Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. Star Mississippi 02:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Abenojar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

claimed to be the first Filipino to summit Mount Everest, but no other sources exist for anything else. The article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed and larded with irrelevant and exaggerated content to the point that 95% of the sources are either WP:PRIMARY or not about him at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a desperate attempt to prove something which doesn't make him notable by our standards anyway. Delete--and what an atrocious article. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the revision history and it turns out I created this entry, but it doesn't seem like the content added over the years has improved the quality of the article at all. Currently, no third-party source could reliably corroborate the claims in the entry, so I'm inclined to agree with the proposal to just delete this. 5xG (talk) 02:20, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire departments of Morris County, New Jersey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and unclear how this meets WP:NLIST. Unable to find independent sources that have written about them as a group. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Jersey. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:OR. Article is almost all unreferenced, with the only sourcesoccurring anywhere in the article being photos regarding the 30th department that someone found on the internet. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR WP:OR list of WP:run of the mill info. Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-WP:NOTDIR, Irving to indicate notability of this particular list of departments.Jacona (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, WP:NOTDIR. Alex-h (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think WP:NOTDIR applies here, but I do think that the article simply fails WP:NLIST. If there were multiple works that covered Fire departments of Morris County as a group, then this might be notable, but I cannot find them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:39, 30 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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mekhis Qandakeba[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. I can't read Georgian, but did try searching for მეხის ქანდაკება, and couldn't find anything much. PepperBeast (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (country). PepperBeast (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also don't read Georgian but have a bit of experience searching for Georgian sources because of my Georgian gods articles...anyway, I didn't turn up anything either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahali Selepe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious singer. Lacks any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Religion, Africa, and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable sources to demonstrate notability. AmirŞah 13:22, 24 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Qetrani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Got a couple of media mentions as a leader of anti-Qaddafi military defectors, but I couldn't find anything beyond that. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Libya. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find more up-to-date information on him and could not. Basically this is a snapshot article from 10 years ago which does not give any good context on Qetrani before or since. The sourcing even 10 years ago does not distinguish him enough to justify an article, and we really need to be able to say what his current status is to justify having a BLP. He was a low level person in an insurgency that ousted the figure they were opposed to. Nothing suggesting he is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 25 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. Star Mississippi 13:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Fouls[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this band is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing at all to indicate this band ever went anywhere, no WP:RS, fails WP:NMUSIC. (That first album didn't go far, I guess.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:06, 24 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. WP:SNOW. Copying directly from a US Government source is lazy, but allowed. For future reference, the preferred venue for copyright concerns is WP:Copyright problems rather than AfD. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward D. Hays[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the US Legislature. However, the reason I nominated this article for deletion is not about his notability. Rather, it's about my concern about copyright violations. Currently, the article has only one reference, https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/H000403. When I opened it, parts of its text looked similar to the content on the Wikipedia article. After that, I decided to run some plagiarism checkers, which did not give me any useful results (Earwig's Copyvio Detector and Duplication Detector were supposed to be my best bet but were not working). Then, I came across this site, which also has text that looks similar to Wikipedia's article. Is it a WP:MIRROR though? Anyway, I decided to check the revision history of the article and saw that its first revision looks copied and paraphrased from its only source. In other words, there isn't a less-copyvio revision I could revert to. I would appreciate it if anyone (myself included) could find any unique sources. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment - LPS and MLP Fan, shoddy a practice as it is, copying a US government publication isn't a copyright violation. The copyed document is in the public domain. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bioguide.congress.gov is in the public domain because it is a work of the US federal government, so there are no copyright issues with copying from/paraphrasing it. I've added Template:Bioguide to make clear where the content came from. Famedborn.com is clearly a mirror: all of its content is taken from Wikipedia articles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has been pointed out, the original source is not copyrighted as a work of the US government. Sometime there simply aren't that many ways of repeating the same biographical information... Atchom (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of congress are default notable, full stop. I would like to see much better sourcing. I am convinced that there will be better sourcing from contenporary sources. He is by far and away clearly notable. All members of national legislature that we can verrify we keep articles on. The style here and the sourcing need improvement, but AfD is not for cleanup.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found this [1] which is a published obituary for him in the New York Times. It says he was "assistant attoney general". I am not sure if that was his exact title, or if this is a reference to what he did when serving in office. I am sure we can find published references to him, since he was twice elected to congress and served in congress for 4 years. His being mayor of Jackson, Missouri, a city then of about 2,000 or a little less might not be much, but that is the county seat of Cape Girardeau County. We might be able to dig up some sources on his career even before he was elected to congress. I have improved the article a little, but it still needs a lot more. For example I can see the New York Times obituary exists, but I do not have access to it. Here [2] is the political graveyard link, but it may just be based on the congressional bio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to make it more readable. I moved from 1 paragraph after the opening to 4. I added some links, and made it more clear that Hays' moves until he went to congress all amounted to moving within the same county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NPOL. Sourcing can (easily) be improved. KidAd • SPEAK 19:16, 25 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. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature films based on cartoons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to apply. It's a long list of films barely related to each other so doesn't seem useful Indagate (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:IINFO and User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of data that also inappropriately mixes comic strips, animated cartoons, and possibly webcomics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this version of the article terrible, absolutely yes (but I think that about most list articles). Can anyone suggest a way to cut it down to a more discriminating shorter list? WP:PRESERVE. -- 109.78.199.198 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no fan of list articles (especially poorly sourced indiscriminate ones) but I'm very disappointed that no one is even wiling to suggest any possible way to salvage this list article. It may be an ugly mess but good faith effort has gone into it. Is there really no way to cut this list down into a shorter more coherent page that might actually be useful? -- 109.79.175.77 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Don't think there is anything salvageable, lot of references to IMDb so shouldn't be used, other information should be at the individual articles
  
  You can copy to draft or, if you create an account, copy to sandbox so can edit if deleted and try and salvage Indagate (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If it is not salvageable, then making it a draft is a moot point. I will take this experience as a warning against editing list articles in future. -- 109.79.175.77 (talk) 22:47, 28 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, without prejudice against restoration to draft if requested. Perhaps an article can be written on the subject, but the consensus here is that this is not it. BD2412 T 05:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes in animation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Superheroes have been in animated works, but no sources seem to discuss the overall topic of "superheroes in animation". The only sources cited are two reviews of individual shows that do not discuss the greater topic as a whole. The article is full of WP:OR by suggesting that action based cartoons like Biker Mice from Mars are "superheroes". Would suggest a merge to List of superhero television series, but every sentence of this has been unsourced since 2009. If there is a coherent topic here, then WP:TNT is the better solution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, content is entirely unsourced OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and History. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a good page of treatment on the subject as a whole in the The encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television. There is also quite an amount of scholarly treatment of individual aspects of the topic, like this. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. I think there are sources to support a decent article, such as this one, but a decent article wouldn't look anything like what currently exists. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 25 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 Reddit#Other features. Star Mississippi 02:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit Public Access Network[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subsection of Reddit. Sources are Reddit itself or do not discuss the topic. Prod declined with suggestion to merge, but I see no content worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the prod. I believe a short paragraph at Reddit#Other features would be in line with the existing content there. Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has no independent notability beyond being a part of Reddit. As mentioned above, something on the parent page should be fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reddit#Other features, a small mention should be enough. Gabe114 (talk) 14:19, 29 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 Chris Wade (writer). MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson and Fogg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the page for a musical project. While it has had several well-known guest musicians, and has produced a prolific catalogue of music, it doesn't seem to have garnered any media coverage beyond a handful of reviews in minor publications and the occasional play on specialist music shows. I can't find anything that would satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND. As an AtD, the page could conceivably be redirected to the page for its founder member Chris Wade (writer), although that page also has questionable notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chris Wade (writer); the band gets a lot of mentions, along the lines of "Chris Wade's eclectic music project" and so forth, but nothing independent seems to be out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per TF (above) and ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezina LeBlanc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very heavy on WP:REFBOMB and WP:PEACOCK. Current sources are passing mentions. Previously deleted in 2008 so ineligible for prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Radio, and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to pull it now in case it helps anyone find sources during this AfD, but if this is closed as "keep" someone should go and nuke the "music" section for being long-term unsourced info in a BLP. The "radio" section looks like copyvio too. -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a list of mostly non-notable court cases. Too irrelevant to bother with a merge. There is no precedent of such a list, as it violates WP:IINFO Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, problematic, because as TenPoundHammer comments, there is no precedent. But the issues are (1) getting involved in litigation is a major purpose of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which is notable and has an article), and (2) 75 of these cases have been deemed notable enough to have their own articles, but (3) the current list is misleading because on my cursory check of some items in the list, often the EFF isn't mentioned as "involved" in any formal sense, it's just expressed an opinion on the case.

The nearest analogy I can think of is a film actor, whose output is films. We would normally list their films, either on the main article about the actor, if there are not too many, or we'd break out onto a separate list if the list becomes too long (e.g. Patrick_Stewart_on_stage_and_screen). Because the current list is malformed and over-inclusive, my feeling is delete the list, and merge very selectively any genuine cases in which the EFF played an active role into a sort of "caseography" section added to Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. There is no point in listing every case in which they've been "involved" in the sense of issuing some statement or having an opinion, because it's their job to have an opinion on every such case. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Enough blue links to make it a valid list. Is every single litigation involving them notable enough to put on the list? Every major litigation would surely have coverage somewhere, especially if a big company was involved. Do we list every single litigation anyone has? I see Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, Open source license litigation, and Apple Inc. litigation exist. If the cases are notable enough to have their own articles, links to them and a brief mention of them could be done on the main article. Dream Focus 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't had time to look into it much, but I should note that at least some of the blue-linked articles are really only pointing to sections of other articles, because the lawsuit itself isn't sufficiently notable (e.g. Marvel v. NCSoft). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and confirmed some have their own articles for a case, and erased some that linked to articles that didn't mention them at all. Dream Focus 21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TenPoundHammer kindly notified me of this discussion. I have no memory of starting this page (12 years ago!) and don't think this should be an independent page given the standards of wikipedia today, but I suspect many of the cases listed are notable and should be incorporated to the main article for the EFF if appropriate. AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with the assessment of Dream Focus. The article is currently in a shabby state, but at its core I think it has a valid topic for a standalone list (or at least a section of Electronic Frontier Foundation). I think it would be much improved with the addition of some prose for each entry, summarizing the case, and the EFF's role. Also, some secondary sourcing would be good (and it seems like plenty exists), and perhaps a little more scrutiny as to whether all these red linked cases are actually likely to be notable. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NLIST says, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this list could be developed, perhaps with IRAC-style paragraphs for the cases, including ones without sufficient sources to warrant a standalone article. There are also already about 73 blue links in the article by my quick count, which seems like a lot to incorporate into the article. WP:NLIST also says, Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, and as a group, for example, in 2006, the EFF is described by the San Francisco Chronicle as having "gone to court for hackers, programmers, inventors, challengers to patent and copyright restrictions -- for the most part, the gadflies and small fry of the computer age, confronting barriers built by government and, increasingly, by private industry", and in 2013, the EFF is described in The New York Times as "a longstanding civil liberties group that focuses on rights in the online world." The list therefore seems notable and appears to have informational, navigation, and development purposes. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep The list is in questionable shape, but there is precedent for this with List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union. The EFF isn't as high profile as the ACLU. But we also have a comparable list for List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom, which I think still meets our bare minimum standards of notability. I take the opinion of the article creator AlasdairEdits under advisement and think that a merge could be the best path to improving this article. But otherwise, the article should be drastically rewritten and cleaned up as described by Beccaynr, with very little to WP:PRESERVE except the blue links. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn per addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Only one review cited. Deprodded with a second "review", but perusal of that article finds it to be an editorial that talks about the book for two sentences and then wanders completely off topic for the rest of the page.

I found several sources that say "Pamela Des Barres, author of the best selling memoir I'm with the Band, did blah blah blah", but nothing about the book itself. It's just parenthetically mentioned to big her up every time an article about her is written. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In a rush, so going the "ProQuest returns" route for now—but ProQuest returns 527 hits. It was widely reviewed on release. Often considered a rock book classic; Five Books called it one of "The best books on Rock and Roll". Most recently, Kelefa Sanneh's Major Labels wrote about it. Caro7200 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the sources exist doesn't magically put them in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the outcome, I moved the article to I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, which is the full title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBOOK. I've added refs for multiple reviews, both for its initial release and for its reissue decades later. I also added refs for multiple adaptation attempts. Please see current state of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 23 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. Star Mississippi 02:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk books[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inappropriate use of a disambiguation page. Even as a mere list of books about a topic, there's no precedent under Category:Lists of books. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambiguation does not work that way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a category, there are now multiple books that has written about him. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are only three books there, no need for extra disambigs or categories. Artem.G (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be a category, not a Wikipedia page.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. This is a page that asks users to consider several books, which unambiguously sounds like Wikipedia making book recommendations. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle as Bibliography of Elon Musk; we have a whole category Category:Bibliographies of people. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 30 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. Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula Damith Siripala[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not demonstrate WP:GNG and I was unable to find any significant coverage in a Google search and got absolutely nothing from Google News and ProQuest. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.dailynews.lk/2021/05/04/sports/248238/nalandian-anuja-played-sri-lanka-distinction	Mentioned once	✘ No
http://archives.dailynews.lk/2001/pix/PrintPage.asp?REF=/2008/04/29/spo03.asp	Mentioned in passing twice	✘ No
https://atkinsonrugby.com.au/teams-atkinson-past-players.php	No info about him	✘ No
http://www.srilankarugby.lk/Articles/View/2563	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/001022/sportsm.html	Mentioned once in passing in reference to an U21 game	✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/75509690/sri-lanka-cricket-supporters-finally-get-reason-to-cheer-at-nelsons-saxton-oval	Mentioned only once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , fails the requirements of WP:NRUGBY. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. No suitable WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 17:14, 26 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 no consensus as to whether to keep or merge. With no one else arguing for deletion, this conversation does not need to be atAfD and can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 02:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another textbook example of "X in popular culture" being used to mean "literally any work of fiction that name-dropped this". Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Examples like "a gay man is brutally murdered in a way that mirrors Matthew Shepard's death" and "Shepard's manner of death is mentioned in United States of Tara, when Marshall is cautioned about his relationship with another character" are entirely subjective Most of the examples are not cited and do not stand on their own. The few that do are already sufficiently mentioned in their own articles and/or that of Matthew Shepard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Popular culture, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_23#Category:Songs_in_memory_of_Matthew_Shepard
Keep, this list contains mostly substantial and justifiable entries, and is long enough to remain spun out from the main article Matthew Shepard. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are they "substantial" though? 99% of them are unsourced. And I just pointed out a few that have nothing to do with Matthew Shepard whatsoever and are just people claiming that it's "similar" to his situation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this can be dealt with mostly by cleaning the article and removing anything that cannot be sourced. This should be limited to only those works that were about Shepard or where he was clearly indicated to have been an inspiration. For example, if we can find a RS where Tori Amos states that the song "Merman" is about or heavily inspired by Shepard - or that she changed it to honor him akin to "Candle in the Wind", it should be included. If it's just that she dedicated it to him, then that's not something to include since there were likely many singers who dedicated performances to Shepard, as they rightfully should. We can also help find sourcing - I started with the book section since some only have a single source and I'm finding that there's many that do appear to be quite notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Shepard himself, and probably limit to what is actually sourced. I see no good reason to split this off as a seperate article from the article on Shepard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though cleanup is needed. Tenpoundhammer already removed some of the more major issues mentioned. There are enough rigorously verifiable cultural depictions in the article now to justify a keep, and more still to be summarized. I would support a heavy trim of the TV and Music sections, which appear largely unsourced and unexplained. But, part of Shepard's notability is his ongoing inspiration of a vast amount of art. More than twenty years later, this legacy is receiving ongoing coverage in reliable sources.
This article is a list by another name, and the list's grouping is covered extensively by reliable sources.
- Casper Star Tribune (pt. 2) lists numerous works of art, summarized with "Artists have used theater, paintings, scultpure, film, books, poetry, music and even teddy bears to examine Shepard's story."
- Duluth News Tribune: "so much art"; goes on to list some
- Wyoming Public Media: "Shepard's death compelled a lot of artists to respond in unique ways over the past twenty years. There are countless paintings, musical interpretations, poems, and theatre." It goes on to list many, including a passing mention of the Six Feet Under episode TPH removed (not enough to truly verify, though)
- WBUR lists a few, saying Shepard "inspired an outpouring of responses from artists over the past 19 years"
- Global News: "His story also spawned several plays and films — including the acclaimed The Laramie Project and the made-in-Toronto TV movie The Matthew Shepard Story — and inspired songs by artists like Elton John and Melissa Etheridge." The piece goes on to discuss the documentary Matt Shepard is a Friend of Mine.
Much of the unverified content I spot-checked is verifiable, and I wasn't looking at the works that seem obviously connected, with Shepard's name or Laramie in the title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (do not delete), at least some of the content is worthwhile keeping, which parts exactly is up to editorial discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 30 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. Star Mississippi 02:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Turpo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article says he "is a Peruvian world-renowned artist in still life art since 1970 and one of the leading plastic artists in Peru", but I can't verify any of that. I can't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Peru. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. There are no references in the article and I can't find anything online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like WP:RESUME. Peacocking present as well. Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. A google search did not turn up anything of additional substance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC.

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. I contemplated a relist, but given the language issues I think that's just kicking the can another week. Star Mississippi 13:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Nguyen-Kuok[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No actual source and potential COI/autobio. Fails to meet WP:PROF I think. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GoogleScholar gives little of relevance, with h-index of about 1. The article is entirely unreferenced and appears to be an autobiography. Note that the subject's name in Vietnamese is specified in the article as Nguyễn Quốc Sỹ, and the article was created by an SPA User:Nguyễn Quốc Sỹ. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 26 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. ✗plicit 07:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Shalant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find anything like significant coverage. Non-notable childrens' author. PepperBeast (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. PepperBeast (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regards notability, I added a list of five awards she has received for her work as well as a citation to a 2000 interview in the New York Times.

She has well over a dozen publications, not all of them cited in the article.

She certainly is notable as a New York writer of pedagogical books.

The definition of notability can include success of a local writer with national publications and doesn’t necessarily require that one be the most notable in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botendaddy (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like a clear WP:NAUTHOR pass based on reviews (listed here [3]). Haven't checked them myself, so not voting keep (yet). Article really needs cleanup or stubification though. -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. At least 6 of her books earned Kirkus reviews[4] and I found another 5 reviews on PW[5]. Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR#3. pburka (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WorldCat lists 19 published books by this author, dating as far back as 1991. Her book publishers include Puffin Books, Dutton Children's Books, Julian Messner, and Braille International. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While merely publishing books is not sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR, I think that the PW and Kirkus reviews do meet the requirements WP:NAUTHOR. Given the age of much of the work, it is likely that other reviews exist that have not been uncovered. The NYTimes interview [6] further supports. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews of her books establish notability as informed by WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Wikipedia Library includes: five reviews in School Library Journal (for The Society of Super Secret Heroes, Bartleby of the Big Bad Bayou, When Pirates Came to Brooklyn, The Rock Star, the Rooster, and Me, the Reporter, and Shalom, Geneva Peace), a brief biography in The Writers Directory (2018, via Gale), a review in Booklist and Multicultural Review for When Pirates Came to Brooklyn, reviews in Book Report of Shalom, Geneva Peace and The Great Eye, a review in Library Talk of Bartleby of the Mighty Mississippi, an interview with some independent content: "For a Book, Going Where the Turtles Are" (NYT, 2000, via Gale), and Booklist reviews for Bartleby of the Big Bad Bayou (via Gale) and The Society of Secret Super-Heroes (via Gale). ProQuest offers additional sources, including reviews from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. WP:AUTHOR#3 appears well-supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:13, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the People (2005 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a BEFORE to meets the notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': If all else fails, this could be merged and redirected to the page for the first film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article and this article (Rejected ‘By the People’!) talk about the film's failure. This article talks about the band who made the film's soundtrack. This article and this article also briefly cover the film's production. DareshMohan (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has been expanded well enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient sources are available for it to meet WP:NFILM. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:07, 25 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) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhra Gupta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass general notability guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and India. DMySon (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of online sources exist, and she seems quite notable - a noted and veteran film critic, recently an author of a notable book (I see quite a few book reviews by major publications), who has won a Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for her film criticism. It's no mean achievement. Sources exist, they just need to be added. I suggest that someone be bold and expand it, I would if I had more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source Analysis:

1. Indianexpress: a biography profile which is not independent of the subject, hence failed WP:GNG.
2. thereviewmonk: a self published biography profile on a non reliable website which is not meeting WP:SIGCOV.
3. harpercollins.co.in: Again a bio profile which is not independent of the subject and does not pass WP:GNG.
4. fipresci: a self published bio profile not independent of the subject failed WP:SIGCOV.
DMySon (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, her having recieved an RNG Award; also per WP:CREATIVE as she is frequently refered to and quoted for film industry related topics (see for example Foreign Policy, The Hindu, Financial Times, etc) and her works subject to significant critical attention (see Outlook, etc). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreignpolicy: Just a passing mention, but we can think to consider this.
thehindu: No in-depth coverage, just a passing mention.
ft: Couldn't check due to It's paid subscription, if anyone having its paid subscription, please let us know.
DMySon (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can view a different FT article on ProQuest, where she is quoted for her expertise: "Hindu nationalists take aim at Bollywood" (Oct 17, 2020, e.g. discussing the BJP and Bollywood, "...said Shubhra Gupta, author of 50 Films that Changed Bollywood.") I'm not able to view the Foreign Policy article, but The Hindu seems like more than a passing mention because it is a paragraph about her, in the context of the commentary of the larger article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - I updated the article to add two book reviews and two interviews with some independent content, and verification of her appointment to the Central Board of Film Certification. I have found research challenging because on both GNews and ProQuest, results are flooded with hits to her own work as a critic. However, she is quoted as an expert in a variety of sources and has received critical attention for her work, including in the notable award, so WP:BASIC notability as a film critic appears to be sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. She is an award-winning film critic who is frequently cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and Tayi Arajakate. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collin D'Cunha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and hence fails WP:GNG. I have even doubt while the topic is meeting WP:FILMMAKER. DMySon (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. DMySon (talk) 12:30, 23 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 it isn't notable, and there isn't consensus on a redirect target. Star Mississippi 12:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos cloud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable — a bit of email spam that went around enough to get Snopes and one blog to write something about it, and was used as padding in a book “this year in astronomy” (see talk page). No lasting influence, no significant coverage, nothing to say about it beyond what Snopes did. JBL (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to go to the talk page to read what I said – here it is again. This hoax is covered in at least one book source [7] and Plait returned to the subject in 2014 [8] just before it was due to hit, thus showing that it had lasting notability for at least a decade. SpinningSpark 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just got a brief bit of trivial coverage and anything after the fact is just regurgitating the same coverage again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can suggest a viable redirect target, as there might barely be enough to merit a line somewhere (including the so-called "chaos cloud"). XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: Phil Plait? SpinningSpark 09:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plait has written about a whole lot of nonsense over the years; skeptical coverage of astronomical pseudoscience has been his thing since the '90s. This doesn't seem WP:DUE in his biography. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 24 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. Star Mississippi 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Sikeston, Missouri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local politician statcruft/listcruft Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Over 47 references are not enough? Durindaljb (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article to be kept, you have to adequately explain why. Have you read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions? I also think you should look at WP:IWORKEDSOHARD, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:LONGTIME. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Durindaljb: I get that must be quite disappointing. Perhaps some of the sourced information could be merged to Sikeston, Missouri? AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Weak Merge Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. These people aren't notable enough to have articles about them. However, I think that information about some of the mayors could be merged to Sikeston, Missouri along with the appropriate references. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an indiscrminate listing of information. Not every place that has had mayors needs a list article for all mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty severe misunderstanding of how WP:LISTN is meant to be applied -- look at the second entry at WP:CSC. Every entry failing notability is a reason to have a list, not a reason not to have one. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help people find Wikipedia articles. To be fair, a list doesn't necessarily always have to be completely bluelinked entries — in a closed-ended and finite list, such as a list of mayors of a place, there is value in the list being complete even if not everybody in it actually has an article to link to — but a list does always still need to have at least some bluelinked entries in it to be justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 29 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 there isn't coverage of these mayors Star Mississippi 03:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Jackson, Missouri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of a series of statcruft for mostly non-notable local politicians. Dronebogus (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Durindaljb (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This place is miniscually small. There is no expectation that the mayor would be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's at least one reliable book that actually covers the mayors of Jackson County, Missouri as if they are one coherent topic (The History of Jackson County, Missouri (1881)), but the County is not the city of Jackson (they are on opposite sides of the state). This indicates that the sourcing to justify WP:NLIST might exist if it's a sizeable city and it makes me somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger on delete because I suspect that there's some newspaper articles or books that might give a history of the mayors. But, I'm not able to find them, and neither are the people above, so deletion seems like the policy-compliant outcome. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:50, 30 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. Star Mississippi 03:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is utter trivia. Can you see someone putting this "accomplishment" on their resume? What's next, List of actors who have appeared in multiple movies with Best Actor Academy Award winners? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, unless someone finds multiple reliable sources saying this is a “culturally noteworthy intersection”. On top of that the vast majority of them are simply actors who happened to appear in two best pictures, which is almost comically WP:INDISCRIMINATE statcruft. I expected this might be controversial because it’s the third nomination but the first is from way back in 2013 and the second has only three votes with arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ITSINTERESTING. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure trivia, not a notable intersection of facts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and WP:NOTINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the topic of the list represents a notable topic outside of Wikipedia. The "List of foo that also bar" type topics are rarely notable as a list, even if "foo" and "bar" are both notable things. This fits that kind of random intersection of topics, and violates WP:IINFO for that reason. --Jayron 32 13:54, 27 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 10:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female movie actors by name[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see the rationale for this list's component sublists, and therefore this page. It's hopelessly incomplete because there are a lot of actresses in the 100+ year history of cinema, so a violation of WP:SALAT, i.e. "lists that are too general or too broad in scope". Also it adds nothing that a category wouldn't provide other than years. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick perusal, it also appears that only actresses who appeared in English-language films are currently included. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though just the index article is nominated, it the nominator planning to nominate the following as well?

List of female movie actors by name: A

List of female movie actors by name: B

List of female movie actors by name: C

List of female movie actors by name: D

List of female movie actors by name: E–F

List of female movie actors by name: G

List of female movie actors by name: H–I

List of female movie actors by name: J–K

List of female movie actors by name: L

List of female movie actors by name: M

List of female movie actors by name: N–O

List of female movie actors by name: P–Q

List of female movie actors by name: R

List of female movie actors by name: S

List of female movie actors by name: T–V

List of female movie actors by name: W–Z. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were supposed to infer the sublists are included in the nomination (so I wouldn't have to go and manually add them). But I guess I have to. [Sigh] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wildly overbroad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect everything to lists of actresses since we do have cross-categorization lists, though this particular set of lists violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as not being "a culturally significant phenomenon". Would prefer not to delete so these articles' page history could be reviewed to see if any of these names could be added to other lists at some point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Hopelessly overbroad list that duplicates Lists of actresses and is not a plausible redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and WP:NOTINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My delete !vote includes the list provided by Ajf773. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate of Category:Film actresses. When the list is this long and there is little supplementary context, this is NOT what WP:CLT recommends. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the set as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and redirect just List of female movie actors by name to Lists of actresses. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all letter lists. Redirect List of female movie actors by name. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CLT. I'm not against lists but for this one the bar is too low and there is virtually no data beyond names. gidonb (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator and to summarise my earlier comments about bundling all the alphabetised sub-articles in the nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have various categories like Category:American film actresses, etc. At this level lists are not really maintanable, and splitting by nationality makes it easier to find what you are looking for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category works better for this purpose, as compared to a lengthy list that constantly requires updating. Scope too broad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a reason List of female movie actors by name: G isn't tagged? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I reversed the copy/paste parts. Fixed now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete functionally identical to a category, no reason to also exist as a list article (or set thereof). --Jayron 32 13:55, 27 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 10:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cemalettin Taşkıran[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NO evidence of notability. Refs show that he has authored some books in his speciality but no interdependent and reliable refs. Searches reveal little better ,although there may be better Turkish language sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG.--Vaco98 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I actually discovered this article a while ago and tried to fix it, but I don't think it can be improved. Asparagusus (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to attract any inherent notability (eg WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR), and while he appears to have published several books I can't find RS reviews of any (which will certainly be influenced by most presumably being in Turkish). I would be inclined to delete. Cabrils (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think I PROD this particular page before the tag was removed. It should be deleted per the nomination. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 05:36, 30 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 List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Andrew[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, made just 6 appearances in cricket matches 200 years ago, nothing else is known Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). I can't find anything else here, although I seem to recall there are Sussex sources from the earlyish 19th century - but I don't have access. The redirect can always be switched back if sources do appear. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we know nothing about him more than what can be put in a sports table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) The subject obviously played a few matches a while back, and while finding sources from this period can be tricky, it seems likely that he probably doesn't pass GNG. Redirect is an obvious WP:ATD in this situation as BST says, as if something of GNG not does come up, it can be switched back. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) per BST and RF22. Could be nothing more than a name on six scorecards and do we know if the six matches were all first-class? The fact that he lived 200 years ago is completely irrelevant but it does highlight the likelihood that sources will not easily be found. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 22:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above, retaining categories. It has to be said, whether a cricketer played yesterday or 200 years ago is completely irrelevant. StickyWicket (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and their name is too common for a redirect to be suitable here - Charlie Andrew, officially Charles Andrew, exists, as do notable individuals with similar names, such as Charles Andrews, Charles Andrew Whitney, Charles Andrew MacGillivary, Charles Andrew Bothwell, Charles Andrew Bruce, Charles Andrew Muecke, Charles Andrew Myers, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a need for a dab then Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to making this a dab page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy for this to be converted to a DAB page, with a link to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) on there for this person. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Permastub that fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simple failure of any WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per BST, and per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 23 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nicole Sauvain-Weisskopf[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of lasting notability for this murder. No legislation came out of it, nor any indication it will. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCRIME. The event has been covered by multiple sources and is not just a routine crime (after all, it is a murder). It has also gained significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, including the BBC, AP News, and the Bangkok Post. Also, notability is not temporary. Once an event has gained significant coverage, it is notable. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A1C1:3A98:A9E5:AD32 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a strong article at present but meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Therefore, I put aside my prejudice to delete this crappily written article and recommend keep. Regarding the nom, there is no such thing as WP:CRIMEnoLEGISLATION as a policy for deleting crime articles that did not result in new legislation. Charliestalnaker (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT - my search for sources to help improve this article indicates no WP:LASTING effects, nor "a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group". There does not appear to have been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. WP:NCRIME refers to these guidelines, which do not appear supported by reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIME. Per sourcing. Article needs work indeed, but Afd is not a clean up service.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BabbaQ, I am hoping that you (or any participant in this discussion) could more specifically explain which sources, per the guidelines referenced in WP:NCRIME, could improve this article. Is there WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, with further analysis or discussion, or WP:INDEPTH coverage that puts events into context, or per WP:GEOSCOPE, sources demonstrating a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group, or per WP:LASTING, any sources that may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the case's potential impact on tourism in Prachachat Business[9] and BBC Thai[10]. The latter also includes an overview of tourist murders in Thailand. The article has been updated since the start of this AfD with information and a reference on the court verdict in March 2022. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC Thai article is published on August 6, 2021, (translated: "More than 24 hours have passed since the body was found."), and focuses on the details of the discovery of the body. This is not continued coverage and does not assess lasting or larger impacts. Including an overview of other tourist murders is not WP:INDEPTH per WP:NCRIME, because Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. The Prachachat Business article is published on August 7, 2021 and is focused on potential impacts on tourism, including if police do not solve the case, but does not demonstrate that there were impacts, also noting (translated) "The current spread of COVID-19 In Thailand with a large number of infected people It is a problem and obstacle that foreign tourists are reluctant to travel to Thailand." Beccaynr (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need consensus of whether WP:NCRIME applies and whether there's a lasting effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely covers WP:NCRIME. Sources presented are good. Lasting coverage per sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 23 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. Star Mississippi 13:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Jani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the five sources currently cited, two are from IMDB, two are primary, and the last appears to be a list, not of which contribute to notability. He has only dubbed three films and has worked on four TV shows, which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near meeting the threshold for actors. I could not find any reliable sources covering him. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches (in multiple languages) didn't find any significant coverage of Jani in independent reliable sources. He thus fails the GNG, and I don't see any indication that any other relevant notability guideline is met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sajjad is prominent actor in Pakistan and I see many of the sources and TV shows and dubbed movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.170.179.241 (talk) 08:30, 30 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 10:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khowailed Ayyadah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No professional appearances to date so would have failed under the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Arabic searches in Google News, Google and DDG yield nothing of note so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. I've also checked all of the foreign language Wikipedia articles and can't see any indications of notability there either. Given that the article has lasted such a long time across multiple versions of Wikipedia, I believe that there must be some reason for the article but I can't find anything so sending to AfD to get proper consensus on this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, fails GNG. Giant Snowman 08:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources for GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Similar to nom, I'm unable to find any sourcing that would indicate a WP:GNG pass, with the large caveat that I'm not as experienced/skillful in searching for non-English sources. GauchoDude (talk) 12:33, 25 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 World Flying Disc Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. "Nob" Rauch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a mess, starting from the unclear issue of whether this article covers one person or is a mix of biographies of two (a financial executive and a ultimate frisbee player). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. References are mostly press releases, the BBC piece doesn't seem to mention him, and the best we have are the passing mentions in a New Yorker piece. His biggest award, as reported, is the Ulimate Frisbee Hall of Fame inclusion: [11] but that doesn't seem sufficient IMHO for NBIO criteria of a major award/recognition. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Flying Disc Federation. Rauch's career in finance seems to have received hardly any coverage in reliable sources at all, so his only real claim to notability is his involvement in flying-disk-related sports. Since WP:NSPORTS doesn't cover this field, we're left with the GNG/WP:NBIO. My searches found many articles in which reliable sources quoted Rauch or mentioned him in passing, but they do not "address[] the topic directly and in detail". The best I could find was [12], which is of uncertain reliability and, in any event, does not discuss Rauch in enough depth to contribute to notability. A redirect seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion; there are several possible targets, but World Flying Disc Federation, where he's mentioned, strikes me as the best one since sources commonly refer to him as "Robert Rauch, the president of the WFDF", or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient sources to establish notability, but no objection to redirect to World Flying Disc Federation. Springnuts (talk) 08:42, 23 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 no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route of Che[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not seem to be an independently notable topic, rather it's what tour companies call a tour. No significant secondary coverage notability. There is some coverage of the "Che Guevara trail," but again, mostly in tourist brochures with no WP:SIGCOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have this article. Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in Spanish looks like it has more sources, ex. this BBC article in Spanish. Also found this article in the Times of India, this mention in Al Jazeera, this article in a Cuban news outlet, etc. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:C938:885A:6D94:2D9E (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Spanish version of the article is 100 times better -- more informative, more interesting, better illustrated. If someone had the energy to translate it into English (I don't, not at this moment, anyway) it could be a useful article. At the moment it's fit only for the garbage bin. Nonetheless, I have a question for more experienced editors: suppose I find the time and energy to make a new article heavily based (>90%) on the Spanish article, how should I acknowledge that? Do copyright problems arise? Athel cb (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's covered in Help:Translation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Athel cb (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off deletion for the moment. On thinking about it I recognize that my main reason for not wanting to put this into English immediately was laziness. I hope to start on this tomorrow (it will make a change from endless revision of the entries in the List of biologists). If nothing useful emerges before the end of April feel free to delete the article. Athel cb (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I have now rewritten the English article on the basis of the Spanish version, so I'm changing my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely happy with it — too much emphasis on tourism and not enough on the events and the people involved. Nonetheless, I think it is now improved to the point where it doesn't need deletion, and I hope others agree. I expect I'll do more work on it. Athel cb (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally deleted the Afd tag, which Praxidicae has restored. Sorry, that wasn't intentional. Athel cb (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: the !vote following the nomination provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, and the article received a rewrite based upon the Spanish Wikipedia article (diff) during the course of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG - RS include the BBC for goodness' sake! Springnuts (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article never uses the word "route", the Times of India prefer is a single paragraph, one source is a link to a jpg that doesn't work. Another source is just a travel guide. The last source uses the word "route" the times, and never says theroute of Che. Not sure that really meets GNG. Not to mention there's no inline citations, so there's no knowing what's sourced and what's OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's coverage analysis above. The current tone and organisation of the article are more appropriate for Wikivoyage. Joofjoof (talk) 10:18, 29 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. Star Mississippi 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Robotics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

End-to-end WP:PROMO. Improperly sourced, lacks WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, from start to finish, this is purely promotional - WP:PROMO. I checked to see if this was an SPA. Drat, the editor has contributed to Tooth fairy ! --Whiteguru (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a portion of this that you think I should remove, please let me know. The company is legitimate. Bschoenb (talk) 15:23, 25 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!} 04:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Born (rapper)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER; current sources are either not significant or not reliable, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't find any. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a better source. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Kpg jhp jm 05:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he did chart, it was only for one week and he completely disappeared. Charting is not an ironclad guarantee of passing WP:BAND if no BLP sources exist, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 23 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carroll (Irish musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Has worked with several musicians but is not notable on his own. Including his two bands and their albums, both tagged for notability for years. Searches on GNews turned up nothing for "Adam Carroll" + "Time Is a Thief" or "Adam Carroll" + "Zoax". All sources cited in all of these articles are WP:PRIMARY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and Ireland. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The Zoax album had a couple reviews cited, but most of them seem to be from unreliable music blogs that publish user-submitted content and/or were 404. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 23 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 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Stooges in popular culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another "X in popular culture" that conists of a list of random references to the work. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT, WP:V. Even admits to its unverifiability with the passage "The hardest references to spot are the ones where only the names may be used such as a group of three being called Moe, Larry, and Curly." Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, pop culture ref cruft, listcruft, cruftcruft, on top of being an WP:OR disaster. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. The article is just a list of every time The Three Stooges have ever been "mentioned" or "referenced". Some of the content can probably be merged down the road, but a whole article dedicated to every single time The Three Stooges have been "referenced" in other works is a bit of WP:LISTCRUFT.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 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.