about it, etc... in short, the only person talking about this album is Ms. Carson herself, and there's no sign of independent coverage from reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sofia Carson discography for reasons listed above. XtraJovial (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sofia Carson discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 16 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 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alevtina Tchalova[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet WP:NARTIST. Searching in English doesn't reveal any sources that aren't gallery listings or Wiki pages, and searching for her name in the Cyrillic alphabet also does not produce reliable sources. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:51, 13 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 Taxonomic database. It does not appear more input is forthcoming and both !votes appear to agree there's a connection rendering this a viable search. History is under the redirect if someome wants to perform it as there's no argument to delete the content. Star Mississippi 01:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web-based taxonomy[edit]

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

All branches of science use the web to some extent. There are no articles for Web-based biology, Web-based chemistry, or any Web-based science. Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge I agree with OP that this is not an encyclopedic item per se - it is "use of the internet in taxonomy", which is covered to some extent (and can be expanded) at Taxonomic database. Based on what's currently in the article, the one thing that appears to be worth merging is mention of the 2002 Nature opinion article [13], which is highly cited and got a bit of direct response [14]; that's worth a sentence or two. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as a merge, let nature take its course, if it's worthy of a mention it will show up in other articles such as Taxonomic database. Jacona (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 13 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. It was quick AfD nomination. As per the creator's comment, I'm pulling down the AfD nomination so that it can be expanded appropriately. Will assess it later. (non-admin closure) Hatchens (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory B. Williams[edit]

Gregory B. Williams (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)

He is a nominee. Not yet appointed! Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: God bless, within 20 minutes it's nominated? Wait until it's expanded at least. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686 - oops sorry! It came in the feed. I'm closing it. Will assess it later. - Hatchens (talk) 14:14, 13 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 14:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Volk[edit]

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:02, 13 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. given the recent AfD, a different consensus is not going to emerge regardless of whether this should be an article. Suggest revisiting the issue it when the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War (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 an interesting list but per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST it's hard to see how does it belong on Wikipedia (per WP:NOT, with nods to WP:ITSINTERESTING). Also keeping in mind notability is not temporary, when the war ends, what will be the fate of this article? It doesn't even describe the history of the cities, just states who controls them now. This is really a weird Wikinews-type of news that stumbled onto Wikipedia. Lastly, was this created as a source-list for Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map? Maybe it could be de-mainspaced as a source subpage for that template? Ps. Lastly, this list, despite the name, is not just for cities, but also includes villages like this... so not just its purpose, but its scope is a mess too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: What has changed since the well-attended AfD this article just came off of with clear consensus to keep? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While there were many keeps, the closer did not present an argument, and many keep votes fall into WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ITSINTERESTING with a rider on that WP:IAR should prevail. I don't think that such an outlier discussion should be kept with a non-admin closure with no comment, after all, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. A month and a half have passed, the article still is a weird form of NOTNEWS. I think we should discuss it again. And I ote that in your own argument in that past AfD you said this article is a dataset required for the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. I don't deny it's useful in this, but it should not be article, but a template subpage or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you're raising was already hashed out in the last discussion. Don't renominate just because you don't like the outcome. IAR is policy, you can't just declare any IAR close an "outlier". An AfD is not a vote, but this was 29–6 keep and policy-based arguments were given. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice the last outcome before my nom (but yes, I don't like it now that you made me aware of it :>). IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." Can I abuse this approach and vote for deletion every article I don't like over and over? Reusing your words I would say that the argument you are providing about "merits revisiting" is of low quality and thus not worth the time. I say this to point out: everyone can call something of "low quality" without a compelling argument to start a motion over and over simply to try to get the wanted outcome. If this discussion doesn't end with delete, would you open one in May (or June or July and so on) then? The argument about a motion - especially when one was already presented - should in my view be compelling and have consensus, otherwise it ends in a silly motion/edit/proposal war. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep The result of the last AfD, which ended only a month ago, was overwhelming (29 keep, 6 delete) and unchallenged, and addressed all the same concerns. From WP:CCC:

    Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

    ― Tartan357 Talk 09:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a more valid permanent encyclopedic resource if it listed the dates of occupation and liberation of each settlement rather than merely its latest known status. The city/village scope issue is solved by editing or renaming with “settlements,” so not a reason to delete. —Michael Z. 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I never thought about this before. Firestar464 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless we have another source to show what belongs to who (the map doesn't show all of them), then this should be kept.Dawsongfg (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second the view above. This page is highly useful for template editing and as a source of general information reference point on its own. Even if we are to delete per the AFD proposer, one must create that separate template page first or else the map template will collapse on its own. WeifengYang (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In historical terms a geographical overview helps. The article can be improved (and in some parts is already done) with links to the articles of the battles or timelines. In this way there will be a mapping between "where and when something happened plus an idea about the sorroundings". If one adds also "this territory was under control of X from this date to this date and then the control was reverted" it could be also helpful (although somewhat cluttered). Without mentioning that there is a template linked to the list. Last but not least, the motion was already discussed and users vote to keep the list and this new motion with the argument "IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." disqualify itself because it is not a compelling argument. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per reasons listed by User:Tartan357, User:WeifengYang, User:Dawsongfg, and User:Pier4r above. ...Also, I totally agree with User:Mzajac's comment that "This might be a more valid permanent encyclopedic resource if it listed the dates of occupation and liberation of each settlement rather than merely its latest known status." Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 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 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of State Procurement Officials[edit]

National Association of State Procurement Officials (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:NORG; no significant coverage about this organization from third-party sources. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground in popular culture[edit]

London Underground in popular culture (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 day, another terrible TVTropic list that violates oh take your pick from WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Also WP:V, given much of it is unreferenced. The list includes plenty of works in which the Underground plays a minor role (ex. the unreferenced claim that "The Good Shepherd (2006) and Atonement (2007) include scenes shot at Aldwych.") The only prose section is about legends, and we can consider merging it, but it's almost entirely referenced to rather unreliable looking website http://www.ghost-story.co.uk/index.php/haunted-houses/276-london-underground-ghosts-london-england so there's that. I am not not sure if anything can be rescued here for merger back to London_Underground#In_popular_culture, which is not much better, either. PS. My BEFORE did find sources like [15], and overall suggests that the topic is actually notable, but the article likely would need to be written from scratch, so WP:TNT applies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 13 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 Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh. Star Mississippi 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafazzul Haque Habiganji[edit]

Tafazzul Haque Habiganji (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 local political functionary who had never been elected to any public office. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 13 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. Slim consensus mixed creator conduct make this an easier call than would normally be from a language issue article. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waliur Rahman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Waliur Rahman (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 sources indicate the topic meets general notability guidelines. Or that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the posts he held is notable or automatic grounds for inclusion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Wow, he used terms like "opponents" and "conspiracy".Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:01, 18 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 Rotigotine. ✗plicit 14:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aderis Pharmaceuticals[edit]

Aderis Pharmaceuticals (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 General Notability. I've been looking at potential supporting material for this organisation, but have not found sufficient material, in particular content where the company is the primary focus, to support the General Notability guideline. It pains me, as I do prefer to keep organizations of all types in the encyclopedia, but I believe this article should be lain to rest. Thank you for reviewing and providing your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 13 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! 23:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Thomson (snooker player)[edit]

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

Despite the player having won several national amateur titles and having spells as a professional, my BEFORE search failed to uncover enough evidence that Thomson is notable enough for an article. He receives passing mentions in several news articles, and "Snooker: 147 But Scots kid Thomo wins measly pounds 75" (Daily Record, Feb 7, 2003) might contribute to notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Haven't been able to find anything outside of databases and routine match reports. No significant coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 13 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! 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shared Ground[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. No evidence of notability, pre- or post -renaming. No notable or important results, reliance on sources only to show failed elections, not notable or important stories (standing for election is what parties do, arm article should show more than this to comply with Wikipedia policies). Formerly nominated for deletion. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 13 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 05:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karanvir Singh[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The article relies exclusively on self-published or press release sources. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: do not think this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable person failing WP:N. Likely promotional page created by a single purpose editor. Jupitus Smart 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the article is deleted? There are proper citations and true facts recorded for the person. Enterpreneur wiki (talk) 04:35, 16 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. SNOW keep as well as explicitly withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scrat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I think WP:TNT applies here. The article was restored/poorly recreated. I don't think the 2 sources on its talk page passes its notability criteria either. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current article is pretty terribly sourced, but seems notable per WP:NEXIST. Mostly due to the ongoing legal battle with a fashion designer who claims she invented Scrat. There is a massive amount of coverage here and here. There's also an article here. Ultimately she gained the trademark of "Sqrat" but may not be likely to get the rights to the actual character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasoning. Not seeing the TNT grounds. Artw (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article just needs better/more sourcing. As the mascot of his animation studio, Scrat meets the notability guidelines for an article imo. --Aabicus (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, they did a farewell thing yesterday for Scrat, and it is definitely the end of the character, as he will never appear in another film anymore, with new sources now [16] [17]. So I made decision to withdraw this. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for clarity: The interview says that the IP will go "into the Disney library", so while it doesn't exactly look good for the Ice Age franchise, they did not outright say anything about Scrat being retired. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources discussed above seem sufficient. If the nom still thinks they are not, I'd welcome reading their critique of them. Right now, this looks more like a failure of BEFORE, or to say it frankly, a lazy nomination, with nom not dedicating sufficient time to find and/or critique said sources (hence, WP:TROUT may be needed). We do appreciate efforts to clean up fancruft, Cthulhu knows we have a ton of it left, but standards should be kept high.Since the nom withdrew, the rest of my comments are not necessary --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 14 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 The Rubyz#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection (The Rubyz album)[edit]

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

The one source given does not establish notability Ficaia (talk) 11:53, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Ficaia (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman Ediriweera[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Sri Lanka. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This a bad nom. The article says, with a reliable source cited: In a 14-year career, he played 113 first-class matches and 58 list A matches. If playing in 171 top-class matches isn't "evidence of notability", then what is? The article needs greater context, copyediting, linkage and expansion. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What an absolutely ridiculous nomination. The subject is easily notable, having made 171 appearances at the highest domestic level. The article needs expansion, not deletion. StickyWicket (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't find any good sources other than the paywalled database, so I don't see how this can be expanded. However, if someone can unearth more sources, I'll close as keep. Ficaia (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say you cannot find any other sources. I found two immediately and they are both reliable. One of them is the online version of the Wisden Almanack which is one of the most famous and most reputable publications in world sport. I've tidied the article up a bit, although I'd be happy for anyone more familiar with Sri Lankan cricket to check what I've done. More detailed coverage of the player will be in printed editions of Wisden and in published Sri Lankan sources. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:43, 13 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. Some claim to coverage existing but consensus is to delete with sources presented being rejected by other editors as being brief at best. Not a single source has been presented to show significant coverage let al9ne the multiple sources required by gng. Fenix down (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud El Banna[edit]

Mahmoud El Banna (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 don't demonstrate notability Ficaia (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, there is no presumption of notability for referees. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources could be used to improve the article? We require sources showing significant coverage to have an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: In this one he is praised for his decision making during a notable Casablanca derby in 2019; this one is about his selection to officiate at the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations, and this one about his appointment for an African match. All of those sources can be used in this article to improve his career section. Ben5218 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there was this notability guideline proposal for referees, which was strongly opposed, therefore there is no presumption of notability for football referees regardless of how many games or what games they officiated. They are required to pass WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies. 2020 Arab Club Champions Cup Final is a notable football match but that does not mean that the referee of that match automatically qualifies for a stand-alone article. El Banna needs to be notable on his own merits to qualify for an article and I can't find any evidence of that. If someone does find significant coverage in any language, please let me know. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily meets GNG with Arabic articles about him such as this and this. Can User:GiantSnowman review? Nfitz (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are significant coverage. Using Google Translate, both appear to be basic news piece which include a brief bio, that's it. GiantSnowman 07:53, 18 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 11:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prasun Chatterjee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. They have given some quotes and did some charity work during covid like many others. Nothing significant about it. Created by a blocked user. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:31, 13 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 11:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Levitan[edit]

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

Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. The American Academy in Rome hands out 30 Rome Prizes annually and it is simply "a study fellowship at the academy", so not a notable award. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 13 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 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Hamic[edit]

Shawna Hamic (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 only references are IMDb and her website. Also, much of the content is verbatim from her website and IMDb (which she wrote), so likely copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 13 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 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technofarm International[edit]

Technofarm International (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)

Has been completely unsourced for over a decade. A WP:BEFORE search does not return any sources; fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 13 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 merge to Seán Lemass. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemass era[edit]

Lemass era (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 text here could be moved to either economy of the Republic of Ireland and or Seán Lemass, so this could be considered a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. My reasoning in proposing not having it as a standalone article is that it seems to be relying on a single source for its description, in essence adapting a title used for a monograph into a general term for the period. I would know what someone meant by Lemass era, but it doesn't reach the level of a general term, such as Celtic Tiger. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom: Far too short for a stand alone article and better suited to either of the suggested articles. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or just redirect to Seán Lemass#4th Taoiseach (1959–1966). It is a valid search term, but better as a redirect to the period when he was Taoiseach. The section in the bio article is much longer than this one, though it is described as a main article to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this article needs expanding not merging or deletion. Such sn importart era in modern Irish history. Shame narrow minded editors can't see that. Spleodrach (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Ideally to the relevant section of the Seán Lemass article. Or, failing that, to History of the Republic of Ireland#Economic, political and social_history, 1945–1998. I suggest this because there is no indication that the term "Lemass era" is used broadly to describe this 7 year-period in Irish history. To the extent that such a period can or should be covered under its own title. A Google search, for example, returns just 2000 results for the term. The vast majority of these results being either mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or references to Brian Girvin's book of that title. I can find nothing to indicate that the term/topic has broad enough use to warrant its own article. And, if it did, I don't understand how such an article could cover the period - without such content/article being a WP:CFORK of other related articles. (If the topic of such a standalone article is the term, how would that not be a DICDEF stub? If the topic of a standalone article is the influence of Lemass's policies, then how would it not be a CFORK of the Lemass article content? And, if the topic of the standalone article is a "snapshot" of a 7-year period in Irish history, how would that not be a CFORK of related Irish history/economic-history articles? The title probably has some value as a redirect. But I see only problems leaving it as a CFORK article. (And, frankly, the SIGCOV guidelines do not justify having a standalone article regardless...) Feels like WP:NEO at least partially applies here (or would have back when article was created....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace in film and media[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator with rationale of "Absurd nomination, this a UNESCO world heritage site, dependent on filming and publicity for its survival. As was discussed on the talk page, listing filming on the site, would swamp the main page. Where are these ridiculous nominations coming from?" Creator states on their talk page "That was a page I created 12 years ago as a dump for all the dull information on the Blenheim Palace page when I re-wrote it" - accurately reflecting the unencyclopedic content of this article. Article violates WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any encyclopedic content should be in the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: stupid nomination: This is a time-wasting nomination. Of course, an important UNESCO World Heritage site needs a page to cover its innumerable appearances in film and literature. Otherwise, the main page would be swamped with trivia and adverts and no one would bother to read it. So far, the palace's appearance in some 33 films is listed, I could double that in a second if I felt so inclined, but I don't! Giano (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit that this content is 'trivia and adverts'? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't find sufficient cause for deletion. This palace is famous. The filmography and references meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not the greatest page in the world, but I don't like these spin-offs from the main article being picked off at afd. I don't see the policies quoted apply. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be spun off. Any relevant encyclopedic content should be kept at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much a minority view, with little support in policy. See WP:SUMMARY in particular. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example given at WP:SUMMARY is World War II. The biggest event of the 20th century. Not a landmark. Recent consensus has in fact been that landmarks do not need these kind of seperate, poor quality articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)... What is the point you are making that this is the THIRD time the article has been nominated, other than there are people who are pushing their preferences regardless of previous consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – By virtue of the length of the article on the house itself (6k+ words; per Wikipedia:Prosesize, I think), splitting off mentions of appearances in popular media seems justifiable, although I can imagine more succinct mentions being viable if the decision were to Merge. The articles on other equally photographed/video'd houses, in my experience, are far smaller (e.g. Syon House at 1.8k+ and Castle Howard at 1.5k+), where media mentions are listed with greater succinctness and equal lack of referencing to those here. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm suggesting. Any useful, encyclopedic content should be at the main article. A lot of this article is a load of crap. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely blown away by this argument. "We should keep poor quality, unencyclopedic nonsense on the project because of obsessive IPs". AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not actually what I, or others, have said. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally started your comment by stating that you did not disagree with me but that certain editors "obsessively" add inappropriate and irrelevant content so we should give them space to do so. I disagree with that part. I'm saying inappropriate and irrelevant content should be removed. We're an encyclopedia not a webhost for random trivia. I'm happy to watch the main article and encourage others to do so and remove inappropriate and irrelevant content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder - I’m not arguing over your misunderstanding/misconstruing what I, and others, have said. You’ve made your proposal, now let other editors add their views. Presently, your proposal is clearly not enjoying anything like majority support. KJP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the article about the palace. It's a fun list, but mainly too trivial for Wikipedia. But why delete it when someone might be able to salvage something from it? This topic has potential - let's make it painless for future editors to compose something about this.-
GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainly per Johnuniq. There are multiple sources discussing this topic. Also the main article is long and could readily be lengthened further; a split of this nature makes sense. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:06, 18 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Fog[edit]

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

There are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source.WP:SYNDICATED the whole article is cited from multiple sources and all the sources are syndicated from The Wire's investigative journalism article written by Wire's editors Ayushman Kaul and Devesh Kumar. there are no seperate, independent research by any other source on tek fogDdd421 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the nom, Ddd421 only joined Wikipedia on 6 April and since then has attempted to purge two articles (both with spurious rationale) about controversies relating to Modi's party (their first attempt being less than 10 minutes after their first edit). AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cooper School[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, no reliable, independent sources, only sources related to the school or district. Fram (talk) 07:27, 13 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 11:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic value (numismatics)[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because of its coatrack content that does with the effects of intrinsic value rather than the concept of intrinsic value itself, which is already addressed at pages such as Penny (United States coin) and Gresham's law. Whatever is left of the definition can either go to Wiktionary, or merged into the dab page Intrinsic value. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:02, 13 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! 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Papadopoulos[edit]

Larry Papadopoulos (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:NMMA. Could not find sources to verify he was an Australian jiu jitsu champion. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third source merely mentions Larry in 1 line and mentions he is a gym owner. Not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree fails WP:NMMA on basis of ranking. No RS for WP:GNG beyond NMMA. --Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has enough fights with Shooto to meet WP:NMMA. However, that only gives a presumption of notability. I don't see the coverage necessary to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No internet access for weeks, didn't realize sports SNGs had changed. Doesn't change my vote, however. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 19 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 Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open encyclopedia[edit]

Open encyclopedia (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 concept does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Yes, there's a blog post, and maybe some scholar papers that mention "open encyclopedia" when referring to Wikipedia, but I failed so far when looking for further coverage of open encyclopedia as a concept itself. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, not saying anything about the reference. @@@XyX talk 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being notable means passing the general notability guideline. Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? Which ones? MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic is mentioned in this research article, in several books (Google Books ngram), news and publications (example in several blogs). -- Avoinlähde (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Books ngrams are misleading. They detect the occurrence of both words together, even with punctuation in the middle. Many results are citations to the same article: Algowiki: an Open encyclopedia of parallel algorithmic features. We need actual, identifiable sources. It's not enough if they use the words "open encyclopedia". They should cover the concept of "open encyclopedia" significantly. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added mentions of other open encyclopedias alongside Wikipedia. Sure, the sources need to be improved, but Wikipedia just happens to be so popular and dominant that the term goes hand in hand with it. However, that does not detract from the importance of the topic. The article does not mention unreferenced information. --Avoinlähde (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. I agree with MarioGom that it isn't enough to find sources that happen to use this phrase: notability requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and a source that does nothing more than using the phrase is clearly not addressing the concept in detail. And in any event, even if the topic is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean that a standalone article is warranted, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The basic concept here – encyclopedias that consist of free/open content – is already covered at Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias, and there's no reason in this instance why content forking is needed: the main Encyclopedia article is not long enough to require splitting, and there are no content relevance issues. Since there's no content here that needs merging, the best solution is to redirect back to the main article as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Wikipedia might be an open encyclopedia, but it is not a dictionary (and this "article" is really a dictionary entry). Keep arguments are unconvincing, (an unsupported assertion of notability is not in the least a valid argument). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 13 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! 05:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenouism[edit]

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

This article on an "art movement" does not meet WP notability for WP:GNG. After reading the sourcing it is fairly clear it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It was created by one of the blocked sock puppets[22] of Amangpintor[23] which coincidentally happens to be the pen name of the artist Elito Circa who is the originator of the "movement". It was heavily edited by Amangpintor's other socks. A BEFORE search did not turn up anything to substantiate that this is in fact a notable art movement, and the article sourcing seems to be a patchwork of synthesis, primary sources and name checks. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 13 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! 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRN TV[edit]

TRN TV (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 believe this to be a hoax page. Nothing called TRN TV seems to exist in Germany, and if it ever did, it certainly never met the GNG.

This page is coming to AfD because there have been a bunch of malformed speedy and PROD attempts on it over the years:

  • 2009: An IP blanks the page on similar "does not exist" concerns, and another user PRODs it. The text is restored by another editor and deprodded.
  • 2011: A user tags it for G1 speedy deletion. The edits are reverted as vandalism.
  • 2017: The page is PRODded a second time, which is removed due to the prior failed PROD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no evidence of topic existence. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 02:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any evidence of topic; few mentions of "TRN TV" was unrelated to the TRN TV described in the article. - Roostery123 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never an actual thing, and I see several other accounts tried to call it out, but were ignored. Let's finally put the fork in it. Nate • (chatter) 14:59, 13 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! 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. McAdam[edit]

W. McAdam (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)

With WP:NFOOTY now deprecated/removed/whatever you want to call it, I have been unable to find any indication that this player meets WP:GNG. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article (which I wasn't able to find and review), but it appears to be book of statistics and records rather than prose commentary. Even if it were significant coverage of McAdam, a single source is insufficient on its own.

There is no list of Darwen FC players or article for the 1891-1892 season to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How did we ever have articles like this in the first place? Never likely to be anything other than the tiniest stub; no new sources giving more information ever likely to be found. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Delete. There is always the possibility that a book will be found which provides information about Darwen as a Football League club. It isn't surprising that the internet doesn't help in a case like this. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and we don't even appear to know their first name. The article has existed for almost 9 years without improvement, so I fail to see any point in moving it to draftspace- if people haven't improved it in 9 years, it's unlikely they'll do so in the next 6 months. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've changed my vote from draftify to delete. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player fails GNG, and we don't even know his first name! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 14 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 Nom withdrawn. Article is back in draftspace which was the goal Star Mississippi 02:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy Crisis[edit]

Literacy Crisis (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)

School project that is not ready for mainspace. @Ian (Wiki Ed) and Praxidicae: moved it to draftspace where @Liance: twice declined it. Creator is not willing to respect consensus that this isn't ready, so we're here. OR, essay like tone without a clear topic. There could be an article about literary crises, but this isn't it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 13 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! 01:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana–South Korea relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is not much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and South Korea. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notable relations between two nations. There are diplomatic relations but no embassies, trade agreements, or mutual defense treaties. According to the Korean Foreign Ministry, there was a total trade volume of US$36,833,000,[4] which is pretty insignificant for both countries. TartarTorte 15:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/3956118
  2. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/league-heads-up-on-wrestling-controversy/IZBR6JLVVRT54Z7JXYGTOYOZIQ/
  3. ^ https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/food-drink/food-2/the-city-of-sydney-al-fresco-dining-summer-streets
  4. ^ "Korea-Botswana Trade Summary". Retrieved 17 April 2022.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa[edit]

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 29 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! 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is an article about a federal institution in Nigeria. The article has improved from when it was created and currently. If it still doesn't meet the criteria, kindly move to draft for further editing. Thank you! Olugold (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007 Do you think strongly of a drafting? Your vote should probably be draftify, if so. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This can easily be stubbed. Meets inclusion criteria as an higher institution of learning. Being a school in the Islamic dominated far North even make it kindoff significant as an entity.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: it would help if those arguing to keep would cite a relevant policy so we could establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An article is about a federal government own institution which passess WP:GNG. Atibrarian (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Obviously this has passed the GNG criteria, a tertiary institution of learning by a federal government and it's not for profit organisation. User:Em-mustapha talk 22:38, 18 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! 01:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindware Studios[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Could not locate coverage online to establish notability outside of passing mentions. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not much can be said about a short-lived studio that made three non-significant games. -Vipz (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and only made 3 games. Gabe114 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick GSearch shows they had planned on releasing a new game in March 2021, not sure how notable that makes them, they still seem to be around. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a short profile on page 11 in the publication about creative industry published by subsidiary of the Czech Ministry of Culture. Independent reliable secondary source, but minor coverage.--Jklamo (talk) 13:48, 19 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! 01:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Games[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Could not locate any coverage online to indicate notability. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:48, 13 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_13&oldid=1084054272"