Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep and I will history merge this version with the existing draft. Whether to merge the different seasons into one article can be discussed further elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1924–25 Lega Sud[edit]

1924–25 Lega Sud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article. Non notable football season. Insufficient references to satisfy GNG. Whiteguru (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Whiteguru (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge all Lega Sud season articles into one article. Sorry, but terrible nomination, the 1920s Lega Sud is an important part of historic Italian football, the seasons should be merged into one article. There are numerous Italian books on the histories of Italian football and this league has a lot of mentions. I am also confused why you are nominating one article in this series. Govvy (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an early second tier of the ancestor of one of the great Leagues. Definitely notable. In Vitrio (talk) 23:05, 21 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! 02:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This page was not previously deleted as claimed by the nom. It was previously unilaterally moved to draft space at Draft:1924–25 Lega Sud. Draftifying is not deletion by policy. If kept, the draft should be history merged back in to maintain attribution as the new article is quite clearly a copy-paste with the addition of a few new refs. SpinningSpark 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for copy-paste issues and no attribution), or ATD merge (not "keep and merge") all to single article per Govvy with draft "history merged back" for noted (and needed) attribution. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 4 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 12:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lucia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Another bilateral article mostly based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies, state visits. The agreements are relatively minor. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 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! 02:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am amazed at how many "X-Y relations" articles there still are after all this time. Didn't we agree ages ago that most of these are trivial and that not everything involving two random countries is a noteworthy "relation"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we did agree, but some people keep on creating non-notable ones! LibStar (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. Yilloslime (talk) 00:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Chun Motor Co., Ltd.[edit]

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

No significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. It also can't be merged anywhere per the Wikipedia policy WP:V. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be less information than in the Chinese (Taiwanese?) Wiki page on the same topic. Also there are references that are cited for the statements made. I wonder if that information should be transferred here first so a more appropriate decision can be made? NealeWellington (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 陳信榮 (2008-05-23). "慶眾廠房人員，租給三陽。生產線復工，產製Porter新貨車" [Chin Chun Motor factory staff, leased to Sanyang. Production line resumes to produce new Porter vans]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A13.

      The article notes: "慶眾汽車過去以生產福斯（VW）T4商用車聞名，結束與福斯的合作關係後，2000年時曾取得現代汽車代理權，但2002年代理權轉由三陽接手，慶眾就轉型為三陽代工廠。"

      From Google Translate: "Chin Chun Motor used to be famous for producing Volkswagen (VW) T4 commercial vehicles. After ending the partnership with Volkswagen, it obtained the agency rights of Hyundai Motor in 2000, but in 2002, the agency rights were transferred to Sanyang, and Chin Chun Motor transformed itself into the Sanyang foundry."

    2. 陳信榮 (2006-08-07). "起亞車組裝，慶眾台朔裕隆爭代工。母廠現代集團證實，起亞透過太古永豐尋覓夥伴，但目前言之過早" [Kia car assembly, Chin Chun Motor and Formosa Automobile Corporation compete for OEM. Parent factory Hyundai Group confirms that Kia is looking for partners through Swire Yongfeng, but it is too early to say]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A11.

      The article notes: "慶眾汽車轉型為同集團的三陽工業「專屬代工廠」後，為三陽代工、經銷現代商（Hyundai）用車產品，以及代工生產國防部軍用卡車。由於現代與起亞產品系出同門，設計、零件共用比率極高，成為慶眾汽車爭取起亞代工的優勢，慶眾可針對現代與起亞車款，同步開發零件，降低生產成本。但市場傳出慶眾汽車取得三陽轉過來的軍卡組裝訂單後，對爭取起亞代工案態度趨於被動；但業界質疑，現代集團是否願意讓慶豐集團統包現代與起亞在台所有業務。"

      From Google Translate: "After Chin Chun Motor was transformed into the "exclusive foundry" of Sanyang Industry, which is the same group, it is the OEM for Sanyang, the distribution of Hyundai's vehicle products, and the OEM production of military trucks for the Ministry of Defense. As the products of Hyundai and Kia are from the same family, the ratio of design and parts sharing is very high, which has become the advantage of Chin Chun Motor in striving for Kia's OEM. Chin Chun Motor can simultaneously develop parts for Hyundai and Kia models to reduce production costs. However, it was reported in the market that after Chin Chun Motor obtained the military card assembly order transferred from Sanyang, its attitude towards winning the Kia OEM case tended to be passive; however, the industry questioned whether Hyundai Group is willing to let Chin Chun Motor take all the ownership of Hyundai and Kia in Taiwan. business."

    3. 陳信榮 (2007-10-19). "取得中國大金龍技術授權，慶眾將在台產銷大陸巴士" [After obtaining technology authorisation from China's King Long, Chin Chun Motor will produce and sell mainland buses in Taiwan]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A2.

      The article notes: "慶眾汽車看準國內旅遊巴士需求市場，透過同屬慶豐集團的三陽工業牽線，取得中國大陸第一大巴士製造廠金龍聯合汽車公司（大金龍）技術授權，擬在台組裝金龍巴士銷售。但慶眾汽車主管昨（18）日不願證實。不過，消息人士透露，此計畫若順利推展，慶眾最快能在一至二年內開始生產金龍巴士，將成為第一輛在台生產「大陸車」。"

      From Google Translate: "Looking at the domestic tourist bus demand market, Chin Chun Motor has obtained the technical authorization of the largest bus manufacturer in mainland China, King Long United Automobile Company (King Long), through the help of Sanyang Motor, which is also under the Qingfeng Group, and plans to assemble King Long buses in Taiwan for sale. However, the head of Qingzhong Automobile was unwilling to confirm yesterday (18). However, according to sources, if the plan goes well, Qingzhong will be able to start producing King Long buses within one to two years at the earliest, and will become the first "Continental car" produced in Taiwan."

    4. 陳信榮 (2004-10-23). "慶眾停產T4 擁抱現代商用車 採先進口後國產方式 透過現有經銷通路販售 強調不影響福斯車主保固維修權益" [Chin Chun Motor stops production of T4, embraces modern commercial vehicles, adopts imported and domestically produced methods, and sells through existing distribution channels, emphasizing that it will not affect the warranty and maintenance rights of Volkswagen owners]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B5.

      The article notes: "與三陽工業（2206）同屬慶豐集團的慶眾汽車，早年是與福斯汽車合資成立，並導入T4商用車生產迄今，後因故福斯撤資，慶眾仍保留在台組裝銷售T4權力直至2010年。"

      From Google Translate: "Chin Chun Motor, which belongs to the Chinfon Group together with Sanyang Industry (2206), was established as a joint venture with Volkswagen in the early years, and has introduced T4 commercial vehicles for production so far. The public still retains the right to assemble and sell T4 in Taiwan until 2010."

    5. 陳信榮 (2007-06-18). "有利爭取韓國車廠業務。慶眾轉型 專業汽車代工。集團整合，銷售服務部門，併入南陽實業，通路互補，提升新車銷售量與產能利用率。" [It is beneficial to win the business of Korean car factories. Chin Chun Motor transformed into a professional automobile OEM. Group integration, sales and service department, merged into Nanyang Industrial, complementary channels, increased new car sales and capacity utilization.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A3.

      The article notes: "慶豐集團整合旗下汽車事業，本月起將慶眾汽車銷售、服務部門，併入三陽工業子公司南陽實業，慶眾汽車轉型為純汽車代工廠。 ... 慶眾集團積極抓住柴油車成為市場熱潮的商機，包括慶眾積極協調韓國原廠，希望能提供更具競爭力、能符合四期法規的新商用車種，明年在台生產、上市；"

      From Google Translate: "Chinfon Global Corporation has integrated its automobile business. Starting from this month, Chin Chun Motor's sales and service departments will be merged into Nanyang Industrial, a subsidiary of Sanyang Industrial. Chin Chun Motor will be transformed into a pure automobile foundry. . . . Chinfon Global Corporation actively seizes the business opportunity of diesel vehicles becoming a boom in the market, including Chin Chun Motor actively coordinating with Korean original factories, hoping to provide more competitive new commercial vehicles that can comply with Phase IV regulations, which will be produced and launched in Taiwan next year;"

    6. "慶眾推出Porter自排款" [Chin Chun Motor launches Porter self-payment]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2006-11-02. p. B12.
    7. 陳信榮 (2006-08-23). "代工起亞汽車，慶眾呼聲高。替三陽生產現代商用車Porter，取得有利位置；台朔展現爭取誠意，減增資宣示經營決心。" [OEM Kia Motors, Chin Chun Motor's voice is high. Produced the Hyundai commercial vehicle Porter for Sanyang, and gained a favorable position; Taishuo showed its sincerity, and reduced capital and increased its capital to declare its determination to operate.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A10.
    8. 許信華 (2005-07-08). "慶眾九人座特仕車版本，營造頂級豪華舒適氣氛" [Chin Chun Motor nine-seater special car version, creating a top-level luxurious and comfortable atmosphere]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. D4.
    9. 陳信榮 (2005-03-31). "現代柴油小貨車，慶眾5月起產銷" [Hyundai diesel minivan, Chin Chun Motor will start production and sales in May]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C8.
    10. 陳信榮 (2005-03-18). "慶眾獲現代精工代理權。將進口佳樂寶越野吉普車，開闢休旅車商品線" [Chin Chun Motor obtained the agency rights of Hyundai Seiko. Will import Jialebao off-road jeeps to open up a product line of SUVs]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C16.
    11. 謝淑慧 (2004-12-25). "慶眾汽車T4年終大裝檢 展開" [Chin Chun Motor T4 year-end large-scale inspection]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B11.
    12. 陳信榮 (2004-11-20). "明年第二季，慶眾將產銷現代商用車，元月進口Porter柴油貨車，隨後導入H1廂型商旅車" [In the second quarter of next year, Chin Chun Motor will produce and sell modern commercial vehicles, import Porter diesel trucks in January, and then import H1 vans.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B5.
    13. 吳韻儀 (2012-06-25). "德國精神落實慶眾。技術可以轉移，品質精神是否可以移植？台灣第一家與德國車廠合作的慶眾汽車，正嘗試著這樣的實驗。" [Chin Chun Motor implements the German spirit. Technology can be transferred, can the spirit of quality be transplanted? Chin Chun Motor, the first Taiwanese automaker to cooperate with a German automaker, is trying such an experiment.]. CommonWealth Magazine [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-04-25. Retrieved 2022-04-25.
    14. "Volkswagen eyes assembly plant in Taiwan". Taiwan Today. 2010-06-15. Archived from the original on 2022-04-20. Retrieved 2022-04-25.

      This articles provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In 1991, Volkswagen had partnered with Chinfon Trading Group and jointly invested NT$4.8 billion (US$148.37 million) in the establishment of Chin Chun Motor Co. Ltd. to produce the Volkswagen Transporter T4 front-engined van on the island. However, with the two firms constantly at loggerheads over business operations, the relationship eventually ended on bad terms, with the German automaker deciding to pull out of Taiwan in the wake of the Asian financial crisis in 1997."

    15. 中国机械电子工业年鉴: 机械卷 [China Machinery and Electronics Industry Yearbook: Mechanical Volume] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Machine Press [zh]. 1992. Retrieved 2022-04-25 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "是 1991 年 7 月 10 日,隶属台湾三阳汽车工业公司董事长个人事业的庆众汽车投资公司与德国福斯 V.W.公司签约,在台湾生产 V.W.商用车,成立台湾第 11 家汽车制造厂,庆众汽车公司投资比例占 66.6 % ,德国福斯 V.W.公司占 33.4 %。"

      From Google Translate: "On July 10, 1991, Chin Chun Motor, which is affiliated to the personal business of the chairman of Taiwan Sanyang Automobile Industry Co., Ltd., signed a contract with the German V.W. company to produce V.W. commercial vehicles in Taiwan, and established the 11th automobile manufacturing plant in Taiwan. The investment proportion of Chin Chun Motor accounted for 66.6%, and the German V.W. Company accounted for 33.4%."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chin Chun Motor (traditional Chinese: 慶眾汽車; simplified Chinese: 庆众汽车) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I expanded and added sources to the previously unsourced article. There are more sources and more content in the Chinese Wikipedia article at zh:慶眾汽車. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as would be happier if there was more coverage other than one independent source (Economic Daily News - three articles). The quote from a directory and a government paper lean towards self promotional so I don't think they are sufficiently independent of the subject. Thanks to Cunard for updating and hopefully someone else will put in further information. NealeWellington (talk) 09:29, 25 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! 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think that Cunard has shown that there are enough reliable sources about the subject for sufficient coverage. Alan Islas (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Cunard. Thanks for finding sources. Taung Tan (talk) 09:57, 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 Draftify. BD2412 T 07:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mix: The Last Show (For Now...)[edit]

Little Mix: The Last Show (For Now...) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into the main tour article. Q T C 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just propose a merge? AfD feels like the wrong place for this NemesisAT (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Let a new article breathe. This will be a notable subject, it's just too soon for now. AfD is not a cleanup tool for stub articles. – DarkGlow • 11:47, 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 Pain of Salvation. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Andersson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find coverage online or on Proquest beyond the inadequate sources currently cited. Redirect to Pain of Salvation, their most notable associated act, seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 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! 22:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active Theory[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The commarts.com seems to be the only in-depth source, and it's likely native advertisement, since the site sells "feature articles" like this one [1]. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion of payment. gidonb (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 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 11:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inikiri Bernard market[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable. No RSs provided and none found in WP:BEFORE. Content could easily be accommodated in Inikiri Umuezeoka if needed and which itself is poorly sourced  Velella  Velella Talk   22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Inikiri Umuezeoka itself got deleted and doesn't look like this is a notable market either. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable market, searches from google doesn't give any hits. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:20, 3 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! 22:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jones (footballer, born 1909)[edit]

Christopher Jones (footballer, born 1909) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Joeykai (talk) 22:37, 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) 05:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking in the media, there was a Chris Jones who signed for Bangor City F.C. in 1935-36, having played 2 years with Rochdale, and "did well with Aberdare - age 22". Which puts the birthdate off by 3 years - this is from the Birmingham Gazette, and there's 1936 match reports in the Liverpool Echo. I'm not sure if it's the same person though ... but how many Chris/Christopher Jones back then with Rochdale? Nfitz (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to ENFA there was a Christopher Jones who played for Gellifaelog Amateurs and Rochdale between 1927 and 1930 - mo mention of any other clubs. GiantSnowman 18:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we clearly do not have enough sourcing to show that this person is notable. Considering how common Christopher is as a first name and Jones as a last name, any argument that boils down to "someone three years different in age with the same name is the same person" does not work. This is a super common name, and so we need to make sure to not build the Frankenstein's Monster and falsely link multiple people just based on the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was no argument made, User:Johnpacklambert; I provided what information I'd quickly found in one source to help others who'd also be looking. I only spent a few minutes looking, so definitely not time to have an opinion; that we don't even know when he played where is very concerning. Absolutely we need to make sure. Where did you look, and what did you find JPL? Nfitz (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is JPL no longer topic-banned from these?? Govvy (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 18:09, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lorentzen[edit]

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

The individual fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; there are not multiple independent reliable sources that cover him significantly. The references currently in the article include a bio blurb from his employer (cited twice), a writing of his in the London Review of Books, an article that does not so much as mention his name, an advertisement for an essay collection he put together, and a YouTube video from "Bloggingheads.tv". No such references contribute towards WP:GNG, as they fail WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RS, and/or fail to provide significant coverage of the individual. An online search for significant coverage of this individual yielded this NY Times piece on a play he participated in (though it really doesn't provide any significant coverage of him other than quoting him and indicating that he took a sip of a drink), and a handful of pieces that briefly quote him. He's written in a lot of places, but there isn't really enough coverage of him to meet WP:NBASIC and/or WP:GNG, so the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Literature, News media, and Entertainment. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the kind of article I hate to see deleted because it will be writable eventually, but for now it's not and so we can't write it. For future reference, there's a critical profile here[2], and a symposium here[3] on his well known Harper's article[4], there's also his involvement in the hipster kerfuffle stemming from his TimeOut New York article (discussed, e.g. here[5]), and there's routine coverage of his moves from one publication to another, but I think we're awaiting a couple more long profiles before we can have an article. He's been associated with enough different publications that I don't think any one publication makes sense for a redirect.--Jahaza (talk) 06:50, 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. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I thought I'd get an option to say why but XfdCloser powered ahead :) This was an exact copy of the previous article, so my intent was to close this as a G4. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Day[edit]

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

This article has been previously been deleted for lacking significant in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources (i.e. failing WP:GNG). Since this is still the case, this article should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azaan Sami Khan[edit]

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

Contested draftification, or a unilateral move after draftification by another editor who misunderstands the notability criteria. My instinct would be to draftily again, but that would be move warring. WP:IAR does not apply here, so we are at AfD. Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NMUSICIAN. References, while in ostensibly reliable sources, are pure churnalism. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, also was deleted previously. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Sources appear to be sufficient to provide notability under WP:NBIO, though the language barrier may be preventing me from doing a full breadth check. (However, if this is an exact copy of the previously deleted article I'm all for a WP:G4.) Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete browsing through the sources (I've even removed some) this is nothing more than the effort of a PR person to get her name out there - both our article and the majority of the sources. They're almost entirely churnalism or blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Prax pointed out, this is an evidently PR-driven article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current sources in article are covering context of article and unreliable sources was removed by Praxidicae. Meets WP:NBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - similar to my !vote in the previous AfD discussion, based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it continues to appear to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. During my search for sources, I found a 2021 Deccan Herald interview with some biographical content that appears independent, with an overall focus on her Cannes award, a 2021 Tribune interview with secondary content essentially limited to the headline, a brief 2021 Tribune interview where she offers advice to youth, and a brief statement from her about her mother in a 2021 Free Press Journal article. In the WP article, there is a glowing but vague 2021 profile with no byline from APN News (e.g. the profile: "She has designed outfits and has been involved in a number of fashion events such as the New York Fashion Week, Miss New Jersey and so on. Her works have featured in Miss India contests as well" which can be compared to the current WP:CLOP in the article); based on a quick scan of APN related articles, this outlet appears to package product promotion as news. Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject doesn't seem to be notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. DMySon (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- lacks notability, WP:NBASIC. RS6784 (talk) 14:51, 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! 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Durood Day[edit]

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

There is no such world day. It seem a local event, not enough notability to include in wikipedia. No WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems a little suspect as a 'world' event; more like it has mainly been publicised by 'WPNEWS18' and not substantially reported in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first source is a Hindi article, for a Muslim holiday. I would expect to see Arabic sources. Leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 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. This garden either doesn't exist or is a private garden. I read through the very interesting comments from editors trying to track down the facts about this place but I don't see anyone advocating keeping this article. Great detective work though. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jardin botanique alpin "Daniella"[edit]

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

Article is a stub covering an apparently non-existent or at least non-public and non-notable botanical garden. The address given appears to be a small, private residence with a 175m² garden behind it. The one source provided in the article is an entry in a database of botanic gardens which itself contains conflicting information regarding the location of the garden. See 2017 discussion on article's talkpage for more info and views: Talk:Jardin_botanique_alpin_"Daniella". Eric talk 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info: Google Maps link of address given in the cited BGCI entry; should open in satellite view centered on property. Note that the coordinates given in the article (and on the BGCI entry) point to a site approximately 2.5 km to the east, also a residential street. Eric talk 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The French wiki article says it's a private botanical garden. I see no sources in French either. It appears to be a plot of land someone owns and just calls it a botanical garden. I get some mention on an EU website in a pdf, but it's in passing. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BGCI appears to be a self-published source; or at least, when I clicked the link they offered to take my info to register me as a garden conservator. I'm tempted to add some random address near a patch of green in someone's backyard and see if I could add my "garden" but I didn't take it further. (If anyone decides to try this, please ping me with a link to your "garden".) I wonder if there are other "gardens" sourced to BGCI, and whether we should cross-post this to WP:RSN or to WP:Spam blacklist? (Courtesy link for the record, in case the article is deleted: BGCI.) Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – linked with French Afd discussion, here. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done, Mathglot. Didn't occur to me to do a parallel AfD on fr.wp. I note their article has the same coords as here. Eric talk 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Spanish here. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned on the article talk page, the book checks out, and has the garden listed, address simply "87000 Limoges" however and the telephone number that of the mayor of Limoges. The 1 sentence in the book says that it was founded in 1983 and has ~1800 species. The 1990 International Directory of Botanical Gardens lists the only botanical garden in Limoges as the Jardin botanique de l'Evêché in the Place de la Cathédrale in 87100 Limoges, as does ISBN 9780898310412. Those two 1990s books would have had a 1983–2004 botanical garden with ~1800 species if it really existed. The French article post-dates both this one and the Spanish one. Are you enjoying that the Spanish article's picture is actually of somewhere in Austria? ☺ I suspect a copyright trap by Racine. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took another approach, and searched for jardins botaniques alpins en France, and got this this map mash-up as the top result. With one exception, all the alpine botanical gardens shown are in the southeast, near the borders of Switzerland and Italy, where—surprise!—you find the foothills of the Alps, from which alpine gardens take their name, and are likely to thrive. (The one exception is the Jardin botanique de Lyon.) No map pins in Limoges, or nearby.

    So then I tried again, showing the top 100 web search results for jardins botaniques a Limoges, and you get a few dozen "Jardin de l'Évêché" results, and the "Daniella" garden shows up twice: once on the BGCI site, and once at this page, which is a mirror of the fr-wiki article. The odds that an actual botanical garden exists in a major French city, and appears on no website in the world, other than a questionable WP:SPS database, and a Wikipedia mirror, is vanishingly small. Admittedly, this is not a proof, as a single, reliable source would be enough to take apart this argument. But, we don't have a single reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suspect that the Racine book's entry is a copyright trap. If it's fictitious, it's not harmful enough to be a problem when people call the telephone number and find the mayor of Limoges explaining that there's not really a "Daniella" botanical garden, but there's a nice one by the cathedral. But absent such a suspicion, which you haven't mentioned in 3 years, why do you discount Michel Racine as an expert? Because by your own assertion xyr book, which was pointed out on the article talk page in 2017, and which supplies address and telephone number, is exactly the source that takes apart your argument. Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – in response to a request at fr-wiki, there are now four replies from French users who live in Limoges and have never seen nor heard of this garden. One has gone further and has contacted the French Botanical Garden Association and is waiting for a response, and is also planning to swing by the indicated address this weekend and investigate further. See fr:Discussion:Limoges#Question sur un jardin botanique limougeaud. Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The BGCI entry has been added to the article by User:Oldhedge who has been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding hoax references. --Cyfal (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa; good catch. Adding link to this discussion (ongoing; current perma) which lists a bunch of fake references by Oldhedge, and also includes this comment of yours:

    I've also checked Oldhedge's contributions which were already modified by someone else, and tried to revert them, too. With very few exceptions (like this one), all of them seem fake references and links.

    Looks like this is possibly just one of many that Oldhedge has added fake references for. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BCGI link says they aren't even a member of the BCGI. It's a private garden with an unknown nunber of staff and all other info is blank. Very suspect. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – French user fr:Hymass (talk · contribs) has been responding at this French discussion, and has spoken to the resident at #16 where the Google map points. If I'm interpreting their response correctly (fr:diff; fr:perma), it sounds like the owner used to have a backyard garden, but ceased maintaining it in 2005. (Even were it maintained, I would still vote "delete" as a non-notable, private backyard garden.) Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Mathglot already said, according to the response of French user Hymass this is a private garden. My translation of what he wrote: "So, contrary to what I said above, I did not visit the person living at this address but I phoned him. Good news: the coordinates are correct, it is the private garden that can be seen behind the house; unfortunately the owner of the garden has stopped tending it since 2005." --Cyfal (talk) 10:24, 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! 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Virus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found one review at CineMagazine [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything except tv schedules. If there's more coverage out there I'm willing to change my mind, but at this point I just can't find it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability independent of IMDB and streaming services. That it is shown somewhere does not itself make it notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Home Team (1998 film)[edit]

Home Team (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review (needs two in order to be eligible) on Rotten Tomatoes. Nothing else suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can only conclude that as in the case of another article I created, imdb didn't have enough information and I saw Wikipedia as a place I could provide the information to anyone who wanted it. The other film that was deleted had more information on imdb than on Wikipedia at the time of the deletion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added some more sources. The late 90s is a bit of gap in sourcing in 2022 due to so many newspaper archives being paywalled now, but I found a few things in a quick check to get started. The great Steve Guttenberg has carried many a poor movie.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am now convinced this film, despite apparently being terrible and a flop, is notable. I've added enough so show that. But here's something funny too. Vchimpanzee, when you created this article, it looks like you happened to use the film article you'd previously edited earlier the same day as a template, Under Suspicion (2000 film). (This edit: [7] was the prior edit). I typically do the same thing. You left in Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman (and other producers of that film) as producers on the Home Team article from the old article, and no one ever caught this. (I've made the same error before, I am sure.) As I'm reading up on this movie today, I'm like "how in the world did Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman fund this pile of crap? Personal favor to Steve Guttenberg?" But then I couldn't find any real source for such famous backers. I don't think this has really been noticed, but in a December 2021 article from a radio station (KEEL in Louisiana USA), they reference Freeman and Hackman as the producers of the 1998 Home Team (which is about soccer) in discussing a 2022 film also named "Home Team" (which is about football). Though clearly unrelated, this article claims the new Home Team is a "soft-reboot and semi-remake" of the 1998 version. I'm dying laughing, but I've also corrected the issue.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I usually catch these problems.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We will never be perfect around here, you do excellent work from what i see!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that! I do understand why you nominated it, it did need some work.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:23, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nom. No opinions to delete, hence speedy keep (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother the Pig[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else that's suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:00, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KVN Productions[edit]

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

non notable production company pushed into mainspace repeatedly by socks PRAXIDICAE💕 15:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Walsh[edit]

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

The article lacks any reliable sources. I was unable to find any other sources that said anything that is for sure about this person. There was an attorney named Bailey Walsh, who worked for the federal government, but I was not able to find much about that person, and nothing that for sure indicates it was the same person. A Bailey Walsh was an attorney for 2 Chicago companies in 1953, he is mentioned in an over 1000 page federal document from that year. The 1936 mention in a very detailed report (thus a primary document) is probably this Bailey Walsh, and from it we learn that at some point prior to 1936 he was assistant US attorney for the western District of Tennessee. Being a US attorney for a specific district is at least a strong indication of notability, being an assistant is not, so the non-secondary sources I find on what is probably this person indicate his postions are not notability giving, and I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that mention him at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure, but state party secretary may have been similar to later state party chairmanships, although it might actually be a subordinate position. We have in other discussions held that such positions were not general default notable, we need reliable sources saying something substantive about the individual, which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the era, it's harder to locate sources bit the nom appears to have tried hard. However, there's nothing to indicate Walsh held any particular position that would have generated significant coverage in multiple reliable sources anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL at all, and there's absolutely no solid sourcing being offered to suggest that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think he passes WP:GNG. A search on newspapers.com revealed sources that provide WP:SIGCOV: [12] [13][14]; in addition to these, there are several sources that don't provide sigcov, but fill in the gaps of his life (ex. [15] [16] [17]) (I didn't clip most, but they're on newspapers.com [18]). I think these demonstrate that he was notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @AusLondonder@Bearcat@KidAd to see what they think. Curbon7 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources identified by Curbon7, which show clear evidence of SIGCOV. Atchom (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Held the top national position in the Republican Party, arguably meeting WP:NPOL. There are now sources providing WP:SIGCOV in the article and additional sources listed above as well as more at newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com, thereby meeting the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources shared by Curbon7 establish notability NemesisAT (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per WP:HEY, at this point. BD2412 T 19:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources available through newspapers.com more than adequately satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:13, 4 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. ✗plicit 12:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roxolana (singer)[edit]

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

Although the subject participated in a major music competition, she was fourth and never featured hence does not meet WP: NMUSICIAN, also I can't find sources to prove notability. Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ogbechie[edit]

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

Does not meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:ACADEMIC). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify A quick Google search showed a strong chance that this subject passes WP: GNG. Whether or not the article is ready for the mainspace is debatable, but notability on Wikipedia extends past the article alone. On the first search page there are multiple in-depth accounts from independent sources; whether or not they are regarded as reliable is another question. I believe they are. The article itself also has some “peacocking” which I addressed prior to this statement. NiklausGerard (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: While it is likely that Ogbechie passes WP:NACADEMIC this is a total WP:BLP failure. One single reference is insufficient, but does let it slide past a WP:BLPPROD. This might have been better draftified unilaterally than coming to AfD, and that would be the best outcome to allow referencing and development 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kolodziej[edit]

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

Article fails notability requirements for inclusion (WP:N). It appears to be promotional advertisement and puffery. A WP:BEFORE Google search fails to turn up multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage (WP:RS). The article references primary sources for some claims but most are unsourced so are not verifiable (WP:V). I would not be opposed to a redirect should a proper one be offered. ARoseWolf 14:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everything can be sourced. Your opposition to anything or support for anything comes from where exactly? This is not an advertisement and not a puff piece. Multiple reliable sources for what exactly? Stick2700 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence at this time that this person is notable. I will happily change my mind if references are provided to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can PROVIDE sources (for a lot more than is here now), and not just assert that things can be sourced. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A person with a job. Does not rise anywhere close to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before the AfD started there was a lot of content about Kolodziej's accomplishments within the hockey universe, but none of it was verified by references. Hence the very short version under consideration at AfD. Between the AfD nomination and an Administrator's decision, referenced content can be added by Stick2700 (and other editors), with a stress on referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence this person meets the notability standards of Wikipedia, based on lack of available significant coverage about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, when everything is sourced, outside verifiable sources you change things back? Either delete the article, or verify the citations. You people are unbelievable. You allow the article to be started ten years ago by a cyberstalker and real life stalker, and now, when sources are provided you block edits? No wonder people say Wiki is a sewer. Stick2700 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are concerns about the article as it is or about improving the article not relevant to this deletion discussion then you are asked to take it to the article or user talk page. Thanks --ARoseWolf 12:40, 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 14:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Matrix[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 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 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 14:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amon (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 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 11:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadents[edit]

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

Non-notable animated Web series. PepperBeast (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 3 sources, not notable, does not indicate where to find the series. ArdynOfTheAncients — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 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 transfer to Commons and delete. Consensus is clear that Wikipedia is not served by a repository of all flags of all municipalities in a region. BD2412 T 19:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: It appears (as per User:RandomCanadian) that the content of these articles is already sufficiently presented in the Commons category structure. BD2412 T 19:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal flags in the Czech Republic[edit]

List of municipal flags in the Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGALLERY. Fram (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are the separate pages of flags:

We can repurpose them by adding info about the designs. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A page like List of municipal flags of Central Bohemian Region has more than 500 flags (rough count), I wonder how you envision making this a manageable, encyclopedic, well-sourced list which somehow connects these flags (instead of simply having some info on the flag in the page for the municipality itself, if necessary). Fram (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with this comment. Perhaps a larger nomination is necessary if people believe these lists are unacceptable? But not sure how we can pick off one specific country. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem because if we are to do a larger nomination, this could lead into a lot of complications. I do agree with Dream Focus that we should keep these articles if anyone founded these lists encyclopedic worthy. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What complications? More people noticing and commenting to let them be? This should be discussed somewhere where it will get as much feedback as possible to determine if such things should be allowed on Wikipedia or not. This article is younger than others and has far less pageviews so fewer people would notice it being nominated for deletion than many of the others like it. Dream Focus 00:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think this is potentially something that needs to be discussed at a wider forum given we're not talking about concerns specific to this article but whether a wider series of articles is suitable for inclusion at all. Alternatively the entire series should be nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone agreed that the lists are unacceptable, we can delete them and transfer them to Commons. Wikipedia actually had a Commons redirect template in case you aren't aware. So, this could come in handy. If anyone disagrees, then no need to transfer. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A larger nomination would be a trainwreck. For starters, "these exist for all nations"? Uh, the national flags, yes, but not lists of flags of often tiny communities. Looking at the first one nominated here, Bílkovice has pop 194, Blažejovice has pop 101, Čechtice has pop 1400, and so on. Which other country has flag lists for such small communities? Flags of countries, big cities, ... usually are notable on their own, have lots of reliable sources about them. Flags of small communities have a primary source verifying them, and that's it. At the very best a local newspaper writes an article "village X now has a flag". The entries in the lists at AfD are not comparable at all to the vast, vast majority of entries in these categories, and lumping them together in one AfD would not be acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flags of cities of the United States featuring Hermann, Missouri (pop 2,185). Flags of cities, towns and villages in the United Kingdom featuring Evenley (pop 571). See the entire article series at Lists of city flags. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? There exist a few similar ones which probably also should be deleted or trimmed and turned into informative pages about the notable entries. Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and not nearly as commonplace as Dream Focus wanted us to believe ("all nations" no less). If the ones nominated here are deleted, then perhaps grouping all truly similar ones from other countries in one new AfD may be feasible, though I doubt it would be wise. But I see no reason to dilute this AfD by adding some lists from other countries, I have too many bad experiences with people then claiming that the AfD becomes unmanageable, that I am combining incomparable articles into one AfD, that people don't have the time to research that many articles at once, and so on. Fram (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to research since its the same issue with all of them. And I linked to Category:Lists and galleries of flags. Most of the 178 in the main list there are lists of flags by nation, and 8 of the sub-categories are for nations with multiple lists. There are 195 nations in the world, so most of them have an article for their flags here, so yes, quite commonplace. Dream Focus 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously claiming that a list of the main flags of a country is comparable (and should be bundled) with a list of minicipality flags? Because it sure looked like you were arguing that we had similar lists for all countries ("shows these exist for all nations.") and that all of these should be treated the same and discussed together. If that wasn't your intention, then bringing them up did nothing to help the discussion and only muddied the waters. If you on the other jand seriously thought that these belinged together in one AfD, then, well, you are wrong. While many of them need thorough cleanup or in some cases deletion, they are not, for the most part, in any way comparable in scope to the ones discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom of the nominated articles have a template Template:Lists of city flags that links to the articles for municipal flags of cities "By nations". You can't argue those aren't the exact same as the ones nominated here. The rest have their municipal flags in their main national lists. If its too long to fit there, its spun off to its own article. If its valid information in the main articles, then its valid as spinoff articles. Dream Focus 10:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most have their municipalities' flags in their main flag article. If its valid information there, its valid to be spun off to its own article if too long. Dream Focus 09:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to older version of your post)List of Albanian flags has 5 municipalities, one of which has a separate article for that flag. List of Armenian flags again has 5 municipalities, again including one with a separate article for the flag. List of Austrian flags has no municipalities. List of Azerbaijani flags has no municipalities. List of Bahamian flags has no municipalities. List of Bangladeshi flags has no municipalities. List of Barbadian flags has no municipalities. List of Bhutanese flags has no municipalities. List of Bruneian Flags has no municipalities. List of Bulgarian flags has no municipalities. List of Burmese flags has no municipalities... Yes, some others do, but it's a far cry from "most", and it still is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Fram (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't agree that it is necessarily valid information elsewhere, and I don't agree that it should be necessarily treated the same for all countries. Some may have a much longer tradition of and more literature on their municipal flags. Many only list major cities, where the flags are more likely to be notable in themselves. Not all countries can and must necessarily be treated the same way, and many of these articles aren't comparable at all. Lumping them together would not create a better AfD. That doesn't mean that many of the other ones don't need trimming or deletion as well, but not tackling all of them at once is not a reason to keep these, and you haven't given another reason so far for your keep vote. Fram (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we are going to establish a principle through AFD that such lists don't belong, then we should start with Flags of counties of the United States and/or Flags of cities of the United States. That's liable to attract a much wider input than picking on a small European non-English speaking country with a small number of editors interested. It is not at all clear to me that NOTGALLERY was ever intended to apply to list articles with a clearly finite number of possible entries. It's a wholly different situation from a gallery of cute dogs for instance. SpinningSpark 11:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to establish any principle, for some reason everyone else here wants to include other lists as well. Counties or cities aren' municipalities, the US is not Czechia, and what may apply to one country may or may not apply to another country. If you aren't clear on what NOTGALLERY means, then you can try to get clarification at a village pump or a policy talk page. But keeping an article just because, well, something (I have no idea what reason you have to actually keep these), is just disruptive. I don't know why so many people apparently have trouble discussing a series of articles on their own merits and all have bizarre suggestions about how we can't have an AfD for these articles unless we also or even first discuss these other articles. Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States, feel free to give your opinion there (hopefully better supported by policies and sources). However, a US county has an average population of 100,000+, a Czech municipality has an average population of what, 2000 perhaps? And each country may well have a different scholarly or journalistic interest in their local flags. So again, the result of one should have no bearing on the outcome of the other in either direction, and the idea of "establishing a principle" should be abandoned (or the strawman ditched). Fram (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I will start by saying that as an editor on English Wikipedia I almost exclusively focus on Czech symbols as I have created a lot of the vector files and try to add/update them in respective infoboxes, so in this regard you probably have your one person that cares about this, hi. I will not be participating in any broader discussion, however. I am objecting less to the multiple articles as they exist now, if they all become what Benešov District is becoming – even if it's just a mirror of the rekos.psp.cz database. I still think that a simple gallery belongs to Commons, finite or not. I had strong objections to the single large article with thousands of flags in its talk page but didn't feel confident enough to go through the enwiki bureaucracy which I am not used to. My other concern is that it's going to be a waste of time to keep such lists updated this being a niche topic as there is currently still about a thousand municipalities without a flag. They will all eventually have one, I am quite sure. Just last year there were 121 municipalities with a new or changed symbol. That could be solved by adopting Wikidata but that's a swear word on this language version. As a sidenote, someone above me is mentioning how small some of the municipalities with symbols are and the smallest one with official symbols currently is Kaničky, population 29, the smallest municipality (Vysoká Lhota) has 14 inhabitants but they haven't blessed us with a flag yet.--TFerenczy (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOT (multiple sub-points could apply). We are not Vexillopedia (which exists, by the way). This kind of page does not have any encyclopedic content. Nor could there be, because its purpose is inherently unencyclopedic: a catalogue of flags, without any secondary source for any pertinent commentary, nor anything to establish that the grouping is an encyclopedically interesting topic, nor any educational purpose, is simply a terrible idea which does not improve the encyclopedia nor provides any meaningful content to readers. These pages are essentially categories-masquerading-as-articles, and could just as easily be managed with a category tree on Commons, without having to violate the point of what an encyclopedia is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it no encyclopaedic? Flags are perfectly legitimate subjects of study. Atchom (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vexillopedia does not have the feature to edit and not all flags were presented on the site. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Vexillopedia example was more a caricature to get the point across (i.e. Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia of flags") than anything to do with what that site happens to be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something being a legitimate subject of study does not necessarily make it a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article or list page. An encyclopedia seeks to summarise existing knowledge, to provide an insightful summary of essential details. Not to cover every detail that exists about a subject: these image lists cannot possibly do anything but that, since there is no possible way for some encyclopedic context to be added to this kind of listing: it is a clear example of WP:NOTGALLERY. The broad range and diversity of flags, and the different information and context that might be associated with each one of them (even if there were sources written about this, of which the lists do not provide any evidence of), make it so that it would also make very little sense to organise this in this manner. What these lists are is the functional equivalent of a category: a category which not only is a better solution, but which already exists on Commons... Hence there is no reason to keep this on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per WP:LISTCRUFT, it is the largely unreferenced gallery of images about flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.233.94 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they supposed to belong to Commons, Nuke em all SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Due to WP:LISTCRUFT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to commons Please ensure these galleries have an appropriate place there before deleting here. Reywas92Talk 02:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92: commons:Category:Flags of municipalities of the Czech Republic by district... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 4 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 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harris (naturalist)[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP to establish WP:GNG, does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NAUTHOR J04n(talk page) 12:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, and Environment. J04n(talk page) 12:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any indepdent sources, which is an absolute requirement of BLPs. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a platform to tell what someone says about themself, Wikipedia is always to be built on secondary sources which this article has absolutely none backing it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like this was created by a SPA account by someone with a user name Jim Rattlesnake and this does suggest exactly what I think John Pack Lambert is implying above. CT55555 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think I was implying anything. A lot of articles we have lack secondary sources, but are not made by people with conflict of interest. This appears to have conflict of interest, but a lack of secondary sources may just be because someone went with a few sources they could bring together, it does not always mean there is a special connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologise for reading too much into your comment. I share the perception that @Netherzone has below. CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure this is an autobiography. It is unsourced, and a BEFORE search to see if it could be improved reveals nothing except wikipedia-mirrors, and book sales sites. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. It has been here since 2006, and if it can't be improved after 15 years, it should not be retained as the subject is non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find enough SIGCOV. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:25, 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 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Park Cinemas[edit]

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

Although this company has produced a few notable films, it does not appear to have received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE search in English and Kannada found only single-sentence passing mentions, for instance sources that say "The series will be produced by T R Chandrashekar and Crystal Park Cinemas" and nothing more. None of the available sources qualify as significant coverage, in my view. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching I am unable to find better sources than the nominator. Perhaps a case of 'too soon' given that the company began in 2017. Gab4gab (talk) 20:25, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Theatre (art)[edit]

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

Hoax? The two sources are not correct (ISBN links to other books, title of first one as given don't exist). I can't find references which use "war theatre" with this meaning (as far as meaning can be found in this article). If it exists and is notable, it will need a thorough rewriting. Fram (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problematic unverifiable book reference has also been inserted into Site-specific art, purporting to support an added text which, even allowing for art-speak's tendency to utilise the word-salad bar, is ungrammatical and incomprehensible: [19]. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And another here at Found Object [20], I am also thinking this might be a hoax as Fram suggests. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undecipherable drivel – whether or not the topic is actually notable and whether or not the sources are faked. SpinningSpark 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and may likely be a hoax. The book authored by Paul Winthur and supposedly published by Cambridge University Press is not listed as a publication on the Press's website, nor do they list Winthur as an author. The creator of this article has added this citation to several WP articles along with original research. It's perplexing, but nevertheless, assuming good faith, this article does not meet our criteria for notability and should not be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article is pure gibberish with unreliable sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As discussed above, an unreliably-sourced and incomprehensible article whose presence does no service here. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 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 Major Lazer. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit Bwoy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG also concerns about sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MNT article is basically local small talk and the Vice article isn't even written by staff - it's a contributor/freelancer. CUPIDICAE💕 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The staff vs. contributer/freelancer thing is not a relevant distinction except for certain publications like Forbes that run a self-publishing platform alongside their actual publication. AFAIK, Vice doesn't do that and like other magazines/web sites has both staff and freelance writers, but they're all writers for the publication. The news hook for the MNT article is the local concert, but it's a paper that gets read for its pop culture coverage beyond Miami.--Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is relevant because it's not subject to the publications editorial oversight and it's obvious it was a paid for spam piece. CUPIDICAE💕 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some evidence for that? You can't just assert that it's advertorial without any evidence?--Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza. I didn't put my two cents in before. Among 6 references I saw at the time of nomination [21], there were: 2 "included in a list", 1 "interview (primary source)", and 1 "article that deals with them tangentially"; but 2 articles that focus on them in depth. Seems the sourcing has improved since then. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, per CUPIDICAE. The 2 articles I referred to were Vice and MNT. They are of lesser value than I at first thought. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created by Wizgirl1470 and Uptopclickllc, confirmed socks of each other. Note that Uptop Click provides "brand consultation, strategic market planning, Spotify marketing and Publicity" to Skerrit Bwoy, so a clear and undisclosed conflict of interest and a violation of paid-editing requirements. --Yamla (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if we don't think there should be a separate article on this guy, he's confirmed by sources like Rolling Stone[22] to have been been a member of Major Lazer and rather than deleting, some of the info should be merged there and the article redirected.Jahaza (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Major Laser seems the best. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my earlier analysis and Oaktree. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we are serious about undisclosed paid editing being against policy (as well as the ToU) then we simply can't allow this page to stand. SpinningSpark 10:47, 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 keep. sources have emerged rendering much of the nom moot. Star Mississippi 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Roesch[edit]

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

This was created by the subject's great grandson, and reads like something someone would write on a family member, not like an encyclopedia article. There has been no sourcing for 10 years, the one source I added lacks significant coverage. The creator claims there are entries in the New York Times but my search for such sources produced nothing at all. My searches in multiple different places turned up no significant coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Coverage non-existent and firsthand account is not independent. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced so unable to verify claims made in article. My own searches found namesakes. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, found [23] [24] [25] and [26]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing to weak keep after delving into sources. Most are 1-2 sentence or a paragraph announcing the results of a race, with the exception of the obit. It depends on how sports figures from his time are judged, and I have no idea about that. Still many thanks to BeanieFan11. I see at least four sources specifically about him. I'll see what I can add to the article. I added what I could to the article. Also note that he is sometimes listed as "Andrew" or "Andrew J." Lamona (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. this and this, plus a few lesser articles amount to the WP:SIGCOV required to meet WP:GNG.Jacona (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's unclear why this has been nominated. Subject passes the WP:GNG per sources above. Nominator complaints about the sources IN the article, however per WP:NEXIST that's not a rationale for deletion. He also suggests that Wikipedia has deadlines. There is no such thing. gidonb (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although what becomes clear is that this needs serious cleanup if it is to be kept. Sandstein 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commune (model of government)[edit]

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

No independent, reliable, secondary sourcing for the "commune as a model of government"; none in the last decade and none forthcoming. An article for revolutionary government would be scoped too wide for our purposes. While Commune (Marx) could link to his The Civil War in France (where he discusses the Paris Commune), it would not make sense to use this "model of government" article title for that purpose. No other suitable redirect or merge targets. czar 01:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 01:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not unsympathetic to this nomination; given the article reads more as an essay with appearances of SYNTH, TNT might be the correct option. I'd be interested to hear others' views. However, as a topic, there's multiple analyses available that cover examples such as the Paris Commune, the Baku Commune, the Canton Commune, the Kwangju Uprising (the latter referred to as a commune) and the Chiapas Commune. The subject itself, the structure of insurrectionary political organization, should be differentiated from an intentional community. Of course there's an overlap here with Soviet (council). There is sourcing that could be used for an article but which would require treading a careful path not to end up in SYNTH.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] ... but not clear to me in its current form this can be rescued.

References

  1. ^ de Oliveira, António Ferraz (4 May 2018). "Kropotkin's commune and the politics of history". Global Intellectual History. 3 (2): 156–177. doi:10.1080/23801883.2018.1450616. S2CID 218660940.
  2. ^ Andreas, Fahrmeir; Gleixner, Ulrike (2015). "Commune". Encyclopedia of Early Modern History Online. Brill. doi:10.1163/2352-0272_emho_COM_022447.
  3. ^ Katsiaficas, George (June 2000). "Commentary the Kwangju Commune: 20 years later". New Political Science. 22 (2): 281–286. doi:10.1080/713687915. S2CID 144375886.
  4. ^ Bosteels, Bruno (December 2017). "State or commune: Viewing the October Revolution from the land of Zapata". Constellations. 24 (4): 570–579. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12332.
  5. ^ Ciccariello-Maher, George (2018). "The Time of the Commune". Diacritics. 46 (2): 72–94. doi:10.1353/dia.2018.0010. S2CID 164671383.
  6. ^ Thomas, S. Bernard (1975). "Proletarian hegemony" in the Chinese revolution and the Canton Commune of 1927. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan. ISBN 9780472038275.
  7. ^ Suny, Ronald Grigor (1972). The Baku Commune, 1917-1918 : class and nationality in the Russian Revolution. Princeton, N.J. ISBN 9780691198521.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. ^ A commune in Chiapas? Mexico and the Zapatista rebellion. AK Press. 2002. ISBN 9789781894923.
  9. ^ Nakajima, Mineo (April 1971). "The Commune Concept in Mao Tsetung Thought". Chinese Law & Government. 4 (1–2): 61–81. doi:10.2753/CLG0009-460904010261.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There can be no doubt that this is a notable topic. So the only question is whether it is in such a poor state that TNT is called for rather than cleanup. I don't think that is necessary, language problems are fairly straightforward to deal with. My main criticism is that there is insufficient focus on the anarchist conception of the commune, for which I suggest Ruth Kinna's book The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism ISBN 0141984678 would make a good starting point for sourcing. SpinningSpark 10:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark@AusLondonder@Goldsztajn, sorry for not responding sooner. What sources are you referencing as giving "no doubt"? I've reviewed the above sources and there is no common concept of "revolutionary commune" about which we have enough sourcing to write an encyclopedic article. I have Kinna's book and every mention of "commune" is in reference to the Paris Commune (or Kropotkin, in reference to federations of self-governing municipalities in the model of the Paris Commune), but that goes back to my original point. Anything that warrants saying about the legacy of the Paris Commune as a model can be covered in the existing article's Legacy section and split out summary style when shown an overabundance of sourcing. Anything that warrants saying about Kropotkin's views on revolutionary government can be covered in his biography or The Conquest of Bread. Medieval communes are already covered. Temporarily reclaimed spaces are usually labeled temporary autonomous zones or liminal spaces. The question is what sourcing discusses a "commune model of government/revolutionary government" as a concept with dedicated coverage. I don't see it here and I'm curious where you do. I only see a lot of content that fits in other places and not a unified concept.
Source analysis
  • "Kropotkin's commune and the politics of history" covers Kropotkin's discussion of the Paris Commune as a model, from The Conquest of Bread (where any related commentary should be covered
  • the Brill encyclopedia is inaccesible to me but from what I see, it's covering the concept of commune (administrative division), not its Paris/revolutionary connotations
  • Kwangju Commune uses "commune" as a synonym for uprising and doesn't describe a revolutionary government
  • the rest do the same thing: besides cursory mentions of Oaxaca and Oakland Communes, there is no discussion of a revolutionary government, it's just a loanword that refers back to the Paris Commune (and should be covered as part of the Paris Commune's legacy) but does not refer to a common concept; by the same token, Canton Commune redirects to Guangzhou Uprising and there are plenty of others in Commune#Government and military/defense but again, they do not refer to a common conception of a revolutionary government beyond using the word "commune" as a dictionary definition
  • "The Commune Concept in Mao Tsetung Thought" refers to a "'commune state' or commune-type government" in reference to a "commune-type revolution as exemplified by the Paris Commune" (p. 63). There is a great section on "What Is a Commune?" which is the question we are asking in this discussion, and the answer is "a prototype of modern revolution" based on Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune (The Civil War in France). Note that this is Marx's own conception, so the only responsible place to discuss that is in its existing article. There is no distinct concept of a "commune" between Marx and Kropotkin and every uprising that has been called a Commune about which to write an encyclopedia article.
czar 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this for a longer response, but I see a difference between insurrectionary and revolutionary, the former being more time limited and less governmental, rather than organisational. Whether the sources justify that is a different thing. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation (album)[edit]

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

I don't think the album itself meets notability criteria from WP:NALBUM. Tow (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely non-notable, the only true review is by AllMusic - the rests are reviews of the whole group (or small parts of album reviews, such as the one by Robert Christgau). Réunion (talk to me) 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, maybe better, redirect – In full disclosure: I didn't start the article, but added RS references to it last July. In addition to the cited RS, there are also mentions in another NYT article, from 1999, in a few early 2000s Akron Beacon Journal articles, and in a few Ralph Carney obits. Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think redirect would be a good option, probably better than deleting the article if someone actually wants to know where it's gone. Maybe we can incorporate something in this article in the Tin Huey page. Réunion (talk to me) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears the sources mostly cover the band or artists themselves rather than this album. I feel a redirect is the ideal solution for this case. Tow (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by Caro. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 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 Reiji Yamada. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zetsubō ni Kiku Kusuri[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. No evidence of notability in over ten years since its creation. - Xexerss (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 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 Hiroya Oku. further input is unlikely. Valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maetel no Kimochi[edit]

Maetel no Kimochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some months ago I tried to fix the article, but I couldn't find enough reliable secondary sources. I found out that it was licensed in other countries, like in Italy, but I didn't find anything useful and reliable in that language either. - Xexerss (talk) 06:59, 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) 06:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hiroya Oku; I conducted a search for refs and I couldn't find any, though admittedly I don't know many good places to look for reviews for manga in Italian, so it is possible that sources exist. Link20XX (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Star Mississippi 01:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Poppe[edit]

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Germany. Sandstein 11:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Latscha[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Müller (rugby union)[edit]

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Hofmeister[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 10:06, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PamD 16:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatilla (mountain)[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation by an editor who made no other edits, in 2011. Does not appear on maps that I can find, although there is a ski run called "Tuba Zapatilla" in Candanchú. Either non-notable or possibly a hoax. It was edited (unconstructively) in 2020 by an IP I've just reported for vandalism, which may be a coincidence (but it was led me to look at this stub). PamD 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delving further I find that it shows up on Google maps with four "reviews": can't find them online elsewhere (looking for phrases in their original texts): is this enough for notability for a mountain? PamD 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the Candanchú there is an off-piste ski run at this resort called Tubo Zapatilla. This seems to be a well known difficult run. This site describes the run as being located on the "sole" of Zapatilla, implying that it is on the lower slopes of a mountain of that name. SpinningSpark 11:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made the necessary updates on the page. RPSkokie (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's strange that it doesn't get a mention in Spanish wikipedia (see their dab page. I note that it is mentioned in our article on Aspe peak, but not the Spanish equivalent, and that mention was added by an IP whose only other edit was immediately reverted as unsourced OR. Perhaps it is genuinely a little-known minor summit, but there seems something odd. PamD 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: tracing the photo from Commons added to the infobox by @RPSkokie: led me to A Zapatilla in Aragonese Wiki - first time I've been there, I think - written by an editor there with a serious contribution history, which gives me confidence that this mountain is real and wiki-worthy. Have linked the Aragonese article to this one. Thanks for the improvements to what was an inadequate little stub for far too long! PamD 16:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is the quantity of references does not meet qualtity required Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riess Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - little to no third party coverage. As far I can tell the company is only mentioned in refs #5 and #7 which are not independent of the subject. KH-1 (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are 7 citations from 6 sources including WWD, Forbes, Financial Post as well as Netlify and Shopify which to my knowledge have no stake or interest in the company. 2A01:CB00:56:B100:F5F6:B805:BE5C:9F13 (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 2A01:CB00:56:B100:C8AC:CD4F:504F:B926 (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any SIGCOV from RS. Fabiobengario (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Some of the cited sources do not even mention the subject. MarioGom (talk) 20:21, 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 keep. Discussion was relisted twice, with no discussion since. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UAE Warriors[edit]

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

Non notable organization, cross wiki spam by lock evading socks. No meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 14:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good or them, but there are no meaningful independent, in depth sources from reliable media outlets. CUPIDICAE💕 17:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mila vecto: Good work, thanks for that! The Al Khaleej source is particularly good. AusLondonder (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:39, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Star Mississippi 01:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Kreuzer[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 09:34, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. or the #Rosters section. That's within editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 01:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Herrmann[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about half the article is just plain false. He was not a member of the German team, there were no national teams at the Olympics until at least 1908. The team he was part of did not win a silver medal, the practice of awarding gold, silver and bronze medals did not start until the 1904 adjunct games to the St. Louis World's Fair, which were designated an Olympics but had most of the actual competition being between various clubs from various cities in the US, including multiple clubs from St. Louis itself, at least one such St. Louis club sponsored multiple teams in the same competition as well. Basically to act as if any rules about covering modern olympics make any sesne pre-1908 just does not make sense, and this means we should not have sub-stubs that flasely use the language that applies to modern Olympics to essentially mislead our readers about the first Olympics. This is essentially turning Wikipedia into a propaganda organ for the spreading of the story of the Olympics they want to tell, which does not conform to the reality of the first few games and what that games are. It is not the function of Wikipedia to spread revisinistic propaganda to help create the nythology of an institution, and that is what this article is doing at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters Doesn't appear to be enough for a GNG pass, although there might be some offline sourcing in books for example, but without any really information on him at all, I think this unlikely. Without this though, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and there doesn't look to be any confusion with the name to stop a redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:03, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters. however, if someone thinks Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics is preferable, that's also fine. Star Mississippi 01:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Betting[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and WP:NOLYMPICS. No significant coverage in our article or the German article (there is one dead link there, the archived version can be found here but it only mentions him in a list of players), and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 UEFA Champions League squads[edit]

2020–21 UEFA Champions League squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The squads in this article are completely unsourced, and we don't really need a list of squads for an annual competition like the Champions League. If people want to know who was contracted to each club that season, they can go to (for example) 2020–21 FC Bayern Munich season. – PeeJay 07:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom, club season pages have the squads on. This is overkill, so delete on WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, as it is pretty much overkill. Like said before, every team has a season article where such info can be get from. Kante4 (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 19:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOTSTATS and can be find in other articles Hhkohh (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you can check the relevant season articles to see who played CL football for a club in a particular year. We don't need separate squad lists for this, especially unsourced ones that seem like WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not voting yet as I'm not sure of the need of this page, but wanted to address a couple of the points. The squads in this article are completely unsourced - I'm sure that's a fixable point and shouldn't be part of a deletion rationale. If people want to know who was contracted to each club that season, they can go to (for example) 2020–21 FC Bayern Munich season I'm not sure what the rules are in Europe, but in the A-League Men in Australia, when clubs send squads to the AFC Champions League, there are limitations on squad size and number of foreign players allowed, leading to clubs announcing the ACL squad specifically (for example from this year: Melbourne City, Sydney FC), meaning that the club's season page won't neccesarily reflect the ACL status. Also there have been cases of players being signed only for the ACL campaign and weren't able to participate in the domestic league. Also, not neccesarily every club has a season page, no? --SuperJew (talk) 09:40, 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! 05:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marica Linn[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:A7 request on this as it does contain credible claims of significance, but this is clearly not appropriate for a biography of a living person. What sources there are are to unreliable sources, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to construct a viable article.  ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians.  ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam. Any award she's won in a non-notable competition isn't notable and her singles haven't charted. Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, lack of indepth third party coverage and winner of non-notable awards. AmirŞah 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional vanity article. The awards are completely non-notable. Also, please note the SLR sources on the article are paid for; the promotional packages they offer can be found on their website here. --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - paid-for coverage doesn't make someone notable Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage or indication of notability. JSFarman (talk) 00:28, 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! 05:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Wheel Studios[edit]

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

Non notable studio. Looks like an advert. Lacks significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. DMySon (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A Google search only revealed a few primary sources, eventually spiralling off-topic entirely (merely showing sites containing words "flame", "wheel", and "studio"). The one source listed on the article does not even mention the subject. Not to mention the page itself is just a list of its filmography despite its almost non-existent internet coverage. Certainly not notable. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 11:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Not to mention, there are barely any sources, there's only one, this page needs to be deleted ASAP, as the "studio" also is simply a fandubbing group rather than a full-on company, also side-note, on further inspection, the person who wrote the article seems to be a groomer, as searching up "Mbeausejour" mostly brought up "Mitchy Beausejour", an internet user who recently got exposed for sending a picture of his crotch to minors... I say once the page gets deleted, ban the user as-well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pong3SouthFrieza34 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 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 List of Dragon Ball characters#Grandpa Gohan. and protect the original page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpa Gohan[edit]

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

To start, this is a straightforward case of a topic about a fictional character which fail to meet the threshold of the requirements of WP:GNG. I have done a considerable amount of research into this topic area and I can confidently say that this character lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. The single CBR article is decent, but we need a lot more then that to justify a standalone page for the character.

There is currently an entry for the character at List of Dragon Ball characters, and normally I'd advocate for a merge proposal, or I'd boldly redirect this myself. However, versions of this topic have been constantly recreated under the name of "Grandpa Son Gohan" by a specific editor since April 2021. Each and every time, it has been reverted by other editors. For further context, please refer to the page history of that title. The current version of this article is recreated by an IP editor, but the editor who seemed to be obsessed with recreating the contents of Grandpa Son Gohan got involved with editing the article's contents right away. It does make me wonder whether there is collusion or socking involved. Anyway, in light of the constant recreation of this topic by editors whose competence may be called into question, I think an AfD would be appropriate. I propose that the contents of this page be deleted, and both Grandpa Gohan or Grandpa Son Gohan be salted indefinitely to prevent further frivolous disruption. Haleth (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Relatively minor character in the franchise, whose inclusion in the main character list is the appropriate level of coverage. A Redirect is certainly a reasonable alternative, but the current article should be deleted first in order to prevent recreation, and some measure of protection be placed on any potential Redirects to prevent the same things from happening. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, the curren tarticle fails to demonstrate this character meets WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 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 and redirect. BD2412 T 07:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Democratic Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Caribbean. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE, only passing mentions in lists of parties involved in Bahamian elections, fails WP:NORG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1982 Bahamian general election. The article literally has no more information than is in the results table of the only election it ever contested before disappearing. Even in a county as small as the Bahamas, 13 votes is laughably insignificant, bearing in mind the total membership of the party must be included in those 13. SpinningSpark 17:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to 1982 Bahamian general election. Nothing more here than what is already at that article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For a redirect to make sense, instead of deletion, then this would have to be a plausible search term for people looking for 1982 Bahamian general election. It simply isn't. Indeed, it is much more likely that people searching for this might be looking for the "Democratic Party" (of which there are many) of any other country or region that is known as a "Commonwealth" (of which there are dozens). To pick one example, they just as (un)likely to be looking for Democratic Party of Virginia as they are for the subject of this article - and if your response to that is "but that's far-fetched", then it is equally far-fetched that people are searching for a non-notable party that received 13 votes in a Bahamian election 40 years ago. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that redirecting is going to mislead users looking for another "Democratic Party". That will only happen if they also have "Commonwealth" in their names. Your example certainly doesn't have that and neither do any of the other entries at the Democratic Party disambiguation page. It is not true that we should only create redirects if the user is looking for the target page. We create them when the target page has information on the search term, whether or not the reader might be interested in the rest of the page (WP:RPURPOSE bullet #15). A prime example of this non-notable music tracks being redirected to the album on which they appear or the page of the artist if the album is not notable either. We have hordes of those. Anyway, I don't see how anyone searching for this party would not want to land on 1982 Bahamian general election being as that is the only thing the party has ever done. SpinningSpark 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (dictionary stub article) and "Redirect": to 1982 Bahamian general election where it is mentioned. The last I saw redirects were cheap so no big expense. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:15, 4 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filomena Almarinez[edit]

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

Deproded article. Here's my PROD reason which is still valid for AfD

Seems to be a non-notable local saint. WP:BEFORE found no hits on Google Books, Scholar or News Archives. Found only two sources. (https://www.spot.ph/newsfeatures/the-latest-news-features/71434/10-filipinos-with-extraordinary-gifts-a1806-20170922-lfrm3) which seems to be a copy of this article and (https://www.pep.ph/news/kuwentong-kakaiba/157526/filomena-almarines-saint-binan-a4437-20210329-lfrm) which literally states that the Catholic Church ignores her claims for sainthood. Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 05:47, 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! 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing in Jstor, google scholar or elsewhere. If she was a saint, there would be records somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 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 Ian Fraser (naturalist). Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret McJannett[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Could not find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 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! 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've tried to improve this article, but have struggled to find anything that confirms notability. That these books have two authors and the man is agreeably notable and the women is not sits very uncomfortably with me, so I'll abstain from !voting CT55555 (talk)
  • Redirect to Ian Fraser (naturalist). I can't find RS on her via Google, Newsbank or WikiLibrary, but given she co-authored several books with Fraser, I think that justifies a redirect. Cabrils (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. It's hard to quantify what her contributions are to the partnership at the moment. There is an entry at p.737 of the National Library of Australia. Whether, its about her, I don't know. Her partner, or husband? only has a single ext link as well, which proves he was awarded the Australian Natural History Medallion likely making him notable. But this is the just prior to the internet, that period about 3-10 years beforehand, which by definition is hard to find relevant information. I struggle against it, and its a major sticking point every single time. Its a continual hassle. So I think there is more here, that has not been defined never mind discovered, so its currently a solid keep, until I see something that says otherwise. She is co-author on all those books and there is more of them. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 Lies[edit]

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

This film appears to fail the general notability guideline and the specific notability guideline for films. I've checked both the Danish and Norwegian articles and they do not have citations which could be pulled into the English Wikipedia to satisfy notability requirements. I was hoping that the director might have an article ... but no, so redirection there is not an option. Thanks for considering this - and it would be great if someone came up with sufficient sources to retain this article. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Norway. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A look in Norwegian produced enough coverage to establish notability. It's slow going since I have to use Google Translate, but what I am finding mentions other coverage. Apparently it was a box office bomb and the director accused some of the papers of killing the film's chances either before it was released or as soon as it did. Ouch. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked for help from WP:NORWAY since this will likely need someone fluent to really find good coverage and to ensure that I'm translating and summarizing things correctly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of a reception section that includes details of reviews of the film in multiple reliable sources. The article now passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 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 01:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Excess[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources whatsoever. It's mentioned in passing in articles about and interviews with A7X, but those are just name-drops. Could find no evidence of the Kerrang review either Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:01, 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 France at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 01:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Sarrade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and WP:NOLYMPICS.


The French Wikipedia includes an additional reference, km17, but the link is dead and it is not archived, so it is unknown whether it is independent, reliable, or significant. Other sources could not be found.

Redirect may not be suitable, as there is no clear target; Racing 92, Tug of war at the 1900 Summer Olympics, and Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics are all options. BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 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 01:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tuchman[edit]

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

As a writer they are known for their book 100 Sporting Events You Must See Live. Doesn't appear to be notable. References have mentions, but not significant coverage. Jsfodness (talk) 00:05, 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 redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Pelgrims[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and WP:NOLYMPICS.

The French Wikipedia has three additional sources, but two are databases and the third only mentions him in a list of players. Other sources could not be found. BilledMammal (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Talk[edit]

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

It doesn't have significant coverege on reliable and independent sources. Most of the content of the article is non-encyclopedic and probably added to create an illusion to make it look notable. Being "worth a visit" or "recommended" are not notable information at all. It would be enough to mention that on Geoffrey Kleinman and Internet Brands articles. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has been repeatedly used in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times and other newspaper reliable sources such as The Oregonian and Star Tribune as shown in the article. It is a reliable source on Wikipedia and a major critic on Rotten Tomatoes so deletion would be unnecessary and unjustified in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the article almost 10 years ago (or most of it, probably). It's short enough that merging this content somewhere wouldn't be much of a loss, but the website apparently had an appreciable impact on the industry once upon a time. For example, multiple sources cite DVD Talk as the reason why Amazon.com changed one of its more controversial policies. There was some question as to whether DVD Talk was a reliable source, such as if it could be used to reliably describe release dates and Easter eggs in Featured Articles. Reliable sources themselves answered the question, so I collected their views into an article itself. I find the insinuation in the nomination that I'm a spammer to be so absurd that it's not even worth getting upset over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick look at the article shows that it's subject has been covered in CNET, Home Media Magazine, Star Tribune, etc. While I could just pull a WP:PERX per Atlantic306 and NinjaRobotPirate, the fact that this has been covered in multiple sources, and more importantly, which sources have covered this, should've been more than enough for this to not have been brought to AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perusing old AFD's to see if there is anywhere I can assist in building consensus and came across this one. There are sources constituting sig-cov and so the article should not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 00:42, 3 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 Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Renier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. All we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 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 merge to Shingletown, California. consensus is clear that there is sourcing, although it's currently beyond the access of many participants. There does not appear to be consensus that we need a standalone page, and a merger is a viable ATD, also solving the lack of mention in Shingletown article Star Mississippi 01:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shingletown Airport[edit]

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

De-prodded by RecycledPixels with the rationale "meets notability". Airport in town of 2,000 people closed in 2002, only source does not mention it. Nor is it mentioned at Shingletown, California. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAIRPORT which states "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist". AusLondonder (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Closed since 2002, it was a public rural airport that operated since the 1950's. Even if you want to ignore the WP:NAIRPORT essay's suggestion that a general aviation airport that "is currently or formerly owned by a local, regional or national government entity" is likely to be notable, there was enough news coverage that was turned up in a couple of minutes of searching on Newspapers.com to keep on WP:GNG grounds even though that site doesn't even carry any local newspapers from that town. "County renews Shingletown airport lease", Redding Record Searchlight 16 Feb 1973, p.27,[31]clip "Move is started to close airport in Singletown", The Redding Record Searchlight 20 Feb 1981, p.5,[32]clip, "County declines airport grant", The Redding Record Searchlight 4 Dec 1996, p.B1,[33]clip part 1clip part 2 are just a few. Since its closing, it's still in the news as a popular site for amateur astronomers because it is a wide open space in a rural part of California without much light pollution, and there appears to be an annual event held there for astronomers according to the multiple articles covering that aspect. The fact that the article's only source doesn't mention the airport is likely because the source is a live link to the county website, which isn't likely to mention an airport that was closed 20 years ago. You can use archive.org to see versions of the site that included a mention that the airport was closed due to safety concerns (the county didn't want to spend the money to clear trees that had grown up to become obstacles to the runway). There's also a discussion of the airport's history at Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields, but I haven't tried evaluating that site's reliability as a direct source for the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very conscious of WP:NAIRPORT which makes clear that there's no free pass for airports: "The basic notability requirement still applies. Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." In relation to the sources you have provided, I think that solidifies the argument for deletion. These are trivial, routine mentions from a local county newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is only 4 paragraphs, so fairly routine. The second article is 14 paragraphs. The third article is 13 paragraphs. They're not trivial mentions in the back pages of the newspaper. Enough to satisfy GNG, and that's without trying very hard to search. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Airports need to meet our inclusion guidelines for organizations and the sourcing here does not rise to that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shingletown, California, which presently has no mention. This will improve the Shingletown, California article. North America1000 07:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that relevant notability criteria are met. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - I do not have access to @RecycledPixels's sources but if what they say about them is true then WP:GNG is passed. WP:ITSACASTLE may also apply. Although only loosely applicable, any excuse to link that wonderful essay is welcomed by me. I would love to rewrite the article if I gained access to the sources. (Is this in WP:TWL? I haven't checked yet) casualdejekyll 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Casualdejekyll: Yes, the newspapers.com account that I use is provided to me free through the Wikipedia Library. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Itching to get my hands on the newspapers.com stuff, but they only have one guy processing the applications so I expect it to take a while. In the meantime, sources do exist, so there's no reason to delete. casualdejekyll 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some sources have been provided, which seems to contradict the arguments for deletion that there is "no evidence". However, whether this is sufficient to warrant a stand-alone page or be merged into the article about its location (one pertinent link would be WP:NOPAGE), remains open to debate, and there is no clear consensus for that amongst the discussion's participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I only see one source that got added and no further evidence of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, @TenPoundHammer:, the three sources provided by RecycledPixels (arguably, the comment is a bit long, but they are indeed present) are the ones that attracted my attention, and why I relisted. Whether they are used in the article or not at the present time is not a concern, since notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOURCESEXIST is still not a reason to keep if they're not in the article. Every single source suggested is purely local except for Abandoned & Little Known Airfields which, despite being somewhat notable, is still a hobby site run by one person and therefore not an RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a valid interpretation of SOURCESEXIST (a valid example would be if somebody keeps saying "there must be sources" but doesn't present any. At least here, we do have some of them), although that wasn't what I linked anyway: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.. The question whether local sources are enough for notability or not is not one that has a settled answer in policy: in this case, however, and without pronouncing myself on the issue, even if the sources are not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article, that would not exclude it being mentioned on the article about the locality where this airport was (hence, de facto, a merge). Hence something which does pretty much warrant further discussion. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to take issue with user:Johnpacklambert's claim that airports need to meet WP:ORG. No they don't. Airports are owned by organisations but are not themselves organisations. Rather they are transport hubs. Thus Heathrow Airport's notability does not depend on the notability of Heathrow Airport Holdings, it's owner and operator. Airports are in the same category as train stations and we should apply a similar approach to them.
An airport running scheduled passenger services is almost sure to be notable. But this airport does not appear to have that – it is just a general aviation airport according to its article. It thus needs to work a bit harder to establish notability. No comment on whether the sources offered here achieve that. If they do, I would expect there to be somewhat more to write in the article than exists at present. SpinningSpark 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a lack of access to sources because for whatever reason RecycledPixels does not wish to write the article, and I'm waiting to gain access through an open TWL app. Once that happens, I can improve the article. If the article is deleted, I can always recreate it with the sources that I know exist, showing it passes GNG. casualdejekyll 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Just to be clear, airports do not have automatic or inherent notability. Per WP:NAIRPORT: "The basic notability requirement still applies. Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." An airport with scheduled passenger service is obviously highly likely to meet WP:GNG, but as with all organisations, it needs the sourcing to demonstrate that. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: While I still disagree about the notability of the airport on the basis of stories such as "County declines airport grant" per WP:AUD or trivial coverage such as "County renews Shingletown airport lease", I appreciate that you're willing to actually improve the article rather than just assert "it's notable" and leave it in the poor state it was before my nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A poor state it was and still is in. I did a little but I really do need the sources... Average wait on TWL Newspaper apps is 5 days and it's only been 1.... urgh. I've been itching to write an article for a while. Any suggestions while I wait? casualdejekyll 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can use the clipping function on those articles so they should be accessible to anyone and I'll update the URLs. It won't be until later though because I'm on the road now. The bad news about your wait for newspapers.com is that the approval (and renewal) process is usually a lot more than 5 days, because after it's approved at TWL, there's usually a few weeks before I get the notice that the subscription is active. RecycledPixels (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the links to articles I gave above to add links to clips that I'm pretty sure can be accessed by anybody. Here's another, about the astronomy events held at the former airport: clip 1. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: You pinged me to tell me that airports are not automatically notable as if I had said that. I said no such thing. You clearly did not read (or at least understand) a word I wrote as you then go on to repeat the incorrect claim that airports need to meet NORG. You also cite WP:AUD as if that was generally applicable. It is just a part of NORG. If it was a general principle that "limited interest" sources could not establish notability that would rule out a very large number of articles on physics, history, and stamp collecting etc that have no chance of ever being covered in a national newspaper. Since you have now demonstrated that your nom is based on a complete misinterpretation of guidelines, that puts me at keep. SpinningSpark 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: I was responding to your comment that airports (in this case one without scheduled passenger services) are alike to train stations and should be treated as such. You say that I repeated an "incorrect claim that airports need to meet NORG" whereas I actually didn't mention NORG in my reply to you. So perhaps you failed to read my comment. I referred to NAIRPORT. On the broader point though, I actually don't see why airports would not be required to meet WP:NORG which per WP:ORGCRIT applies to "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service" - many airports are private and/or for profit business ventures completely unlike a public train station with scheduled services. To equate airport notability with psychics is just absurd. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you didn't refer to NORG directly, but you did say "...but as with all organisations, it needs the sourcing..." which cannot be read as anything other than saying airports come under NORG. You also cited WP:AUD, which, as I've already commented, is part of NORG. So I fail to see why you are wasting space here denying it, especially as you have now said directly that you think NORG applies. No idea why you are accusing me of equating "airport notability to psychics". That would seem to be some kind of strawman argument, but perhaps you can explain. SpinningSpark 15:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Shingletown, California. I recently added information about the local currently operating airport to Alta Sierra, California, a community significantly bigger than Shingletown. Not every topic requires a stand alone article and combining these two articles results in a better article for any reader interested in this community or its defunct airport. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my second comment above. SpinningSpark 08:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shingletown, California per NorthAmerica1000 and Cullen328. Per WP:IAR, merging in my opinion is a slam-dunk in this case, where the perfect article already exists to merge this stub into. Ironically, the article seems to have come into existence right around the time of the airport's closing. StonyBrook babble 15:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to improve the encyclopedia per WP:IAR and User:StonyBrook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualdejekyll (talk • contribs) 00:54, 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 redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 01:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilaire Spanoghe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. All we know about him is his name, his nationality, his date and place of birth, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a medalist and fr.wiki indicates more sourcing. Worst case, Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "more sourcing" you claim is mainly non-reliable source family trees that add nothing of substance about this individual. Just because there are places where a person's name gets dropped does not in any way mean the person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Per the present (ludicrously over-complicated) sports notability guide
    "Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)"
    It simply isn't likely at all that sources will ever be found to support a GNG pass for a Belgian university football player born in 1879 about whom literally nothing is known. At the very least my WP:BEFORE failed to uncover anything. I frankly don't blame Lugnuts for not being aware that the NSport standard has yet again changed so that GNG must eventually be met, however I disagree that FR wiki has any useful additional sources - the only thing it has additional is an non-RS family tree of the Spanoghe family and database entries. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BilledMammal, yes I had missed that. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_26&oldid=1086226280"