Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 24	April 26 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakesa Thevar[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but if anything, they only made the article a million times worse. In fact, most of them just appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I could find no better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Garbage sources, non-notable individual. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources. A panchayat president fails WP:NPOL. - SUN EYE 1 17:31, 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 Mitsuru Hattori. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inu Neko Jump![edit]

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

Unreferenced article and no evidence of notability. On another note, the other series from the same author that have articles, Otogi no Machi no Rena and Concerto (manga), have similar issues. - Xexerss (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori per nom; it fails GNG/NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori. A search didn't show any usable references. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:05, 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. ✗plicit 06:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golems of the Red Planet[edit]

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

Likely does not meet notability criteria. Tow (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I voted to delete in the first AfD for this band in 2020, at which time it was too soon because they were just getting started and had not yet attracted any media coverage. Alas, they still have not gotten over that hump a year and a half later. They're only visible in the usual streaming and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per my CN tag - if the last two sentences of the article are true and verifiable that could potentially let the article scrape by through #11/#12 of WP:BAND. ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing and qualifications just aren't there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Sienkiewicz[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORKING/WP:WALL article on a singer and actress who fails to satisfy WP:SINGER & WP:NACTOR respectively, note that the band which fails WP:BAND that she belongs to was created by the same editor. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwiat Jabłoni is definitely notable enough, so I guess the same goes for her? Marcelus (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus WP:NOTINHERITED, see also WP:Notability (musicians). There is a little, but it's pretty borderline: this I guess would qualify as reliable SIGCOV. But the other sources are worse, so I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VAWS[edit]

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

No reliable sources significantly discussing the record label. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I was going to say "delete" as the article doesn't say much and what it does say is unreferenced. The German language article makes me reconsider this and think that there might be scope for an article if anybody wants to translate and improve it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, looking for more opinions. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 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. ✗plicit 12:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biba Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable singer and physician. No in-depth coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and New York. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry doc, not notable here. That's showbiz for ya. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not passes WP:BASIC, and WP:ENT. JoyStick101 (talk) 11:24, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales (2022)[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Was split off from COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales after size issues were raised in the parent article, without actually fixing the issues that led to the large size (at one point the longest non-list article on Wikipedia IIRC). — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Australia. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just a daily update of published statistics. WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDIARY, this is an overload of stats and press releases directly from the NSW Health official website. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIARY, this article is not user friendly for for a reader. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine to delete now. No longer needed. Segaton (talk) 21:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vasil Vasilev (footballer, born 1905)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BEFORE search did not bring up sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:03, 2 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pade Puje[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009, and doesn't really say anything - fails to describe this ritual, merely says it takes place. Not encyclopedia-worthy. Googling produces mutliple copies of this text, little else. PamD 21:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. PamD 21:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possible WP:HOAX as I get no non-Wikipedia mirrors. Should this be added to WP:LOHOW? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced trivia that is unlikely to merit an article of its own. If (and only if) a reliable secondary source is located before this discussion closes, the page can be redirected to Hindu wedding, where a one line mention can be made of the ritual. Looking at the article history, the creator Prksh1 uploaded a programme for a 1938 royal wedding that had been in his family's possession, and then created a series of articles based on that primary document, including, The Marriage of a Prince of the Mysore Royal Family, Pade Puje, Khasa Pada Puje, Kankana Dharane, Balle Mallarada Puje, Shakunamanojaya, and Yenne Saastra. A few of these have been deleted or redirected (see this discussion), while the remaining persist as permanent unsourced stubs. I propose that whatever the consensus of this discussion also be applied to the remaining stubs. Pinging @PamD and TenPoundHammer: to check if they agree. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I doubt this article is a hoax. Pade puje literally means "feet worship" and ritualized cleaning of feet of idols, the elders, the venerated, the poor, etc is part of several Hindu rituals (cf Maundy (foot washing) and Wudu). So I wouldn't be surprised if in some regions and families, this custom exists as part of the wedding ceremony. Its just that the article, extrapolating from a single primary document, both extrapolates the custom to supposedly all "Hindu marriages" and simultaneously narrows it to "Hindu marriages". Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 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) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snell & Wilmer[edit]

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

Has been tagged for several issues starting in 2016. No evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Seems primarily intended as promotional. Was previously subject to PROD process, with tag placed by Jacona then removed by Andrew Davidson without rationale. AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does, in fact, appear to meet WP:NCORP: Reuters, LA Times, Washington Post agtx 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is hard to find coverage due to the large number of minor mentions such as "so and so joined Snell & Wilmer", or its listing in various directories and lists of law firms (which is how I would classify the three "sources" mentioned above). I did fine this, which is also a list of firms but the writeup is reasonably long. There is an article about their philanthropy, and this book which appears to be independent. MB 15:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Vault" book is entirely based on information provided (mainly by way of survey) by the company and their execs. It has zero "Independent Content", its just regurgitated marketing and PR. Fails WP:ORGIND. The newspaper clipping talks about how/why the firm collects art and their art collection - no in-depth information about the actual *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. But the last reference appears to be good. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the age of the firm and the fact that a renowned historian wrote a book about the firm as well as another about one of their most famous cases, I'd say this firm is notable and meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shun On Estate[edit]

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

I haven't been able to conduct full WP:BEFORE checks for this, however, given that there's been 2 similar AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascades, Hong Kong, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easeful Court), and its notability has been subject to dispute among new page reviewers and established editors, I'm bringing up this here for a more definitive outcome. MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator openly states they have not conducted a full WP:BEFORE and also did not mention two similar AfDs that ended in keep and no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park (Hong Kong), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Ching Estate) so I don't feel there is a valid rationale here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing up these two AfDs. I initially mentioned the ones that I skimmed from the discussion going on in the article history. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No problem NemesisAT (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- NemesisAT (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I posted below and expand your support for retention to be based on those sources if you agree those sources establish notability? The closing admin may not give much weight to an argument that is not based on sources. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Commented below, thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Shun Lee#Shun On Estate other editors may be able to find additional usable sources in Chinese that I am unable to, in which case I would change my !vote, but based on the current sourcing, my searches in English, and cursory searches in Chinese, I don't see GNG coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Articles from The Kung Sheung Daily News (ordered chronologically from 1978 to 1984):
  1. "房屋委會批准清水灣道順安邨第二期建屋圖則" [Housing Authority approves housing plans for Phase 2 of Clear Water Bay Road's Shun On Estate]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1978-06-12. p. 6. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. "清拆秀茂坪木屋，建第二期順安邨" [Demolition of wooden houses in Sau Mau Ping and construction of the second phase of Shun On Estate]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1978-07-05. p. 5. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "順安邨地盤工程，正進行積極挖掘" [Shun On Estate construction project: active excavation is underway]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1979-02-19. p. 6. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  4. "麗閣邨及順安邨，七月動工興建，房屋委會昨招標承投" [Lai Kok Estate and Shun On Estate will start construction in July. The Housing Authority tendered the bid yesterday.]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1979-03-24. p. 8. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  5. "房署簽署四份建築合約，總値逾三億元，主為進行順利邨及順安邨工程" [Housing Department signed four construction contracts with a total value of over $300 million, mainly for the construction of Shun Lee Estate and Shun On Estate]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1980-07-12. p. 2. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  6. "順安邨安逸樓互助會辦郊遊" [Shun On Estate, On Yat House Mutual Aid Association organizes outing]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1983-07-11. p. 6. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  7. "順安邨走廊階磚濕滑，居民往來容易滑倒，團體進行滑度研究" [The stairs in the corridor of Shun On Estate are slippery, and the residents are prone to slipping. The group is conducting a study of the slipperiness.]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1984-09-29. p. 23. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
2. Articles from Wah Kiu Yat Po (ordered chronologically from 1978 to 1983):
  1. "房屋署人員昨日展開行動，清拆秀茂坪木屋區，闢地建順安邨二期，受影响住戶遷安置區並獲，順安邨第二期將興建六座大廈" [The Housing Department staff launched an operation yesterday to demolish the wooden house area of Sau Mau Ping and build land for the second phase of Shun On Estate. The affected households were also relocated to the resettlement area. Six buildings will be built in the second phase of Shun On Estate.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-07-05. p. 11. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. "順安邨兩座樓宇，可入伙過農曆年，首批申請人今辦入伙手續" [Two buildings in Shun On Estate can be occupied during the Lunar New Year. The first batch of applicants will go through the occupancy procedures today]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-12-29. p. 19. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "順安邨及時落成，居民入伙渡新歲" [Shun On Estate was completed in time, and residents joined at the start of the new year]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1979-01-03. p. 37. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  4. "順安邨闢建新地盤，開山工程積極進行，全邨八一年完成可獲二千七單位" [Shun On Estate has built a new site, and the mountain opening project is actively being carried out. If it is completed in 1981, the whole village can get 2,007 units.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1979-02-19. p. 14. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  5. "房屋委會批出逾億元合約興建順安邨" [Housing Authority awards over $100 million contract to build Shun On Estate]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1980-05-04. p. 4. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  6. "順安邨第三期工程，明年九月可望落成，千六單位可容一萬零八百人" [The third phase of Shun On Estate is expected to be completed in September next year, with a capacity of 10,800 people in 1,600 units.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1980-08-26. p. 16. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  7. "順安邨兩座樓宇，可提早兩月完成，署埋房屋署長大加讚譽" [Two buildings in Shun On Estate were completed two months ahead of schedule, and the Department of Housing and Housing Department greatly praised]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1980-10-11. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  8. "工程順利比預期快了四個月，順安邨旁建順天邨，首兩座樓六月入伙" [The project went well four months faster than expected. Shun On Estate was built next to Shun Tin Estate, and the first two buildings were occupied in June]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1981-02-08. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  9. "鹹水經常缺乏供應，順安邨民促請改善，辦事處表示對此問題十分重視" [The supply of salt water is often lacking. Shun On Estate residents urged for improvement, and the office said it attaches great importance to this problem.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1982-11-23. p. 28. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  10. "順安邨停車場汽車經常失竊，居民希望辦事處加強保安工作" [Cars are often stolen from the parking lot of Shun On Estate. Residents hope that the office will strengthen security work]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1983-11-29. p. 21. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
3. Article from Ta Kung Pao:
  1. "清水灣道順安邨，今起辦入伙手續，房委會稱住客可於農曆年前遷入" [Clear Water Bay Road's Shun On Estate: the occupancy procedures will be completed today. The Housing Authority said that residents can move in before the Lunar New Year.]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 1978-12-29. p. 5. Retrieved 2022-04-19 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shun On Estate (traditional Chinese: 順安邨; simplified Chinese: 顺安村) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify, are the excerpts you added above the entirety of coverage of Shun On Estate in each article, or just a sampling? As written, most of these excerpts seem WP:ROUTINE, rather than proper secondary analysis. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the article, NemesisAT (talk · contribs). Thank you for bringing this article to AfD, MarioGom (talk · contribs), to prevent an edit war from happening. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection:
A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
A redirect had been reverted in the past, so per the policy, it should not have been redirected again without a prior consensus.
Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm unable to read the papers shared by Cunard, the excerpts do suggest there is significant coverage here. WP:ROUTINE is just an essay, the important guideline is WP:GNG which I feel has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I got WP:ROUTINE confused with WP:MILL. The WP:ROUTINE argument used above is invalid as that is a notability guideline for events. NemesisAT (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the links being mixed up, but the concern about routine coverage is still relevant to this discussion, as routine coverage is trivial and fails the GNG criterion of significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the coverage is trivial. If an article has multiple paragraphs (for example) on the construction of the tower blocks, then that counts as significant coverage in my view. NemesisAT (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are not excerpts from the newspaper article. These are newspaper headlines. Each newspaper article spends at least several paragraphs discussing Shun On Estate. The sustained extensive coverage in reliable sources allow the public housing estate to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. A public housing estate is not an event. As a public housing estate, Shun On Estate is owned by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, a government agency. "Routine coverage" should not be applied to newspaper articles about public housing estates. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' The Chinese sources contain substantive coverage of the subject and easily satisfy the notability guidelines. This is a very unsatisfactory AfD: the nominator explicitly did not do WP:BEFORE and some editors seem to dismiss the Chinese sources very cursorily without being able to read them. Atchom (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. 124.217.188.46 (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Cunard. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shun On Estate to pass GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient WP:RS providing the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG...Bringing an article to AfD causes lots of editors to spend a significant amount of time evaluating whether it should be kept or deleted. Rather than waste untold hours of people's time, a set of actions to be taken before nominating an article for deletion has been established. This is not optional! Bringing an article to AfD without performing adequate BEFORE is disrespectuful of the value of other editors time. If you can't or won't perform a thorough WP:BEFORE, please wait to until you can before nominating it. There is no deadline to delete an article that's been around for 13 years, why rush to nominate it and waste other people's time until you've taken the time to do the basic verification steps that have been established by consensus? Jacona (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly enough RS Coverage. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:57, 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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prajatantrik Samajwadi Manch Nepal[edit]

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

Non-notable political party - can't find any refs under the English translation or the Nepali transliteration of the name. Nepali-script name not present, so can't search by that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nepal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one is was tricky so I'll leave my logic here to see if it makes sense to anyone else: So first I noticed that there is a corresponding version in Bangla Wikipedia; a search in that language revealed literally nothing. After translating the party naming into Nepali using Google Translate, I searched with that and found this Wikidata item ([1]) that links to Nepali and two other languages; I think that is the same party as this. Then after looking some more, I discovered that an article here that has the same name, Samajbadi Janata Party (look at the alternative name). Both articles were created by the same user, 3 years apart. This is a long-winded way of saying I think these are the same article, and so one should be redirected into the other (I would recommend this one into that one, as the other one is more complete). If it is determined that my logic is not sound and these are different parties, then the leader of this party, Dhundi Raj Shastri, is notable per WP:NPOL ([2]), so that could be an alternative redirect target if the article gets made. Curbon7 (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of political parties in Nepal have very similar names (look at Category:Political parties in Nepal for more examples), so the fact that Prajatantrik Samajwadi Manch Nepal and Samajbadi Janata Party have faintly similar names is hardly evidence that they are the same party. Soman, the article creator, specializes in creating articles for obscure political parties and he knows enough about what he's doing that I don't believe he would have thoughtlessly created a duplicate article.

As to your second point, the Dhundi Raj Shastri in your source is from the Nepali Congress, the largest political party in Nepal. I can't find any indication that he split from NC to form an obscure splinter party. Without positive evidence, we can't assume it's the same person - plenty of people worldwide have the same name, after all. (The Dhundi Raj Shastri from the NC is an NPOL pass on the merits of being elected though). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 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) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa von Werder[edit]

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

Looks to be promotional, poorly sourced - publications named but not linked, which makes one wonder if sources exist or actually source content - and problems not addressed since creation. When it was put up for deletion before, it was kept largely due to promises it would be cleaned up. That has not happened.

Created and edited by one or two SPAs, and recent one is adding promotional content only sourced to a YouTube video. I'd speedy it if not for the multiple editors. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Sportspeople, and Women. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of the reasons given by the nominator is based on deletion policy. Previous promises to clean up the not being kept is not a reason to delete, nor is poor sourcing, editing by SPAs etc. The article needs a lot of work to make it an acceptable encyclopaedic article, but articles that are in bad shape is specifically not a reason to delete per policy.

I'd speedy it if not for the multiple editors I don't see any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions that would be applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no justification for deleting this article. Many of the previous issues with the article have been fixed with the recent updates. If there are flaws still, they can be fixed. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now--Ajax151 (talk), 25 April 2022.

Ajax151, your recent edits led me to do this. You haven't fixed it, you've just added "sourcing" cites that are predominantly bare url links to her own website. Other citations mention publications, but when one clicks on the "link", there is no linked source. At first glance, they appear to be proper citations, linked to the media they cite, but they are only wikilinked to the WP articles about the publications; there is no link to go check to see if the source cites the content.

If you want this article to stay, read WP:CITE or WP:REFB and WP:RS, put the content you've added into the format Wikipedia uses, use sources that aren't the BLP subject's personal site, and actually clean this up. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by reasoning of Keep, instead of deletion, the issues should be fixed. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ajax151 is the only person who seems to want to work on this mess. As I said on talk: @Ajax151: you are continuing to mark your edits things like "adding inline citations" when all you are doing is wikifying a word or name of a publication. Similarly, bare urls are not the format for inline citations, either. Above, I gave you the link for how to WP:CITE sources. You need to use Wikipedia formatting and actually add inline cites or these are not really improvements. And nothing has been done about the tone and primary sources problem. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources assuming AGF that while improperly linked they do signal a pass of WP:GNG. The nomination stems from an editing dispute which is frowned upon. The article needs rewriting but deletion is a step too far, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 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 redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) per WP:ATD. There is a rough consensus that we don't have enough sources for a standalone article at this time, though many raised the possibility that these might exist offline and in Swedish. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: just a database entry Ficaia (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional footballer in Sweden's top league; numerous appearances; nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE in trying to locate coverage, which will be hampered by the era. Giant Snowman 09:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman According to the sources listed in User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Swedish football, the Swedish league was not professional during that period. Professionalism in football was only allowed in 1967 but even in 1998 less than half of the players where fully professional. Alvaldi (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as we both know, professionalism does not matter given NFOOTBALL has been abolished. Giant Snowman 17:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does participation in a "top" league. We both know, or at least should, that only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is of importance.T v x1 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GS. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link any of these supposed sources? Or are we supposed to take your word for it? Ficaia (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GS's arguments are completely flawed, so you can't use them as a basis for your own keep rationale.T v x1 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. I was also unable to find anything on the subject during an online search, including in Swedish sources. According to the article, he played 5 seasons for Malmö, appearing in 23 matches. During the same five seasons, Malmö played 130 league matches so there is no evidence that he was a significant player of that team. Alvaldi (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alvaldi: The player is from the 1930s to 1940s, before the internet, not all players will be recorded to the internet since then. Your argument for deletion appears to based on what the internet has, it's more highly likely that one would need to search archived newspapers, what can be a problem due to the time period, hence WW2. I strongly suggest you consider the possibility of off-line sources otherwise your argument for deletion is only one sided. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy I did consider offline sources, due to the concerns that you mention, but unfortunately came to the conclusion that there no evidence that this was a notable player. Notable players in my experience usually have some traces of coverage in modern times, even if it is just "player x starred at team y", but in Nilsson's case I couldn't find any traces of coverage. The only thing I know is that he played in roughly 17% of his teams game during a 5 year period which does not indicate a notable player. If someone finds any kind of evidence of his notabily, I am more than happy to reconsider my !vote.

On a sidenote, I did theorise that this Nilsson is the same person as Karl-Erik Nilsson (wrestler) who are both from Malmö and possibly in a similar age range (Nilson the Wrestler would have been aged 15-20 during the years in question) but couldn't find any sources that linked them together. Alvaldi (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several people with this name, there is certainly a lot lacking with the article. Only one source provided, however that does raise more questions than answers about the player. However what annoys me about the delete arguments, is the simple fact of unawareness of football article structure. This is forgetting the fact this can be a redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances), until a more comprehensive article is built. I really don't also get what people have against sports stub articles. The point of a stub here is pretty clear, tells us a few things. This is a valid article in many respects and I certainly have nothing against it. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) is in my opinion also perfectly acceptable. Alvaldi (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy Several other Malmö FF players from the same era that where created by the same editor with the same single offline source, where redirected to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) for failing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:NFOOTY as they "did not play in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues." [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination completely ignores the long standing consensus about footballers from this era. I can't even find any 1930s Swedish newspaper or magazine archives. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community consensus is clear on all athletes must pass GNG. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Alvaldi (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the recent RFC, it didn't address examples like this. The focus was very much on modern athletes, with some talk of early English players. I tried to raise the question of how we deal with bias against players where we don't have good online resources in the appropriate language - but there discussion became so convoluted, that there wasn't addressed. That leaves us to look to past AFD discussions for consensus. Nfitz (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes need to be based on what current guidelines actually say, not what you wish they said or your interpretation of past AfDs. NSPORTS is the relevant guideline and covers athletes from all eras, not just modern ones. –dlthewave ☎ 05:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets NFOOTY. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, since there's no presumed notability for footballers, I'm assuming you've found significant coverage as required by WP:NSPORTS. Could you please share a few of your best sources here? –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous that people are being harassed for not being able to find online sources for a pre-Internet player from a non-English speaking country. The fact that a book exists offline and is being used indicates it's likely that other such books exist. Deleting simply because none of us have access to offline Swedish language book sources is ridiculous and a clear WP:BIAS, based on the player's nationality and era. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 Asking people politely to show evidence of their claims is not something that could be considered as harassment. Regarding the book in question, there is no evidence that it covered the subject in detail. As I listed in an answer to Goovy above, there where several other similar articles created of Malmö players by the same editor with the same set of information (name, position, total games, total goals) using the same book as source which indicates that the information in it about these players where just database listings. Furthermore, almost all those articles where later redirected to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) for failing GNG and for not having played in games involving two professional teams. So I kindly ask, what evidence do we have that the subject, who during his career didn't appear in 83% of his teams games in a seemingly non-professional league, is notable? Alvaldi (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, Stifle cited a guideline that no longer exists so of course they were asked to clarify. –dlthewave ☎ 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. That guideline does not exist anymore. Not a valid keep argument in any way.T v x1 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participation on the delete side to claim a genuine consensus, but the keep votes seem very misguided, ignoring recent developments, and claiming local consensus rather than GNG is most important. Extending for another week to try to establish evidence based consensus, rather than personal opinion based, but would close as delete based on strength of arguments if this does not occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per GS's comments Zanoni (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're !voting keep based on an other person's utterly falacious arguments?T v x1 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no WP:SIGCOV can be found, meaning that it fails both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG when it needs to pass both. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS arguments on the basis of innate notability are invalid, as a broad consensus was found to exist against that position when WP:NFOOTY was removed from WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have undone as bad NAC as a single admin action given the clear consensus of the DRV and to avoid a delay in discussion restarting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we were to do this properly, someone should check a Swedish newspaper archive. And there is one online, but it's geolocked to Sweden. Perhaps someone in Sweden or a good VPN can look. I did a basic search with https://tidningar.kb.se/?q=malmo%20fotboll%20%22karl-erik%20nilsson%22&from=1935-01-01&to=1944-01-01 and it does yield 11 hits - and it's hard to tell if any are good. Part of the issue is that there's also am Erik Nilsson who played at Malmö during the same period, thus forcing quite a specific search. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another paywalled archive has some mentions in him. At least 2 in articles from the snippet. Could someone with access look at? https://arkivet.dn.se/sok?q=%22Karl-Erik%20Nilsson%22%20%22fotboll%22&from=1864-12-23&sort=oldest&to=1944-12-31 Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NFOOTY was deprecated specifically because recent consensus determined mere participation was not a reliable predictor of GNG. Arguments appealing to a non-existent guideline must be ignored, including claims that "offline sources must exist" (since such claims are themselves based entirely on unsubstantiated predictions from NFOOTY). And WP:BEFORE does NOT require nominators to VPN into restricted news archives, that is a completely unreasonable expectation. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Ping me if you do and I will gladly change my mind. The closing administrator should discount any !vote that fails to provide rock solid evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Arguments that overtly or obliquely reference NFOOTY should be rejected out of hand, because that SNG is defunct. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any sources providing significant coverage. Until someone can provide specifically what these sources are, we should not have an article based just on the claim that they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert made this comment at 18:35 UTC. At 18:34 UTC he editing Stan Wood and at 18:33 UTC he was editing Robert J. Wood, and then two other pages at 18:32. It's implausible that he read the previous comments, and examined the sources himself - let alone did any searching for sources. I'd suggest that whoever close this AFD, disregard JPL's drive-by deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? There is one source, and it doesn't take long to determine that an article cannot meet WP:GNG with one source. Further, if you have issues with his contributions to AFD, the correct place to discuss this is his talk page or ANI rather than casting aspersions of drive-by deleting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - One source? I linked a potential 11 sources in my comment above. Also, this is hardly an isolated action - his actions at AFD have been discussed in both of his current topic bans. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You linked a search with eleven results. Given that you haven't examined those results, it's unreasonable to expect that other editors will examine them for you. And as I said, this is the incorrect location to discuss Johnpacklambert's behaviour - please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and if you believe the topic needs discussing please take it to the appropriate locations. BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't in my first post, cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I simply presented the facts about this particular nomination - with no reference to any past behaviour or censure; please read that page before referencing it again. And as I said - potential sources. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You presented what you saw as facts about the editors behaviour, alleging that it was inappropriate and "drive-by deleting". In the future, please focus on the merits of their argument, and if you have concerns about their behaviour please take it to the appropriate location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe concerns about a particular editor's vote should be discussed where the vote is. If you think the discussion about that editor should yet again be taken to ANI, then you are free to do so. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      
      For the record, of those 11 sources, one seems to be about the wrestler of same name, the others seem to either list him in team lineups and/or are game recaps. Alvaldi (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah - that one must be Karl-Erik Nilsson (wrestler), also from Malmo; I hadn't searched after 1943, 5-years before I thought he appeared. Between the wrestler and our subject's teammate Erik Nilsson, this is a challenging search. I couldn't tell from the OCR'ed snippets how extensive the non-boxscores were - did you get the full text or image? Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be probable that the wrester and the footballer is the same person, but I haven't seen any evidence making it the same person. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is a strong possiblity this is the same person as the Olympic wrestler, we have no sources that prove he is that person. If he is that person he would have been 15-20 when he was playing soccer. This again shows what other sources indicate, that playing soccer in the league in question was not notable at the time. The very fact we have not been able to find any sources that indicate this person is the same person as the wrestler, or on the other hand any sources that bother to say the wresler was not the same person of the same name who had played soccer in Sweden just before this, indicates that this soccer playing was not a notable action and so not enough to merit an article. If we do find sources at some point that indicate the wrestler had been a soccer player we can add them, otherwise this is a non-notable person. Olympic amateurism rules at the time may have made the soccer player actively conceal past even semi-pro wrestling, but Wikipedia needs verifiability not our own speculation, so we need reliable sources that prove this one way or to other to say anything on the matter. Without them we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This article never actually met any criteria for football inclusion, because the play was not done in a fully professional league. The fact that it has taken over 13 days to get this deleted is part of what really frustrates some editors about the special treatment we give to clearly not at all notable footballers who no one has ever bothered writting substantially about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd considered whether they were the same person or not, but I'd assumed not - but obviously difficult to be sure. I don't think 13 days is a huge issue for a 10-year old article. Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list of players for Malmö per above. This is a deeply flawed AfD on a difficult subject, but as it's currently a super-stub that nobody can currently develop, a redirect is best as the history would be retained if someone wants to develop this. I am concerned about WP:BIAS here as 23 games for Malmö during the war surely would have been worthy of note. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, @SportingFlyer: you're only one other person who noticed that this is best served as a redirect. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence here that there is sufficient significant coverage for this person to meet WP:GNG.T v x1 14:47, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kauf[edit]

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

Declined PROD, concern was: Only uses databases as sources. I disagree with the PROD, because, according to WP:NMOTORSPORT, a driver who has at least one career start in the NASCAR Cup Series is notable. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I PRODed this. NMOTORSPORT says "A driver or rider who has competed for at least one full season in any of the following series: ...The modern-era (1972 or later) NASCAR Cup Series.". 5 races is not a season. Wikipedia is not Racing-reference. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find any non-database sources. The nominator should note NMOTORSPORT has been updated recently to have stricter standards. Regardless, the subject does not meet the GNG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:14, 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 redirect to The Native. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATIVE Sound Radio[edit]

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

Radio show does not meet the WP:GNG—all three references are not independent. I'm unsure how NATIVE Sound System is related but it might at least have a GNG case. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant advert failing WP:GNG. Referencing is 100% self generated 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Native. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SBKSPP, I don’t think they’re related though. I italicized The Native, hope you don’t mind? Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Reading Beans, they are. Native Sound Radio and Native Sound System both come from The Native. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sammi Brie, just noticed it, my bad. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — based on primary sources. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:49, 2 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. Numerically close (8–7 in favour of deletion), but taking into account the lack of policy grounding in many of the keep votes, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mervat Rashwan[edit]

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

No evidence of sigcov Ficaia (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Ficaia (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, and Egypt. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE being carried out; international player. Giant Snowman 21:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you vote different in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Moore? What is the difference? Both players have competed in the international women's football competition from their respective confederations. CONCACAF W Championship (Moore) and the Africa Women Cup of Nations (Farouk) are the women's equivalent to CONCACAF Gold Cup and Africa Cup of Nations. If players who appear in the men's counterparts can have their own articles here, why could not the women's ones? MonFrontieres (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. If the female counterparts don't receive that for their participations in those tournaments, they don't get articles. Pure and simple. Wikipedia is not all or nothing. Each subject's merits are judged individually.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again we have to tell you that playing for a national team is NOT a valid argument to keep an article. If a national team does not play at meaningful level, their players certainly aren't notable for playing for them. When will this finally get through to you?? And even if a national team does reach a significant level, that doesn't make every player that was ever called-up for them, even without actually playing, automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. The only thing that matters is coverage.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – association football player who has played at least once for a national team at senior level.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid keep argument in any way.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GS and MF. Obviously notable. Yet another bad nom. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the closer will disregard the non-arguments above. The subject lacks sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - you need to comply with it. Giant Snowman 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting there is sigcov of this subject? Because I can't find it. And no one has produced any. Ficaia (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word of truth in your rationale.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ficaia. Have you even looked at the article this morning? MonFrontieres expanded it yesterday evening with additional sources that you would have found yourself if, as GiantSnowman has emphasised, you had actually carried out WP:BEFORE ahead of coming here with your no evidence claim. Your nominations are a waste of everyone else's time and I'm now seriously considering ANI to propose that you are barred from AfD. Your behaviour, including the suggestion to the closer about what you call non-arguments, persistently breaches AfD spirit and guidelines. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 08:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all either simple mentions or database entries. We require sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the nominator could improve his nominations with a simple WP:BEFORE (or make it clearer that it was performed) it still doesn't change the fact that there is no significant coverage found in the article and no editors have been able to precent any here. None of the sources presented go towards GNG, as can be seen in BilledMammal's assessment below. Arguments based on WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable are not valid arguments in AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that MonFrontieres has added any SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV has been provided here or at the article - see the following source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.efa.com.eg/NewsDetails?k1=mUrkw3fbkZboEZacEFgdNg==	?	?	Mentioned in a list of players	✘ No
https://globalsportsarchive.com/people/soccer/mervat-farouk/156826/		?	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fbref.com/en/players/3148a3ea/Mervat-Farouk		?	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://www.youm7.com/story/2019/6/26/%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B6%D8%B1/4305014		?	Mentioned in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.footofeminin.fr/CAN-2016-CAMEROUN-et-NIGERIA-favoris-de-la-competition_a13086.html		?	Mentioned in a list of players	✘ 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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find any source of significant coverage and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of SIGCOV. Reminder to those who !voted Keep that there is no presumption of notability for players at the international or senior national level. –dlthewave ☎ 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Not sure what Dlthewave was talking about above. Seany91 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as NFOOTY anymore Avilich (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion is underway to replace NFOOTY, but we shouldn't be using the interregnum to mass AfD a bunch of articles. Seany91 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to get rid of it, not replace it Avilich (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that there is no SNG for football; NFOOTY points to NSPORTS which requires significant coverage. Like all sports SNGs, the replacement would not presume notability, it would simply tell us that coverage is likely to exist. SIGCOV would still need to be found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reiterate that there is an ongoing discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW. It is premature and potentially wasting a lot of editors' time and energy if we collectively allow mass AfDs to occur during the interregnum. Seany91 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not part of the guideline and it will in any case require another RfC to implement. Even if it does pass, articles will still require that GNG be met, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody is forcing you to spend your time on this if you think it's a waste. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are only guidelines, and are written to implement long-standing consensus. And while removing NFOOTBALL might be justification to delete some marginal players, to start nominating international players on top teams, with media coverage is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're basing your keep rationale on a nonexistant guideline??T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international player, lots of coverage. Another poor nomination. Given how poorly female African players are covered in Wikipedia, and that this player easily meets long-standing consensus, we should avoid WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being an international player doesn't automatically mean your notable and your lots of coverage claim is just false. Also read WP:GREATWRONGS.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international player Zanoni (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid keep argument in any way.T v x1 15:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For all the keep votes, not a single source cited in the discussion to indicate GNG. Needs more time to establish a genuine consensus based on more than just votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was NAC closed and then undone as an admin action during the DRV that was clearly overturning the close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "International player" is not a notability criterion (and never was!), and with the deprecation of NFOOTY it's now not even a predictor of SIGCOV. The only notability metric applicable to this player is GNG, which she does not meet. Arguments based on a deprecated subguideline should be summarily ignored -- which means the closer should disregard literally all of the keep !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a couple of references - this one in particular meets GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC has been met. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the best of the references I don't think it makes it. GNG requires multiple sources and the coverage has to be significant. I've read the article and it doesn't seem to address the subject directly and in detail, there is very little biographical information which can be extracted. Given the nature of the source I am not sure it would have any particular reputation for fact checking and therefore overall reliability. i.e. it might be useful as one of a number of sources to meet GNG (though I think that could be challenged), but certainly I don't think it cuts it on it's own. (I'd also note unless I'm reading this wrong it suggests the article has been viewed about 1500 times, which hardly seems to speak of significant interest). The other reference seems to only note her as a goal scorer, so doesn't seem to help the GNG case--81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good RS, but it is an article on the team in general with only a few quotes and basic biographical info on Mervat herself -- not SIGCOV. Again, SPORTBASIC requires multiple SIGCOV sources for presumption of GNG notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the whole team, discussing a handful of players. There's 3 paragraphs mostly about her and her teammate, including their side-hustle. It's certainly the best reference I've found in English. Also NSPORTS and WP:SPORTBASIC were recently revised per the RFC so that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources was added. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. And the last place we should ignoring this new guideline is in an article about a non-white, non-English-speaking, non-male international player! If we don't consider this new guideline when we have a triple WP:BIAS situation - when do we consider it? Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep quoting that sentence, but you keep forgetting the second sentence: Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. That guideline does not make one source sufficient to keep the article. If we can find one it means that it is worth looking further and a WP:PROD is not justified, but if we can't find more the article still needs to be deleted at AFD.

As for the source, I agree with JoelleJay that it is not SIGCOV of Rashwan. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it even there? It's there because there are going to be situations where there are likely sufficient sources - this isn't a Canadian international player where we can easily search everything published. Obviously you are about to disagree with me - but you tell me why you think that sentence is there? Besides - the criteria failure to have multiple (or even one) GNG source isn't a firm rule. We are all aware that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted! Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's there to stop articles being created without any significant coverage (per the original proposal), and it is there to make it easier to delete articles without any significant coverage (per the closer and the responses to the proposal). BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage is just around the GNG line, and her sporting achievement is the type that would normally be found in an encyclopaedia. If not kept, a viable redirect target should be found (or created.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the source table above, the coverage is not significant enough to confer notability. International players are not automatically notable by community consensus, and !votes relying on that should be disregarded. And while I am all about avoiding WP:BIAS, lots of stubs about non-notable football players isn't the way to fix that. agtx 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no significant coverage the source added isn't that persuasive for me as to if it contributes to WP:GNG at all, let alone be enough on it's own to not warrant additional good quality sources. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage of the subject exists. Being an international player does not yield notability by itself. Why the same people keep using that similar fallacious argument in every similar AFD despite being refuted EVERY time is beyond me.T v x1 15:03, 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 Michael Martin Murphey discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Billy Bob's Texas (Michael Martin Murphey album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Didn't chart, no reviews cited. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence of meeting the GNG or NALBUMS. There's an AllMusic review but it's only a couple of sentences, so you'd be hard pressed to call that significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Martin Murphey discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

$5 Cover[edit]

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

This was a short-lived series of web skits to promote a documentary that does not have its own article. There is no evidence that it passes WP:NTV due to its short length and lack of coverage Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, this is going to AFD because it was previously deleted via PROD in 2009 and restored later that year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any useful independent RS providing significant coverage. Jacona (talk) 11:00, 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) 07:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Phenomenon[edit]

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

Mixtapes are rarely notable, and this one has been completely unsourced since forever. I see no reviews or third party coverage whatsoever. As several artists were credited, there is no valid redirection target Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom and WP:XY. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Wrote It, You Watch It[edit]

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

Passingly name-dropped many times in relation to its famous host, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Other than a single NYT review I couldn't find anything about this show at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how did you do WP:BEFORE? It stands to reason if there's a review in the New York Times, then there'd be reviews elsewhere - so concerning that's the only one you found. I checked the LA Times (and only the LA Times), and indeed, there's a review in there on February 13, 1993 - page 78; Stewart is barely mentioned in the article, so it's not about him. Nfitz (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, User:TenPoundHammer I've ever seen anyone use Burden as an AFD argument, let alone as a BEFORE technique. That's not really the answer; I'll ask it again. What did you do WP:BEFORE nominating? Also what WP:ATD did you consider? I'd have though there was some very likely Merge targets, such as List of programs broadcast by MTV or Jon Stewart. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found no sources by checking Google Books, Newspapers.com, and archive.org. You claimed you found a source, so add it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed? Also, see WP:NEXIST. Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22You%20Wrote%20It%20You%20Watch%20It%22%20%22review%22&dr_year=1993-1993 shows results. Name of show, year it was started, and the word "review", and sorting through the first page of results I see Herald and Review (Decatur, Illinois) 04 Mar 1993, Thu Page 9 with thousands more reviews to sort through. Searching for the name of the host instead of the word "review" gives far better results. https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22You%20Wrote%20It%20You%20Watch%20It%22%20%22jon%20stewart%22&dr_year=1993-1993 So ample coverage of it found. Dream Focus 17:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald and Review result is from Knight Ridder, therefore meaning it's a press release; i.e., a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[12] It doesn't read like a press release. The Knight Ridder article says it used to be "the second largest newspaper publisher in the United States, with 32 daily newspaper brands sold." They published reviews for things in their newspapers. That does not make it a "press release", since it is independent of the primary source. I don't see any mention anywhere that they were connected to MTV in any possible way. Dream Focus 06:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does it being written by an award-winning media company that owned dozens of newspapers make it a "press release"? Is Reuters and API also only doing press releases - they don't even own newspapers as far as I know User:TenPoundHammer? Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how press releases work. Reuters and company automatically write blurbs that other papers reprint. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they do that, I've never noticed - or they use a separately branded operation (I'd think having PRs in addition to news stories would diminish the brand). Either way, I see no indication that article came from a press release. Though surely it's moot given the NYT and LAT times references. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mentioned LA Times article was easy to find. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-13-ca-1189-story.html Dream Focus 17:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find - I'd searched for something directly on their site, and failed. Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear keep with LA Times and NY Times articles. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 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 keep. There are sources, rendering much of the nom moot. Star Mississippi 02:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 Angry Viewers[edit]

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

Deprodded because "it's a show on MTV so it's notable". However, WP:NTV says that being on a major network is not enough if no sources exist, and I was unable to find any. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added refs for notability StrayBolt (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of sources, look harder. The_stuart (talk) 13:45, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Anne xavier[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

non notable victim of a sad circumstance. All the coverage is at best WP:BLP1E. She is not the first notable burn victim, nor the first to receive the type of care she had, so it's not like a pioneering medical breakthru, but it appears her husband (as disclosed on his and my talk page) insists on creating this and removing the tag, here we are. Aside from not being notable, this is nothing more than a raging advertisement meant to "inspire" per the creators own words. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--lack of secondary coverage proves that this is not a topic for us. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of coverage? over 15 news articles and counting. https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+anne+xavier&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS940US940&oq=charlie+anne&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j0i20i263i512j0i512l2.1627j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Andrecanada (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Praxdicae. Yes, she has 1 accident, what makes it notable is the Burn Survivor rate, the medical care used on her, is not the first time used, but it is the most sucessful case to date, and there is only 1 documented medical paper on the same treatment, there is public interest in such medical advancemnet, I did not remove the tag, there are other users in favor of the article, there is enough media coverage to sustain her notability, there is enough medical journals to sustain the claims, I have ageed to disclosed my relationship, what also needs to be done ? the article was edit down to just the medical facts. I hope there is some common sense on this discussion, I appreciate eveyones time. Andrecanada (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're having a hard time grasping what notability actually is. WP:42 is a great essay. She simply isn't notable despite your desire for her to be. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles generally require significant coverage. 15 plus news stories, video, magazines, news papers, podcast.

in reliable sources NBC, ABC,People magazine, Cnn, Yahoo news.

that are independent of the topic. Those are indepent news stations.

I am ok if your opnion is that she has no notability, I respect that.

but based on the guidelines the requirements are being met. Andrecanada (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Andrecanada (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a biography, it's a description of an unfortunate but not notable event. Just having reliable sources isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article is covered by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is a burn survivors category on wikipedia!! Andrecanada (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - With all the records of all the burn survivors, I see that Charlie's case and the story have something to contribute still. All of the information on the references used can tell that this may not be the first one or pioneering but her own journey deserves to be published. Jomztabi (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP Great medical information, and anyone that survive such accident deserves to be here! Smithland2525 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- needs a major rewrite or deletion Asparagusus (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the article shares revelevant facts of interest to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordedition (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - sad story, but there's a difference between local coverage of something like this and reliable sources that confer notability on a broader scale. Plus, the portion regarding the treatment reads like an advertisement, which strikes me as problematic in a big way. I mean, one of them's even got the registered trademark symbol. I reviewed some of the references, and don't see any mention of the specific treatment in the news sources, unless I missed something someplace. Note to closing admin: there are some new editors joining this discussion; at least one has created an account and come straight here. Be advised. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE as she's not "notable" outside of this one single (local) event. Also is a case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The creation of this article is just an excuse to use Wikipedia as a database for every person that went to the hospital for something and it just happened to make the local news. This would be the same as if I went to the hospital for something and someone decided to write a Wikipedia article about it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the keep arguments seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to whoever closes this AFD Looks like Andrecanada (who participated in this AFD above) has been blocked indef for socking.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revise that - now ALL the "KEEP" vote!s and the "Keep" vote! have been blocked as a sock farm. 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy delete, G5—Created by blocked/banned sockpuppeteer. I would advise an administrator to close this as G5 immediately. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Delete—Obvious notability issues here. On the surface sources seem reliable, but this is a local event, not something that gains coverage from actual news sources. Also, apologies, should have read G5 more carefully. Also NPOV issues; the article reads more like a news article than an encyclopedia article. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not eligible, none of the accounts were blocked at creation. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae—Apologies, the text above has been stricken. A new !vote has been made. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS fails all our notability requirements too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I came here from an unblock request) The deletion rationales include WP:NOTNEWS and lack of significant coverage (y'all know this by heart) sufficient to meet inclusion requirements. (Oh, I see now Roxy already said this.) I had peaked at this when it was tagged for speedy deletion. My overall feeling then and now is that this is some sort (never before saw the like) of WP:ARTSPAM. (Ah, well there it is in the deletion nomination. I knew there was a WP:COI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per mythdon, and Deepfriedokra. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources here are either non-sequiturs, chicken-dinner stories, or (more disgustingly) seem to use her as a prop. At best this is a WP:BLP1E case, and in such cases we err on the side of privacy for the subject and do not have an article on them. To the creator: find somewhere else to write this sort of thing; we do not accept it and our readers HATE "articles" like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's snowing. Should her case eventually be seen and connected with advancements in burn treatments, an editor who isn't her husband can create it. At the moment, this is a clear BLP1E and there is no evidence to indicate sources could be forthcoming for this otherwise n-n person. Star Mississippi 02:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and BASIC. SN54129 10:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People get burns all the time, she's not much different than the rest of them. Almost sounds like a thinly promotional piece for the humanitarian thing they mention. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and he didn't capitalize her family name properly in the title. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been at a multitude of titles per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andrecanada. Star Mississippi 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Speedy Delete Is the article a good read? Not really. Is it a waste of server space? Probably. Is it notable in any way at all? No. Is the creator a sock puppeteer and a COI editor, Yes. Basically, delete it under G5 and probably A7. Zippybonzo | talk 18:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creator wasn't blocked for socking until this AfD started, so G5 is not a valid criterion; it's not retroactive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Does anyone also feel like this article is getting so much hate towards the burn survivor, just delete the article and be done, but don’t diminish someone’s suffering by saying, people get burned all the time , or this is a chicken dinner story, where is anyones compassion ? I say delete and leave this person’s suffering alone, Shame on anyone being cruel for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvillexpert (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Sockstrike. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked the sources as chicken-dinner stories, not the article itself. What is your connexion to User:Andrecanada? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cvillexpert: We are all saddened by the ordeal you and your wife have endured. But not everyone who has suffered a horrible ordeal meets inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia article. This is why we discourage people from writing about people with whom they have a close personal relationship. They are too emotionally engaged to be objective. And objectivity is needed in writing an encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Persoz[edit]

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

Only references I can find are circular, but anyone else is welcome to try and find some sources. Naihreloe (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. Naihreloe (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, entries in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography and Encyclopædia Universalis, whole papers and chapters on his work, and that's just from the first page of google results... – Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully then, please add it. I couldn't find anything on the first page of Google except circular. Naihreloe (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "-wikipedia" to your search (as the "Google" link above does) can help filter out circular references. Google Books and Google Scholar are also often better for finding quality sources than the default web search, and generally don't contain Wikipedia derivatives, at least on the first few pages of results. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE... Atchom (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of substantive references to satisfy WP:BIO. Suggest a speedy close. Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been updated, suggest Snowball close.--Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 03:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of pedestrian underpasses in Dhaka[edit]

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

I am flummoxed; what is the claim to notability? A7 is prob. appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a contender for the least notable page created this year. Athel cb (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a complete list of pedestrian special passthrough places it might be notable, but this is limited to underpasses and thus excludes overpasses. OK, the first part was meant to be funny. There is no need to list all of a particular type of pedestrian crossing no matter how broadly defined anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, what’s next, list of stop signs? Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't be kept as it currently exist. NavjotSR (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary. Not notable. Gabe114 (talk) 18:31, 2 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Pandya[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. ManaliJain (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person appears to have had multiple roles as a child from 2006-2010, and to have since totally vanished from public view. It is less than clear, but he may well be an adult by now. The sourcing just does not justify having an article on this person who is now as far as we can tell a non-public individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am strongly agree to John Pack Lambert. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of TEDx conferences[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A very short list of a few of the many thousands of TedX conferences with no clarity on inclusion criteria and no useful information. Redundant to the self-updating Category:TEDx conferences. A much longer version was previously deleted at AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the previous AfD, duplicates a category with no real added content of importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous AfD. Gabe114 (talk) 18:28, 2 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Taylor Swift[edit]

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

Sorry Fram but I'm stealing your reasoning. Recently, a number of similar articles have been created, and I'm unclear whether they are a good idea. We already have categories for these, they are not a notable topic as a group, they are not a set index (as described at Wikipedia:Set index articles), and we could have a nearly endless supply of such lists. Not to mention these are all already linked on their main articles.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about Cameron Diaz PRAXIDICAE💕 15:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. While these are slightly better than the Cameron Diaz one, it makes little sense to e.g. create such a list for Kylie Minogue, and then add it as "related articles" to an already existing, better template with all these articles[13]. The same has been done for e.g. Pretty Little Liars[14]. In general, if there aren't too many articles, the main artcle + category + search bar are sufficient: if there are more articles, usually a navigational template already exists. Fram (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Articles in these are included in the main articles' infoboxes, their bodies, and navigation templates. There is no need for separate articles to compile such links. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the reasons stated by Fram above. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:51, 25 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, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pointless and redundant to categories and navboxes that do the same thing better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, clearly a poor-man's attempt at a portal and portals are a contentious idea as it is. Navigational templates and categories already do the trick, as do established subpage formats such as "X discography", "X videography", and "List of songs written by X". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for the reasons already given. Athel cb (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There is a reason we have categories and navbox templates is so we don't need unnecessary list articles like this. Ajf773 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per reasoning provided the discussion above. Not much different than this "Listography" AfD a couple years back. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. There are a number of other List of articles about pages that have been created prior to these ones, for example List of articles about Australia and New Zealand jointly. So, I don't understand why these are not worthy of creation, as in Michael Jackson, Madonna and Kylie Minogue's example, as these people have several articles related to them, and in my experience category pages (like Category:Michael Jackson, Category:Madonna and Category:Kylie Minogue) have often been messy and filled with other articles that don't directly link to the person themselves. Basically, I think of these ones I've created for Michael Jackson, Madonna and Kylie Minogue as neat versions of their respective Category articles. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much broader subject matter and highly relevant. Every individual, particularly in entertainment does not need a list like this as it's all linked in the template already. This is nothing short of disruption. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as others mentioned, navboxes and categories serve this role perfectly fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete all after a quick check that the articles and/or navboxes include all/important links from the lists — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These can either be linked by categories, or in some cases by on the main article creating links to other relevant articles. There is no need for this "lists of articles about x" type of page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The articles were all created recently by Samuelloveslennonstella, who perhaps saw a gap in Wikipedia's organization of articles. Kudos for your interest in helping out, but all of these new list articles are a solution to a problem that does not exist, and they just add clutter. As noted by everyone above, Wikipedia is already equipped with various types of categories, templates, and navigation boxes that serve this purpose. If you think those are deficient in some fashion, start discussions in the proper places to suggest improvements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason we have a rash of index type articles in the past few years.....is that 60+% (mobile users) don't see nav templates or categories..... thus most don't see any navigational aid. Wish this could be fixed and reasons for deletion actually bsesd on user reality. Moxy- 02:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Redundant with the categories and the templates. No added value beyond. No objection to redirects to the templates, would someone be so inclined. gidonb (talk) 20:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Fort Pierce, Florida[edit]

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

List of largely non-notable local politicians. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when you basically source the whole thing to the city offices, clearly this is not a subject covered in secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fort Pierce isn't a large enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors, with the result that only one person in the entire list is actually linked to a biographical article, and the list is relying on city-published primary sources rather than real reliable source coverage about the mayors in real media — both of which add up to a list that isn't keepable in this form. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 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 Speedy delete. Non-admin closure (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHOMAR[edit]

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

Notability. I cant read Chinese, so whether one of the cites cuts the mustard I don't know, but the others do not. A search threw up zip, so I am doubtful about the Chinese. Oh, and it looks like an advert. TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speedying this. The creator admits to a COI and promotional intent on his/her talk page (without understanding what that means). Deb (talk) 14:51, 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 Gymnastics at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Results. ✗plicit 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula Katona (gymnast)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and as it sourced only to databases violates WP:NOTDATABASE.

The Hungarian Wikipedia has a source not provided in the English article, but that source is also database. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gymnastics at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Results per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not even complete his competition in the Olympics. Also keep in mind that before 1908 the Olympics were not really a major international event. There are no significant sources, which is what we absolutely need to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Alvaldi (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 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 Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée. ✗plicit 14:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Achille[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and as it sourced only to databases violates WP:NOTDATABASE.

All we know about him is his name, his date of birth and death, his nationality, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any significant sourcing that indicates notability. Such is lacking for a lot of competitors in the Olympics. The reality of what the first three Olympics actually were makes finding such sourcing very unlikely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts Adamtt9 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Alvaldi (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although User:Lugnuts redirect is a good option, we really have nothing but database entries to preserve, and it's unlikely these are going away. It is doubtful that anything new will come up, but if it does there is really nothing lost in deleting this one. Jacona (talk) 13:57, 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 redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée. ✗plicit 14:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Tintant[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE. All we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have no significant source coverage. There are no sources providing significant source coverage. Such is not really present for all olympic competitors. This is even more pronounced when we are dealing with those who competed in the first three modern Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Again, the nom is making incorrect claims of violates WP:NOTDATABASE, as this simply isn't true, as non of the four criteria listed there apply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE applies, as the data is not put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée per Lugnuts. Alvaldi (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge per above. There may be newspaper articles ... But ... Nor does he have an article in the French Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Lugnuts. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - When most of the four-sentence stub isn't about the subject, the subject probably does not warrant its own article. And yeah, obligatory fails GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although redirect is OK, there's really not anything worthy of preservation here, just db entries, and the subject is so obscure it's as likely they were looking for someone else, perhaps the theologian of the same name. Jacona (talk) 14:04, 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is another article that is little more than a collection of mostly uncited trivia. If you want this type of content, go to TV Tropes. Their purpose is to list every single time that random things have appeared in various fictional works. This is not Wikipedia's job, however. There is also a clear issue with the scope of the article. No attempt was made to create reasonable criteria for inclusion here. This list is an indiscriminate collection of tangentially related things. Many of the examples given are not even usages of the classical elements. Instead, several other elements are discussed here. Honestly, this article is probably too broad to exist. At best, this might be a candidate for destruction and recreation. However, the sheer number of times that creators have used the classical elements in their works likely precludes the recreation of this article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Philosophy, Mythology, and Popular culture. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous nominations were in 2007 and 2008, when standards for fancruft were very low, and Keep votes were based largely on the potential of an encyclopedic article or meager attempts to add encyclopedic content about the topic while separating the examples. What little content in the current article is not indiscriminate examples does not directly address the topic of popular culture with reliable sources; such content should be based on academic work about fantasy, sort of like what replaced Far future in fiction after the old article was deleted at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The vast bulk of this trivia list is unsourced, and some of it seems like outright WP:OR that doesn't pertain to the actual subject at hand. Even the "Reception" section is misleading, as it does not, in fact, describe or summarize any kind of discussion about the reception of classical elements in popular culture, but are merely just more trivia statements along the lines of "this book talks about the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Example farm that is largely original research. Wikipedia isn't TVTropes, there is already a page for that. [15] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Vastly unsourced, completely OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a thing, but the current article is standard WP:TNT material due to WP:NOTTVTROPES and so on. Ping User:Uncle G, User:TompaDompa, this does look fun for a rewrite project... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing Executives Society-Arab Countries[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable source found. One instance of coverage found is from a news agency run by Abu-Gazaleh, who is the Chairman of LES-AC, and as such is not independent coverage. Another is clearly described as a press-release. All other news agency coverage suffers from similar problems. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches in English and Arabic didn't find much more than what FOARP has already discussed above, and I agree that these sources – mostly trivial mentions or non-independent coverage – aren't enough to meet WP:NCORP's requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 2 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. Just to clarify, I never made a clear position on whether the article should have been kept, deleted or redirected.(non-admin closure) Haleth (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Morris (Saved by the Bell)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zack Morris (Saved by the Bell)

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

Fails notability guidelines. Seeing reception section, only A.V. club is reliable while Screenrant and CBR are very weak as a source. As per WP:BEFORE, nothing valuable about the character can be found. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the one who restored the article in the first place, I did so because I knew Zack had plenty of sources discussing him, and I found some. Screen Rant and CBR, while not as strong of a source as A.V. Club, are still reliable, unless they are being cited for exceptional claims or for BLPs (Zack Morris is a character), per WP:RSPSOURCES (which lists Screen Rant as such, and CBR is owned by the same company), especially for opinions pieces (WP:RSOPINION). Plus, here's an article by LA Times and another by Rolling Stone, as well as NPR and Thought Catalog. And this book, while I don't have access to it beyond the Google preview, seems to do a lot of discussion on Zack. Here's another book that discusses him. Zack Morris is a pretty iconic character, so I'm sure there's even more out there. Notability is clearly met here. MoonJet (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP, you sure about your WP:BEFORE results? A quick search and I found several stories about the character's in-universe exploits or real world commentary on the character, including Today, Scary Mommy, People, E Online, Vox, and Capital FM. I can see that Moonjet has cited additional sources not mentioned by me or covered in the article's prose at the time of writing. I haven't analyzed the sources in depth and I don't follow the TV franchise at all, but I get the impression that the character has left some sort of cultural impact and so deletion should not be an option to contemplate.. Haleth (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Oof. I guess its just a mobile stuff that I couldnt find reliable sources properly, so I decided to windraw this nomination. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:53, 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 redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's K-2 1000 metres. ✗plicit 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

René Lacelle[edit]

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

Lacelle was a non-medaling competitor in the Olympics. I have searched multiple databases to find sources on him and have not found any additional sources that constitute significant coverage. I did find brief mentions of other people with this same name, so there is no reason to suppose that this Rene Lacelle is the most likely one for people to search for. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's K-2 1000 metres per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's K-2 1000 metres per User:Lugnuts. Alvaldi (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's K-2 1000 metres per User:Lugnuts. I'm happy to revise my opinion if sources are found. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 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. Sandstein 12:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in literature and popular culture[edit]

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

"he Northern Ireland Troubles have been referenced numerous times... This article aims to provide a complete list of such works." Is this topic potentially notable? Probably. Is there anything to rescue from this iteration of WP:NOTTVTROPES? Not likely. Another mostly unreferenced list of ORish collection of mentions of topic x in random works. Fails WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. At best, WP:TNT applies with no prejudice to anyone rewriting this at some future point from scratch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, History, Popular culture, Lists, Ireland, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is little more than an indiscriminate collection of uncited entries. Many of them appear to be either trivial or non-notable. It needs to be destroyed to make way for a future effort. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely unsourced list that is even worse than simply being trivia items, because the vast majority of the entries have absolutely no context - its just a list of "things" that may or may not have mentioned the concept of The Troubles. The few items that do have any kind of information attached are the very definition of trivial (i.e. "a single episode of a long running TV program mentioned the concept"). Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple listing that Category:Works about The Troubles (Northern Ireland) fulfills more comprehensively. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES (which I'm glad other editors are already citing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: These kinds of lists are probably the thing I hate most on Wikipedia. Like, I have no doubt that if written as prose, this would be a notable encyclopedic entry, but it's just indiscriminate and unsourced listings. Per WP:Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination), I think it would be best to draftify, for no reason other than to serve as a baseline after TNT. Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a harmless list. I do not think the category can be more comprehensive, though it cover the same ground, because the list has several red links. List of this kind are much better for not being cluttered with references: the place for the references is in the articles that are listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:POPCULT: "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic. I find it very unlikely that most of the article's content is discussed in secondary sources.

Additionally, an article being WP:HARMLESS isn't a reason to keep. Cakelot1 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E.Xa.Ctly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete per above. It seems like an article could probably be written on The Troubles in literature, but it would need to be a complete rewrite with likely little to none of the pressent WP:ORish list being included (deleting per WP:TNT would also be an option) Cakelot1 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Most of the article doesn't even mention how The Troubles was referenced, let alone, establishing how those "references" are of any significance beyond WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:TRIVIA. As others have mentioned, deleting it and rewriting it from scratch is probably the way to go. Delete without prejudice to a recreation/rewrite.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:59, 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. Sandstein 11:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeperKhanz[edit]

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

non-notable local band that never really took off in a way that would make them notable on wikipedia. CUPIDICAE💕 21:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2022-04 ↻ restored ← 2022-01 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not able to find any reliable, significant coverage, even on more specialty music sites or local newspapers. No notability established. Do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 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. ✗plicit 12:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Key date[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because it only contains two sources throughout the article. The article is also ridden with listcruft and unsourced OR, not to mention a US-centric perspective. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that a quick search reveals that the literature, mostly auction catalogues and not reference works, in fact calls them key date coins, which makes a bit more sense, as a key date is simply any date that is "key" in some way. Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 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. ✗plicit 11:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Airport[edit]

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

Private airport named after its owner. Only "reference" is the name of its owner. Fails WP:NAIRPORT as lacking "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport" AusLondonder (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private "airports" are almost never notable. We would need sourcing to the level to at least pass GNG, probably to pass organization notability, and we are no where near either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 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. Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Commonwealth Archery and Shooting Championships[edit]

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

Not-so notable event that got cancelled due to the pandemic. If this information is really important, it could be summarised in 1-2 lines at 2022 Commonwealth Games article. Also note that most of the events in Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic are redirects. Peter Ormond 💬 10:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative agree - I would quibble on the 'not-so-notable', that's a pure opinion - I would argue given the quite well publicised politics behind the original creation of a new championship event, and the tensions it revealed, and the unique status that was going to be given to medals (included in second table linked to main 2022 Commonwealth Games), it certainly did reach notability - and would have kept it IF the event had actually taken place.

But its cancellation - without word of any successor event - probably justifies reducing it to a paragraph ( a bit more than two lines, though) in a 'controversies' part of the 2022 Commonwealth Games front page. On that basis, I would agree with the deletion. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 13:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Australian Country Fire Service groups and brigades[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Completely unsourced for many years and nothing remotely indicating that this is a notable group per WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Moore[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote to delete, as not compelling enough according to WP:GNG. VeritasOM (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – association football player who has played at least once for a national team at senior level.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No indication she gained any notability during her brief athletic career, neither in the United States nore Guyana. I searched both Newspapers.com and Google (including in Guyanese sources) but found nothing outside of brief mentions. Closing admin should note that there is no automatic notability for playing for a national team, per WP:NSPORTS all athletes must pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite playing as an international, also found very little sources for her so fails WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inikiri Umuezeoka[edit]

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

Virtually unreferenced, and a search finds nothing. Described as a 'community', with no indication that it is legally recognised as required for notability per WP:GEOLAND, and sourcing falls far short of WP:GNG. Was moved to main space after AfC decline, and has since been back and forth several times, so next stop AfD. Fails WP:N / WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been watching this since its creation hoping that reliable refs would appear. They haven't and searches find nothing. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Populated places can typically be found to be notable but there is little if any indication of this nor of necessary 'infrastucture' / amenities such as schools or even governance. Also found nothing via basic searches, so as it stands, fails WP:GNG & WP:NPLACE. Eagleash (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : - Not able to find anything substantial. Fails GNG. Hitro talk 08:30, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Cameron Diaz[edit]

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

Recently, a number of similar articles have been created, and I'm unclear whether they are a good idea. We already have categories for these, they are not a notable topic as a group, they are not a set index (as described at Wikipedia:Set index articles), and we could have a nearly endless supply of such lists.

For this specific example, the articles about Cameron Diaz are already easily found by:

The search bar
The Cameron Diaz article
The Cameron Diaz category

Do we really need a fourth way to access these? I think we should delete this, but am open to being convinced otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless article, everything can be just linked from both the category and the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The list article contains 3 links — the main CD article, filmography and awards. The main article has clear links to the other 2, so this list article is pointless duplication — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: I have been creating new list of articles about... pages (for example: List of articles about Nicole Kidman and List of articles about Michael Jackson) as easier ways to access compilation of articles about certain people and shows (List of articles about Pretty Little Liars franchise)) Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles can be either linked to the one on the main subject, or joined through a category if that becomes to hard. We do not need these "list of articles" pages. They are a bad plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utterly unnecessary, and Samuelloveslennonstella needs to cease creating these. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Hey man im josh (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other users mentioned on it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:52, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East African cricket team in England in 1972[edit]

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

Non-notable tour which featured only minor matches. Fails WP:NCRIC and wider WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. StickyWicket (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Cricket Archive page has everything listed as misc matches, with about half of the scorecards not even being present, and for those matches that are recorded are for second XI teams, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, matches weren't of a standard to be notable enough for a standalone article of the tour. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Public School[edit]

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

Had my PROD declined, and concerns weren't met - mainly that it did not meet WP:NSCHOOL, which the primary source provided didn't solve even if it met the "no sources at all" complaint. In addition, this might be promotional. WP:BEFORE check didn't appear to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It must be a speedy. No indication of notability. Absolutely fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:A7, speedy deletion for no indication of notability does not apply to articles about educational institutions. I switched to PROD (which led us to this AFD) after realizing that myself. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Also, for what it's worth, logo is a copyright violation. 174.212.212.106 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:45, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HOP Electric[edit]

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

a non-notable startup. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Most of the provided references are either press releases or just a passing mention. DMySon (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. DMySon (talk) 08:11, 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 no consensus. Several options are listed here, none of which has a consensus. This can always be nominated again with a stronger rationale for deletion or further editing can remedy the article's issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wyne (tribe)[edit]

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

The article is too short more like a dictionary definition rather than article, no sources, and might be a hoax. Vitaium (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find any sources to support this. Mccapra (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Blatant hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.173.231 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly not a hoax! There was a well-known politician that served as the Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan from 1990 to 1993 by the name of Ghulam Haider Wyne. We can have some fun here on this forum trying to rhyme

it with the English word 'Wine'? But, in fact, there is no relation between the two words. Wyne has historically been used as a tribal family name in Punjab. I remember working on his still existing Wikipedia article Ghulam Haider Wyne on 3 September 2021. Added 2 more references to that article today (the article already had many newspaper references). This above article Wyne (tribe) was created in 2013 by someone and has been neglected and unsourced since then like many others we run into. Anyone of us may try to find references on Google Books for it where I usually have luck for tribal names. I'll also try to look for them soon. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see this comment copied here from the above article's Talk page from a Wikipedia user who uses this name as his family name:

"No this isn't a hoax. This is a family name in Pakistan. Also this is my family name". MNWYNE (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll list here at least two notable Pakistani people with this family name:

Ghulam Haider Wyne, Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan from 1990 to 1993
General Khalid Shameem Wynne, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee of the Pakistan Armed Forces

... Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added 4 new newspaper references and categories to the above article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly redirect to Wani (surname), which says it's also spelled Wyne and associated with a caste in India and Pakistan/Punjab?~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources added to the article are of no use in establishing that “Wyne” is the name of a “tribe”. They merely establish that it is a surname. The fact that a few people share a surname does not establish the existence of a “tribe” - apparently there are no sources at all that do that. Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion First since Wyne sounded too close to the English word 'Wine', it might have been a hoax – which was understandable to me. Now that 4 newspaper references were located and provided to establish that notable people in Pakistan have been using it as their family or surname, the word 'tribe' can be changed in the article title. I suggest that we 'Move page' to make the article title Wyne (name) or Wyne (surname). Many already existing Wikipedia articles have titles like that. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we remove any reference to tribes the page could be about a surname, but with only two names cited, that may not fly either. Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page. (I apologize, I do not know the proper terminology for turning something into one). Turn "Wyne" into a disambiguation page with the names of notable people with the surname Wyne. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wyne already exists as a disambiguation page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have clearly established that this is not a hoax. But I see absolutely nothing to establish notability. CT55555 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Wyne (surname). MOS:DABNAME allows for standalone namelists. Use (surname) disambiguator per WP:APOTITLE.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? All the entries are already listed in Wyne#Surname, with the correct exception of General Wynne. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wyne#Surname, which this duplicates. Sandstein 11:51, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lherison Debrise[edit]

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

The most for significant coverage that I can find is a Google Books snippet view that shows a short biography in the book Spirits in Sequins: Vodou Flags of Haiti. The Tagalog article is tagged for notability. SL93 (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Haiti. SL93 (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment One reference "Haitian Art Society" is a membership organization. Not reliable. Another source "Indigo Arts Gallery" is a commercial enterprise. Debrise is a working artist, but there aren't any reliable secondary sources for his work or life. Lean towards delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:49, 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 redirect to Asset#Tangible assets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard asset[edit]

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

This blatant coatrack of an article, which starts out claiming that hard assets "may be real estate, commodities, or energy", then proceeds to talk about raw materials, should be deleted. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page 396 of the Cambridge Business English Dictionary tells me that this synonymous with a tangible asset, so there's an obvious merger action. No deletion or administrators required. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tangible asset. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asset#Tangible_assets, per WP:2R. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability isn't established and wikipedia is not a dictionary (as per WP:NOTDICT). CT55555 (talk) 19:56, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klippe (coin)[edit]

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

The page should be deleted for being unsourced and definition-like. It can be replaced by an entry at the glossary of numismatics. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - an important type of coin. Deletion is not cleanup. In any case, it has an entry in Coins and Currency: An Historical Encyclopedia, 2d ed. (2019). Note also the detail and references in the German article. St Anselm (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the article at its current stage should be dealt with (whatever its fate might be), so I think that it can redirect to Glossary of numismatics for now. If anyone expanded the article to dewiki levels, we can change it back to an article. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If you search for the term in Google Books you find mentions of this, confirming it was a thing done in siege warfare. It seems like this article needs work, but there is some historical significance here and coin books are providing sustained coverage. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation hedge[edit]

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

The page should be deleted because:

It lends undue weight to precious metals and bitcoin as an inflation hedge.
The concept of hedging (though not to inflation specifically) already has its own article.
As mentioned in point 1, most external links (6 out of 8) lead to PM-related pages.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many books and papers dedicated to inflation hedging.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The issues raised by the nominator can be resolved through editing, per WP:ATD.

References

^ Greer, Robert (2005). The Handbook of Inflation Hedging Investments. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780071483339.
^ The Performance and Inflation-Hedging Characteristics of Hotel Investment in Hong Kong. BiblioBazaar. 2017. ISBN 9781374719002.
^ Beckmann, Joscha; Czudaj, Robert (2013). "Gold as an inflation hedge in a time-varying coefficient framework" (PDF). The North American Journal of Economics and Finance. 24. Elsevier: 208–222.
^ Schotman, P.C.; Schweitzer, M. (2000). "Horizon sensitivity of the inflation hedge of stocks". Journal of empirical Finance. 7 (3–4). Elsevier: 301–315.
^ Liu, C.H.; Hartzell, D.J.; Hoesli, M.E. (1997). "International evidence on real estate securities as an inflation hedge" (PDF). Real estate economics. 25 (2). Wiley Online Library: 193–221.
^ Choi, S.; Shin, J. (2021). "Bitcoin: An inflation hedge but not a safe haven" (PDF). Finance Research Letters. Elsevier: 102379.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. AFD is not for cleanup and improvement. JBchrch talk 14:59, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hüsnü Zeybekoğlu[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. This (1) is the only source I could find with more than a passing mention of the subject, and it's clearly not enough to meet WP:GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who never played any league matches above the Turkish third-tier (TFF Second League with Turgutluspor and Eyüpspor). I can't find any SIGCOV in online English- or Turkish-language sources, and this article wouldn't have satisfied the deprecated NFOOTBALL standard. Jogurney (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SIGCOV and GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 23:47, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relocation of professional sports teams in Australia and New Zealand[edit]

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

This article does not describe a single coherent subject. It is, in effect, the potted relocation/merger/expansion histories of three distinct leagues in three different sports: the Australian Football League, National Rugby League and A-League. Parallels among the three leagues are not explored in any significant way, the list of entries indicates that there aren't that many parallels which could sustain an article, and the rest of ANZ's professional sports are ignored completely. Overall I don't believe a valid article under this title can be written - in that I don't see a reason for different sports to be combined by country like this. One alternative to outright deletion would be splitting into articles named Relocation of teams in the Australian Football League, Relocation of teams in the National Rugby League and Relocation of teams in the A-League – but I'd also oppose this on the grounds that those leagues' and clubs' history pages should and already do cover the subject adequately. Aspirex (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Australia, and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this was just a WP:SIZE split to a WP:FORK because the parent article was just so enormous. Really you'd have overhaul numerous articles. I am not convinced by your arguments at all either. There's nothing stopping you improving the article, but having a parent article in one place does help navigation Abcmaxx (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split by sport: They are different sports and the page should be split according to the individual sports. Gusfriend (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split by sport/league as currently it's three unrelated sports in one article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antakshri (film)[edit]

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

Film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. This article reads like a blurb, and says nothing about what third parties have written about the film. There are two copies of the article, in both draft space and article space, that have been tagged for history merge, which is not necessary because the article can be deleted instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NFILM and no assertion of notability under other WP:GNG guidelines. Mike1901 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom KylieTastic (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 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 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!} 04:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rickard[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for businesspeople. As always, being CEO of a company is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia -- the notability test is the reception of enough third-party coverage and analysis in real media to pass WP:GNG. But this is referenced overwhelmingly to sources that are not valid support for notability -- WordPress blogs, his own company's self-published press releases about itself, cryptocurrency news forums, etc. -- and the very few sources that do appear to be legitimate media outlets aren't covering him as a subject, but all just glancingly namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about something else, and that's not the kind of "coverage" we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Indonesia, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found only quotes, passing mentions, press releases, and the like. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so the GNG isn't met, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 2 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Dammit[edit]

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

Struggling to find any sources covering this WP:BLP. Possibly there are sources out there, but they were never provided in the article and without them, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional associations with notable musicians does not make one notable. Outside of his connections, there are no RS that are about this guy independently. His AllMusic page is just a list of credits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. Reads like WP:RESUME. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamna Tamna[edit]

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

Article about a song by a band who don't have a Wikipedia article, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The article is long and detailed enough that I don't feel comfortable speedying it A9, but the problem is that the detail in it isn't reliably sourced to real media coverage about the song: it's referenced 50 per cent to WordPress blogs and podcasts, and 50 per cent to a five-stacked reference bomb offering purely tangential verification of the existence of a different band whose video for a different song was supposedly a "sequel" to the video for this one, except absolutely none of the sources actually support that claim at all — they just verify that the other band exists, while completely failing to mention any connection whatsoever to this song or the band that recorded this song. Which means that the article is referenced exactly zero per cent to reliable sourcing that establishes the notability of this song. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claims to notability for the song, long rambling article that goes way off topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's analysis is airtight, and the article is not nearly as robust as it looks. The folks behind this song and video can document their development efforts all they want, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. The event they threw to promote the release was unnoticed by the media, and the song is only found in the band's own promotions and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Bethannan[edit]

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

This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPOL or the GNG. Municipal chairmen are not presumptively notable under NPOL, and I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources: the cited sources do not reference Bethannan at all (in fact, they seem to have been copied from an unrelated article), and my fairly exhaustive WP:BEFORE search in English and Tamil didn't identify anything beyond a few passing mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded earlier, but could not see that now.

There is a open air auditorium named after Mr. S.Bethannan, next to the historic landmark - Thanjavur Big temple Refer - https://maps.mapmyindia.com/place-bethannan+open+air+auditorium-balaganapathy+nagar-thanjavur-tamil+nadu-613009-87T325@zdata=MTAuNzgzNjUzKzc5LjEzMTcxNisxNys4N1QzMjUrKw==ed
Currently not all Tamilnadu Government websites carry the list of past municipal chairmans, hence could not refer any government websites.@

Cmanimaran (talk) 00:27, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munira Al-Fadhel[edit]

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:PROF as an academic and WP:NAUTHOR as a writer. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Bahrain. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done some work on the article. I'll see if others do too before !voting. It's a depressing process trying to find background on her because what this has taught me is that:

She is one of the most notable women writers in Bahrain, one of only five Bahrainis invited to an official dinner in 2013.^[1]
It's exceptionally difficult for women to get noticed in Bahrain for writing, the best chance is if they first get translated into English first^[2]

Of course, Wikipedia doesn't account for this and holds women in countries with exceptional levels of gender inequity to the same notability standard as those in every other country. I'm not sure if she is notable by wikipedia standards. But she should be. But this isn't the place to change wikipedia notability guidelines. So for now, I abstain. CT55555 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She could be notable by WP:AUTHOR if you can find multiple reviews of her books that have been published in newspapers, journals etc. It seems her books were translated into English, so this may actually exist. --hroest 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "حرم السفير الفلسطيني تقيم مأدبة عشاء برعاية الشيخة ثاجبة على شرف الأديبات العربيات". دنيا الوطن (in Arabic). Retrieved 2022-04-11.
^ Hutchins, William Maynard (2019). "Paradigm Shifts for Translation and Teaching". In Dorroll, Courtney M. (ed.). Teaching Islamic Studies in the Age of ISIS, Islamophobia, and the Internet. Indiana University Press. p. 85. ISBN 9780253039811.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Plaza[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBUILDING - no indication of notability or significant coverage of the building itself. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of second bullet of WP:NBUILDING echoes that of WP:GNG, which this subject passes thanks to ample newspaper articles accesible at Newspapers.com. I've expanded the article and added some of these newspaper articles. NemesisAT (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taken together, the sources provided by NemesisAT demonstrate significant enough coverage to meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Review in light of the new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the other two users as what they said about the article warrants it being spared from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 03:24, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch hardness[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:SYNTH violation. The other two scales being compared to Mohs are not notable on their own, as their articles are both redlinks and the sources are just publications by people the scales are named after. Deprodded because "the scales might be notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Not my area but I'm unsure that the other two scales are unnotable; there's a lot of publications on different ways of measuring hardness; the first one I clicked on was a 1974 Scientific American review[16] that discusses the Wooddell scale, which it calls the Moh–Wooddell scale, for several meaty paragraphs with a table. I don't see why this falls under WP:Synth. At very least, as I suggested when I removed the prod, it should be merged into the relevant section in the article on hardness. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's suggesting a connection between the Mohs scale and two other scales that aren't notable on their own, using only publications by the creators of those two scales. Why those two scales and not some other ones? What part of this even suggests there's a link? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purely off the top of my head: the Mohs scale is a method of determining hardness by scratching one material with another, invented c.1820. A child can use it but it has numerous problems for scientific use, in particular it is skewed so that nearly every material of interest is right at the top end. According to the Sci Am review I linked, which you can read as well as I can, the Wooddell scale is a 1935 attempt to fix this problem, by scaling the Mohs values. I assume the other scale mentioned is another such attempt. Other methods of measuring hardness don't use scratching but rather pressing or something else. This is also explained in the review.

It seems a coherent and important encyclopedic topic, which is readily sourced. Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it being compared to two random, arbitrary scales that don't seem notable on their own, though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what part of what I wrote is unclear? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the other two scales notable? Probably not. To make an article comparing three things, when two of those three don't have articles, is putting the cart before the horse at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also get zero hits for "Ridgway's Scale" and "Woodall's Scale" other than the Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try correcting the spelling? Or searching in more specialised places? Something published in 1935 might not be all that well reviewed on the internet.

As to the more general point, the article is correctly discussing three similar entities, two of which might not need their own articles. I'm genuinely baffled as to the problem here. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That it's being compared to two entities that don't have their own article is the problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any sources on the (properly spelled) scales that I did not? If so, then add them to the article please. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"compared to two random, arbitrary scales"

Historically, at worst, Ridgway and Wooddell extended Mohs to specific synthetic materials industries, while Mohs was a field mineralogist.

"Scratch hardness" is certainly a notable thing, having encountered it many times in multiple youth education systems.

I get it that Ridgway's and Wooddell's papers are primary, but they clearly exist as practical improvements to Mohs to make the material hardness measurement method more functional for industry. A relatively likely situation here is that the OP is familiar with hardness scales in some fields where either Ridgway or Woodall scales are known, so, I hackle at the "random" appellation that strikes me personally as presumptively NPOV. "Random" is speculative. Mohs is "arbitrary" by definition.

I suggest searching on the titles "Hardness Values for Electrochemical Products" and "Method of Comparing the Hardness of Electric Furnace Products and Natural Abrasives", which turns up more books and papers citing Ridgway, et al, 1933, or Wooddell 1935 than I have time to assess.

C. Barry Carter, M. Grant Norton (2013). Ceramic Materials: Science and Engineering. [citing Ridgway, et al, 1933] Note that in Chapter 16 we consider the extended [industrial] version as defined by Ridgway but it is not nearly so widely used in the Gem industry. (ironically published the same year as the WP page)
Industrial Minerals and Rocks: (nonmetallics Other Than Fuels). American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. 1960.
Mineralogical hardness or "scratch" hardness is as expressed in Mohs scales is an important property in evaluating abrasive materials, but it is only one of several essential properties ...
both "scratch" hardness and toughness must be considered. ...
The Mohs scale is inadequate both because the methods of testing are very crude and because the intervals between steps in the scale are not uniform. ...
Numerous attempts have been made to remedy these deficiencies. Ridgway, Ballard, and Baily [1933] proposed an extension of Mohs scale to include artificially prepared substances.
R. W. Rice, A. G. Evans (1978). "Hardness and Its Relation to Machining". NBS Special Publication, (562): 185–187.
Since translational motion is involved in machining operations, it would appear that scratch hardness is a more relevant parameter than the commonly used indentation hardness. ...
Also in some earlier studies the rate of lapping was used as an extension of, or replacement for, the familiar Moh [sic] hardness scale.[14 (Wooddell 1935)]{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Several current ceramic coating manufacturers name "Mohs, Ridgway, and Wooddell" as a triad, but I will not try to see whether they were influenced by WP.
Kevin J. Anderson. "Hardness Testing" (PDF). MRS Bulletin. Historical Note (November 1994): 7. Retrieved 2022-04-21. For all its usefulness, the Mohs scale is arbitrary and nonlinear. ... When synthetic abrasive materials become widely available at the beginning of this century, R.R. Ridgway and his co- workers, finding they needed more numbers at the high end of the scale, modified Mohs' scheme. C.E. Wooddell measured how much various minerals resisted wearing down with diamond abrasives, which allowed a finer categorization between the Mohs numbers of 9 and 10. Ridgway arbitrarily shifted the value of diamond to 15 on the scale instead of 10, which allowed them to assign hardness numbers of 12 to fused alumina, 13 to silicon carbide, and 14 to boron carbide.
Francis P. Bundy (1974). "Superhard Materials". Scientific American. 231 (2): 62–71. Retrieved 2022-04-21. Wooddell indexed his scale by assigning quartz and corundum their Mohs values of 7 and 9, and the scale is therefore called the Mohs-Wooddell scale.

Don't Delete (not the same as "Keep") based on the notability of Ridgway and Wooddell relative to Mohs, they are the extension of Mohs into 20th Century science.

Don't Split Ridgway and Wooddell are inseparable topics, but might not have made it into the 21st Century.

Redirect Ridgway hardness scale (syntheic ceramics) and Wooddell hardness scale to wherever this content ends up residing.

Keep or Merge with Mohs scale of mineral hardness'? That is a follow-on topic IMO: Is "scratch hardness" a broad topic (cf indent hardness) or inseparable from Mohs scale, et al?

IveGoneAway (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was initially a redirect to Hardness#Scratch hardness, a topic that is well-covered in the literature. Click the Find sources links at the top of this page! Indentation hardness, another child page of the Hardness article, is a better written article. Wikipedia doesn't cover engineering topics well (theory attracts more editors), and we should improve the ones we have, not remove them. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Improve them with what though? I just pointed out that no sources exist for the Ridgway's and Wooddell's scales. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just scales, not tests - improve with more material that is in all those sources about scratch hardness and testing. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer, there is nothing wrong with nominating a scruffy stub article for deletion. But this topic goes well beyond the current content of the article. We don't have good coverage of engineering topics because there are few editors in this area, so nominators of engineering articles for deletion aren't expected to be experts. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improve, don't delete flawed articles on notable subjects. The subject here is Scratch hardness not alternate scales. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1.) What could I improve it with? 2.) If it's not about alternate scales, why does that take up more of the article than anything else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1.) What could I improve it with?

First, this is a delete discussion, but it has ranged into development of the topic.

But, the page presently is missing clear definitions of scratch hardness (especially as compared to the other types of hardness) and scratch test (broad and narrow definitions).

I have just skimmed Ridgway 1933, and it has an interesting history of the topic. (link when I get out of bed tomorrow)

2.) If it's not about alternate scales, why does that take up more of the article ...

A) It is a stub. B) From Ridgway 1933, we see there are multiple scratch test methods.

Hey! https://www.science.gov/topicpages/s/scratch+test+analysis

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A clear keep since the subject is beyond any doubt notable, widely written-about, widely used. Further, there is nothing SYNTH about tabulating the hardness of a set of materials by three different measures. That is merely collating verifiable information to give a reader an overview of what the scales do. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have good coverage of all topics, not just engineering. People recognize poor coverage in their own fields, but it's actually poor coverage in all fields.
This wasn't the easiest to search for sources for, since sometimes I actually have the books on my bookshelf, but the very first Google Books result for me was ISBN 9780080942452 where a professor of mechanical engineering devotes the whole of §6.6 to scratch hardness. Two sources, you say? Easy as pie! The third result of the same search was David Tabor's 1951 book The Hardness of Metals, which has good introductory level material on scratch hardness in, unsurprisingly, its introduction on pages 1 to 3.
Atkins tells us that there's a whole distinct second measurement of scratch hardness that isn't Mohs's. It's Thomas Turner's sclerometer. Add in that name and '"Hardness of Metals", Trans. Birm. Phil. Soc. 1886' and entire bibliographies on scratch hardness start turning up, and then a 1934 book by Hugh O'Neill on The Hardness of Metals and its Measurement that brings in Adolf Martens's quantification of Turner, as mentioned, and indeed as cited by, Atkins. None of those are in the article at hand. So yes, this is clearly a poor stub with plenty of scope for expansion.
Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a clearly notable topic that has had applications in gemology for hundreds of years.^[1] Many reliable sources are available to improve the article.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Tabor, D (1956). "The physical meaning of indentation and scratch hardness". British Journal of Applied Physics. 7 (5). IOP Publishing.
^ Sawamura, S.; Wondraczek, L. (2018). "Scratch hardness of glass". Physical Review Materials. 2 (9). APS Physics.
^ Flanders, L.A.; Quinn, J.B.; Wilson Jr, O.C.; Lloyd, I.K. (2003). "Scratch hardness and chipping of dental ceramics under different environments" (PDF). Dental Materials. 19 (8). Elsevier: 716-724.
^ George F. Vander Voort (1999). Metallography, Principles and Practice. ASM International. pp. 368–369. ISBN 9781615032365.
^ Erhard Winkler (2013). Stone in Architecture; Properties, Durability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 36–38. ISBN 9783662100707.
^ Tony Atkins; Anthony G. Atkins (2009). The Science and Engineering of Cutting; The Mechanics and Processes of Separating, Scratching and Puncturing Biomaterials, Metals and Non-metals. Elsevier Science. pp. 157–160. ISBN 9780080942452.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This broad topic article has but scratched the surface. (Keep)

IveGoneAway (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic has been proven notable by sources found. Dream Focus 11:23, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 12:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butter (1998 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP: NFSOURCES; found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough here to meet our standards, including a cast list and soundtrack, and as an HBO original flm. Nate • (chatter) 19:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm having trouble finding coverage for this under either name. It looks like it exists and can be watched, but so far it's just listings on TV, which is a bit surprising. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a cast list and soundtrack section is never a standard of notability. This film has no meaningful coverage. 114.125.125.172 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the entirety of what I was able to find. [17], [18], [19]. To 114.125, I'd suggest that having a highly notable cast and a soundtrack album by a very significant indie label is a pretty decent indication of notability, but certainly not proof. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the sources identified above Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vitale[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this article does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. That is to say nothing of Mr. Vitale personally, but I can't find anything that makes this seem a notable topic for the encyclopedia, unfortunately.

While not necessarily a rationale for deletion, this article has been heavily edited by someone who seems to be the subject, User:Tvdowntown.

See my own COI disclosure relating to Tastytrade on my userpage. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TraderCharlotte, please note that I do not care about being listed in list of Finance-related deletion discussions, so please to nto include me in this discussion.Tvdowntown (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ping @Tvdowntown:. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also just want to mention to Tony that I have nothing against him personally- I'm a huge fan of Tastytrade and I wish I could've found a way where I didn't have to nominate this article for deletion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Hello TraderCharlotte. I have now been asked to add my commentary here regarding your nomination for the article, Tony Vitale, to be deleted. It seems like Sdrqaz mentioned that I should add the conversation here as opposed to, or in addition to, where we have been shading the discussion about my article. I feel I have supplied ample information and resources for my work. I have also agreed that Jade Lizard should be removed. Since you did not respond to my defense, I followed the instructions and removed the template, however once again, I may have done something wrong as I am not as savvy as you, nor Sdrqaz with the intracies of commununication on Wiki. I am, however, proud of my accomplishments as they are in line with other filmmakers who have made feature films. I have also included my New York Times interview where my film was on the cover of the Sunday Arts and Leisure section in 1997. I referenced articles like that as well as many others, yet for some reason, you are still choosing to mention that they are not acceptable. Please let me know when this discussion is complete so that I can remove the template, as per my understand as to how Wikipedia works:
  
  Hello TraderCharlotte, it appears you have requested that my Wiki page be deleted, though I am not sure why you feel this way. The original article was published by a journalist, and a fan of my first film, KISS ME, GUIDO. Since that time, I have made edits to the article and believed that I was doing it correctly with the proper references. There are many filmmakers who have had their films, and their body of work (some with much less credibility than I), added to Wikipedia, so I am not sure why you have chosen mine for deletion. I see that you are, or have an affiliation with tastytrade. If I mentioned anything that was written about tastytrade that you do not think it is worthy, then please make the necessary edit. However, please let m know why you think my entire page shod be deleted so I can address your concern. Thank you. Tvdowntown (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Tvdowntown (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am supposed to leave in this section as well, but I am hoping you read this:

Hello TraderCharlotte. I have now been asked to add my commentary here regarding your nomination for the article, Tony Vitale, to be deleted. It seems like Sdrqaz mentioned that I should add the conversation here as opposed to, or in addition to, where we have been shading the discussion about my article. I feel I have supplied ample information and resources for my work. I have also agreed that Jade Lizard should be removed. Since you did not respond to my defense, I followed the instructions and removed the template, however once again, I may have done something wrong as I am not as savvy as you, nor Sdrqaz with the intracies of commununication on Wiki. I am, however, proud of my accomplishments as they are in line with other filmmakers who have made feature films. I have also included my New York Times interview where my film was on the cover of the Sunday Arts and Leisure section in 1997. I referenced articles like that as well as many others, yet for some reason, you are still choosing to mention that they are not acceptable. Please let me know when this discussion is complete so that I can remove the template, as per my understand as to how Wikipedia works:

Hello TraderCharlotte, it appears you have requested that my Wiki page be deleted, though I am not sure why you feel this way. The original article was published by a journalist, and a fan of my first film, KISS ME, GUIDO. Since that time, I have made edits to the article and believed that I was doing it correctly with the proper references. There are many filmmakers who have had their films, and their body of work (some with much less credibility than I), added to Wikipedia, so I am not sure why you have chosen mine for deletion. I see that you are, or have an affiliation with tastytrade. If I mentioned anything that was written about tastytrade that you do not think it is worthy, then please make the necessary edit. However, please let m know why you think my entire page shod be deleted so I can address your concern. Thank you. Tvdowntown (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Tvdowntown (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear to anyone reading this- I'm not affiliated with Tastytrade besides sometimes emailing people on the network. This misunderstanding has already been cleared up on Tvdowntown's talk page. TraderCharlotte (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 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.

[1] Greer, Robert (2005). The Handbook of Inflation Hedging Investments. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780071483339.

[2] The Performance and Inflation-Hedging Characteristics of Hotel Investment in Hong Kong. BiblioBazaar. 2017. ISBN 9781374719002.

[3] Beckmann, Joscha; Czudaj, Robert (2013). "Gold as an inflation hedge in a time-varying coefficient framework" (PDF). The North American Journal of Economics and Finance. 24. Elsevier: 208–222.

[4] Schotman, P.C.; Schweitzer, M. (2000). "Horizon sensitivity of the inflation hedge of stocks". Journal of empirical Finance. 7 (3–4). Elsevier: 301–315.

[5] Liu, C.H.; Hartzell, D.J.; Hoesli, M.E. (1997). "International evidence on real estate securities as an inflation hedge" (PDF). Real estate economics. 25 (2). Wiley Online Library: 193–221.

[6] Choi, S.; Shin, J. (2021). "Bitcoin: An inflation hedge but not a safe haven" (PDF). Finance Research Letters. Elsevier: 102379.

[7] "حرم السفير الفلسطيني تقيم مأدبة عشاء برعاية الشيخة ثاجبة على شرف الأديبات العربيات". دنيا الوطن (in Arabic). Retrieved 2022-04-11.

[8] Hutchins, William Maynard (2019). "Paradigm Shifts for Translation and Teaching". In Dorroll, Courtney M. (ed.). Teaching Islamic Studies in the Age of ISIS, Islamophobia, and the Internet. Indiana University Press. p. 85. ISBN 9780253039811.

[9] Tabor, D (1956). "The physical meaning of indentation and scratch hardness". British Journal of Applied Physics. 7 (5). IOP Publishing.

[10] Sawamura, S.; Wondraczek, L. (2018). "Scratch hardness of glass". Physical Review Materials. 2 (9). APS Physics.

[11] Flanders, L.A.; Quinn, J.B.; Wilson Jr, O.C.; Lloyd, I.K. (2003). "Scratch hardness and chipping of dental ceramics under different environments" (PDF). Dental Materials. 19 (8). Elsevier: 716-724.

[12] George F. Vander Voort (1999). Metallography, Principles and Practice. ASM International. pp. 368–369. ISBN 9781615032365.

[13] Erhard Winkler (2013). Stone in Architecture; Properties, Durability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 36–38. ISBN 9783662100707.

[14] Tony Atkins; Anthony G. Atkins (2009). The Science and Engineering of Cutting; The Mechanics and Processes of Separating, Scratching and Puncturing Biomaterials, Metals and Non-metals. Elsevier Science. pp. 157–160. ISBN 9780080942452.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]