Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 02 April 04 >

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 merge to Boris Yeltsin. consensus is there isn't enough for a standalone and this provides a home/preserves attribution until such time as there might be Star Mississippi 02:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeltsinism[edit]

Yeltsinism (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)

Notability? I think the RS do not cover it separately and it should be redirected to Presidency of Boris Yeltsin. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Russia. - hako9 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ethics of Postcommunism, History and Social Praxis in Russia ISBN 9780230239555 uses the term 13 times, Stefan Hedlund wrote a book "Will Putinomics be Different from Yeltsinism?" although it seems to be self published, so there is that. The book Putin's Russia Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain uses the term four times. In summary, a few minutes on google books strongly suggests this is a term, even if the article doesn't include that I've said above, efforts should be made to improve it before deleting it. CT55555 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Usage of the term is not enough to write an article about it, because it makes a source a primary source. The books in fact describe just the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and should be used there, not in the article on the term. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your point, sorry. I can't see how it's a primary source. CT55555 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a new section "political philosophy" (or such like) in Boris Yeltsin; alternatively KEEP. A merger will leave a redirect, so that the content will not be lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Boris Yeltsin, per Peterkingiron. That is the best immediate solution for this short amount of content. If it is expanded within the article to the point where it is excessive to retain, it can be split out again. BD2412 T 22:51, 4 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. Numerically, we're at about 15 delete to 10 keep, which is a majority but not clear consensus for deletion.

In terms of arguments, the "keep" argument is that the topic is notable because reliable sources have covered it, while the "delete" argument is that the article is an attack page created for partisan reasons, and that an article is unwarranted because all politicians lie anyway.

In my view, the "keep" arguments are stronger: WP:GNG is a widely accepted inclusion guideline and that the topic has received substantial coverage apart from Scott Morrison's other political activities has not been contested. The arguments why the page is an "attack page" are unsubstantiated: per WP:NPOV, we write what reliable sources write, and if they say that a politician lies a lot then that's what we write as well. The "attack" argument would therefore make sense only (and would warrant speedy deletion) if the contents of the article were not neutrally worded or poorly sourced, but that argument is not (substantively) being made here. Moreover, accusing other editors of partisanship and creating attack pages without good evidence violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

To sum up, the headcount is slightly for deletion while the arguments for keeping are quite a bit stronger than those for deletion. That being the case, there is no consensus to delete the article, and it is accordingly kept by default. Sandstein 07:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison[edit]

Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison (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)

Attack page. Any useful material should be included at ScoMo's BLP Pete (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on a notable topic - Morrison's veracity has been documented and reported on by numerous reliable sources. The page's purpose is to cover what reliable sources say about Morrison's veracity, whether they be positive or negative. While much of the coverage happens to be negative, it is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. Hypothetically, if reliable sources published positive coverage on the subject, they would be covered here. Attack pages must be both negative in tone and unsourced. The content in this article is verifiable and reliable sources are referenced.
Precedent exists for comparable pages. See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All politicians tell untruths. It goes with the territory. ScoMo is hardly in the same league as Donald Trump. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is a larger volume written about Donald Trump's veracity does not mean that Morrison's veracity is not a notable subject in its own right. Under the General Notability Guidelines, it is enough for the subject to have significant coverage in reliable sources without needing independent research. While telling untruths may be common among politicians, compared to other Australian politicians, Morrison's veracity has been covered in more detail and subject to greater debate, such that it can be regarded as a notable subject. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that with zero authority. Do you have a RS making this claim? We have better well-referenced examples of notable mendacity in the category of recent PMs, but do we have a Veracity of statements by Juliar Gillard article? We do not. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether another article exists or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search reveals an entire archive from the country's main public broadcaster on the veracity of statements made by the Australian Prime Minister,[1] and specific articles dealing with the propensity to mislead.[2][3][4][5][6] Nor is this an issue exclusively related to claims from political opponents, there are claims as well from fellow tories.[7][8]

References

  1. ^ "Scott Morrison - Fact Check". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
  2. ^ "A Dossier of Lies and Falsehoods Archives". Crikey.
  3. ^ "Morrison's top 10 bare-faced lies". Independent Australia. 25 November 2021.
  4. ^ "The lie of the land: Morrison's corrosive behaviour threatens trust rebuilt during pandemic | Katharine Murphy". the Guardian. 22 November 2021.
  5. ^ Denniss, Richard (19 March 2022). "Morrison's economic lies". The Saturday Paper.
  6. ^ Mulgan, Richard (6 December 2021). "Morrison's lies mark a new low in our political discourse. Do voters care?". The Canberra Times.
  7. ^ "Scott Morrison Called 'Hypocrite and Liar' in Leaked Texts By Political Allies". thediplomat.com. 8 February 2022.
  8. ^ "Barnaby Joyce not the first to call Scott Morrison a liar". The New Daily. 6 February 2022.
There's clearly enough for the topic to be notable in and of itself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is clearly an attack piece based on opinion pieces and synthetic arguments. Every politician tells untruths and ScoMo doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the average run of recent PMs, all of whom receive multiple hits in Google searaches for lying. Julia Gillard was notable for her big lie on a carbon tax, so much so that the nickname "Juliar" gained considerable traction. Amongst her political opponents. We could, I guess, compile similar articles of similar length for recent PMs, based on the less-than-objective opinions of political opponents, inside and outside their parties. The Rudd-Gillard dynamic was particularly toxic. But we don't. ScoMo isn't in the same league as Donald Trump mentioned above, where the challenge is not to find an untruth amongst the regular statements, it is to find something that is actually true. Sure, we have a Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article, and a similarly-named redirect to a section in BoJo's BLP article but I'm not seeing ScoMo as up there with those guys, especially Trump. Otherwise we'd have one for every prominent politician with enemies. Vladimir Putin doesn't have such an article and he's been dropping some cracking whoppers. This is a pointy article by a SPE and very hard to AGF. --Pete (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that statement addresses the reliable sources which discuss the topic at hand. An attack page would be titled the Lies of Scott Morrison. The title itself is NPOV and a perfectly reasonable summary of the sourcing. One can certainly debate whether or not there is UNDUE weight around lies, misstatements, half-truths and truth, but that's a content dispute and irrelevant to AfD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed the point. We currently have two articles in all of Wikipedia on "Veracity of Statements by …". One of them is Donald Trump. Are you seriously suggesting that we open up a category of similar articles for all politicians??? --Pete (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic has received coverage from many reliable sources. Publications including Guardian, ABC News, 9news, the Diplomat, the Conversation, and Crikey have specifically addressed the veracity of statements made by Morrison as a topic in its own right. Articles from these sources have been cited in the page as references. This topic has also been the subject of public debate by high-profile public figures from different sides of the political spectrum, as well as in the international community. This should indicate that it is of sufficient interest to the public to be regarded as noteworthy. The fact that what various sources have to say about the topic happens to be negative does not automatically make the article an attack page. The page exists to summarise discourse from reliable sources on the veracity of Morrison's statements regardless of whether they are positive or negative. If reliable sources published positive coverage on Morrison's veracity, that would be included in the article too. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accusing your political opponents of lying is the oldest manoeuvre in democratic politics, and the fact that such accusations receive routine coverage does not justify the existence of a whole article on it. Agree with Pete that this is obviously a political attack page which has no place on Wikipedia. Atchom (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue has been commented on by individuals from across the political spectrum. Discourse on the subject is not limited to statements made by Morrison's political opponents, it includes comments by fellow conservatives from the same party, individuals outside the political sphere, and foreign leaders. Calling the page an attack page does not make it one - an attack page must exist for the purpose of disparaging the subject and be poorly sourced. The page is titled Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison, leaving scope to include both positive and negative coverage of the subject matter. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An impressively detailed and referenced article (kudos to @Combustible Vulpex:!). This has been a particularly notable topic in Australian politics in recent months and years. Precedent in the Trump article is strong; editors outside of Australia would do well to keep WP:GLOBAL in mind. The article is particularly notable to a global audience given the involvement of former leaders and Macron/AUKUS etc. Of course WP:NPOV is important; I suspect that as the federal election campaign continues, the topic will attract more attention from unbiased and respected sources, which may help. If the consensus is to delete, however, I would recommend adding sections in the articles on Scott Morrison, 2022 Australian federal election#Background, and/or Post-truth politics#International examples. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom's claim this is an attack page is clearly untrue. The page is well-sourced and covers a notable topic. While politicians are frequently accused of having an uneasy relationship with the truth it is uncommon for a leader to be accused of having a record of deception by leaders of major allies (the French President) and senior members of his own party (Gladys Berejiklian, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells). The article is not purely a list of lies but actually a broader analysis of Morrison's falsehoods and deception and the coverage from reliable sources of that and impact on Australian politics and foreign relations. AusLondonder (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but God this article was badly written. I have cleaned up a lot of it, and more needs to be done. There does seem to be substantial media interest in Scott Morrison repeating falsehoods, but the question of whether the material here should be merged into the article on Scott Morrison is just a question of the length of the text of this article. If it ends up being trimmed down to the point that it fits in Scott Morrison, it should just be merged there: whether a standalone article for this would or wouldn't make sense is mostly a question of whether all the relevant things there are to say about the topic are too much to fit in the main article on Morrison. Endwise (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage of whether his statements are true or not. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic has received Plenty coverage from many reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well referenced article backed by significant coverage. There is too much to merge into main ScoMo article. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient coverage from reliable sources is available. Spkabil (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Article appears neutral and based on his own statements, with a good amount of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 2022-04-07T16:39:12 (UTC)
  • Delete Morrison's false statements have been reported on before, but general coverage regarding the veracity of his statements does not appear to warrant this article. Most politicians lie, and it's normal for their lies to be documented in RS, but having an article like this requires something more special. It would require thorough analysis of his lies as a whole and substantial commentary about his pattern of lying, and that does not appear to be the case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is this article a WP:SPINOFF from? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The material here would have put in a section in the article Scott Morrison, but it is too long in comparison to the length of the article. If that was done it would have been spun out into its own article.
    Agree with Endwise's comments above that whether this should be a separate article from Scott Morrison is a question of the length of the article. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue I have with this article is that it's just a list of WP:RECENT news stories about lies Morrison has told, rather than being a well sourced commentary on the veracity of his statements. I contend that the actual coverage about the veracity of his statements is not worthy of its own article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers for clarifying that, I think that's a legitimate argument to be made even if I don't necessarily share the same view. I admit the issue with 'recentism' is tricky because he's only been in office for a few years, and will probably require some judgement calls to be made, which people will have different views on. I (and some others) consider the coverage to be enough, but ultimately, this debate will probably come down to whether people think there is enough coverage of the statements be notable. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh my God, this definitely needs deleting as a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning we define things. We don't have op/ed pieces or exposés, which is exactly what this reads like. We're not here to right great wrongs or get to some ultimate truth. There is no thing here to be defined. This is a truth hunt, and you could change the prepositional phrase "veracity of" to "truth of" in the title without altering the meaning one bit. That's not what we're here for. Imagine if we had an article (and use the term article loosely) like this on every politician. And why stop there? We could have such articles on the veracity of celebrities, science, or even religion? By golly, then we'd be just like the rest of the internet. An encyclopedia article should begin "Subject is...", and if you can't, then that's a good indication it doesn't belong. (And I'd say the same for the Trump exposé or any other like it.) Zaereth (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or articles on the veracity of other subjects should exist is a different issue, and not the one being discussed here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The question of whether this article should exist should be determined by reference to the GNG.
    The article would be a ‘truth hunt’ if it consisted of original research. This is not the case. Even though the article discusses the ‘truth’ of statements made by the subject, commentary on the veracity of Morrison’s statements comes from reliable sources cited in the article, NOT original research.
    While most articles start with defining their subject, this is not necessarily the case; many articles do not. You may argue that there is no 'thing' to be defined, but this does not preclude the subject matter from being the topic of an article. See these examples:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_relating_to_social_networking_services
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk Combustible Vulpex (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an encyclopedia article. It's an exposé. These are two completely different styles of writing, and you can't simply call it encyclopedic and expect people to be fooled any more than you can cook an egg and call it fried chicken. The definition of exposé is: "report that reveals the shocking truth about something". That's what Chris Hanson from Dateline does. Encyclopedias just don't do that without being laughable. As in all exposés, despite the misleading name, the subject of this article is lying. That's a verb, not a noun, and information on lies he may have told belong in his article. Like Frickeg says below, it's an NPOV nightmare. Let me ask you, have you included any truths he may have told? Zaereth (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been stated elsewhere, should there be positive coverage of Morrison's veracity by relevant news sources or publications, that is within the scope of the article. Have you done a simple search for any notable commentary of truths he has told? I don't see many notable sources praising how honest he is, but you or any other editor is welcome to add such commentary should you find it.
Whether or not any relevant truths have been included here can be a matter for discussion, but not here. That is an issue for the article's Talk page, not AfD. Anyways, I'll indulge you on your last point briefly for the sake of the discussion. Also, see this section which includes statements by Barnaby Joyce which actually praise his veracity, as well as this section, which includes positive commentary by Josh Frydenberg. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the article creates the NPOV problem, not the content. A similar article could be written and adequately sourced for the vast majority of politicians (I imagine there would be sufficient sourcing for most Australian PMs and all US presidents at a minimum). But the existence of the article is in and of itself a statement, and thus it is inherently against WP:NPOV. Frickeg (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very concept of this article is an unavoidable violation of WP:NPOV, as for it to exist at all it requires a judgement that Morrison's truthfulness or otherwise is out of the ordinary - a value judgement in itself. This kind of article is an extremely dangerous path to go down. Zaereth's points above are highly relevant. Frickeg (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to change your vote, but if contributors thought the article was one-sided, why wouldn't they add evidence of where his contested statements are true? Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding here to both this comment and your comment above. The article itself does not pass a value judgement about Morrison's truthfulness - it merely reports on a value judgement that has been made by a consensus of other reliable sources. It would be a breach of NPOV for the article to consist of original research that made this judgement on its own. On the other hand, if a majority of reliable sources all appear to make the same value judgement (which lets say is the judgement that Morrison's truthfulness is out of the ordinary) then to have an article documenting and analysing that phenomenon should not be considered a breach of NPOV. NPOV does not prevent articles from being written about topics where majorities have passed a value judgement. To interpret NPOV in such a way is too simplistic and would prevent articles from being written about many noteworthy topics. For instance, the article titled Propaganda in China can exist without breaching NPOV even though messaging being considered propaganda implies a value judgement has been made about it. The same could be said about the article Enron Scandal, for something to be a scandal implies that it is wrong and outrageous. The existence of these pages and others like them imply that some value judgement is involved but they can still be written in a way that is compliant with NPOV. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Add anything relevant to the appropriate pages in the series. Gusfriend (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per arguments of Zaereth and Frickeg with a side order of WP:NOTNEWS. Anything genuinely significant can be merged to the main article, but most of this is just trivia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Partisan attack page created on the eve of an election. Personal essay built on discreet events joined together in an original synthesis. Wikipedia is not a venue for political campaigning and dirty tactics. 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs)
    woops, one two many ~. Yep, that was my !vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any subject matter covered in this article is properly-sourced and of demonstrable significance, discussion of it belongs in the Scott Morrison biography. I can see no evidence from the talk page for that article that a proposal to fork this putative subtopic off was made, and without such prior discussion, creation of such a fork is premature, to say the least. Any article of this form is liable to be inherently of questionable neutrality, and it would take a very strong consensus to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that this was set up as an attack page from the get-go. Just examine the language; the first sentence of the lead is "Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made numerous false and misleading statements over the course of his political career." The final sentence of the lead is "Public perception of Morrison's tendency to deliver false statements has been seen as problematic for his political party, the Liberal National Coalition." The first sentence of the main body of text is "Scott Morrison's history of making false statements has received significant media attention, which has led to issues for Morrison with public trust and repeated criticism from the Australian Labor Party." And so on and so forth; the article presumes that Morrison is a habitual liar, rather than set forth the sources in a NPOV fashion and invite the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Honestly, this skirts G10, well-presented or no. Ravenswing 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you or other editors dispute the neutrality of the article, then you should go and find reliable sources with other POVs and include them in the article. As has been mentioned before, the title leaves scope for inclusion of POVs that provide both positive and negative coverage. It happens that are very few reliable sources providing positive coverage of the subject, and this should not preclude an article from being written about the topic. I see what you are saying about the language, and the first sentence has now been changed to read more neutrally and better reflect the sources. But in any case, that is an issue with the content of the article, which is separate to the question being considered at an AfD. G10 exists to cover articles where there is no sourcing, this is not the case here so G10 is not relevant. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Gosh, I changed a single sentence, so that means I didn't write an attack page after all!" No, sorry, I'm not swallowing that. Nor am I swallowing that there are "very few reliable sources" providing positive coverage of the Prime Minister of Australia, for pity's sake: the man was elected to Parliament fifteen years ago, and you're alleging that just about no one in the press has written anything positive? No, I'm not swallowing that either. Ravenswing 11:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a horrible hit piece, appearing politically motivated. I'd even say it warrants G10 speedy deletion (though I see that has already been tried). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andy and Ravenswing. Borderline G10. Concur with Boing! that this appears as a politically-motivated hit piece, intended to disparage a politician during an election campaign. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hit piece written for partisan reasons connected with an election next month. This should be discussed more briefly and in a less tendentious way at Scott Morrison. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not there is an election ongoing is completely irrelevant to an AfD. The article should be debated on its merits or lack thereof, rather than aspersions cast about other editors. The same goes for comments by Zebedee and Jip above. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Combustible Vulpex: Attacking every comment and badgering everyone you disagree with really won't get you anywhere, you know. It just makes you look more like a single-purpose battleground proponent. Oh, and desribing it as a horrible hit piece *is* describing it on its merits - and the possible motivations of an editor who creates an attack article are indeed a valid part of a deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On looking at the the contributions of User:Combustible Vulpex I find that their first contribution to Wikipedia was less than three weeks ago, they made a few trivial edits in unrelated areas and then dropped this article in one edit, all 58K worth, in one go. Perhaps this editor is no stranger to Wikipedia and has some previous history here? That is most unuaual behaviour for someone with a welcome message still on their talk page. --Pete (talk)
What you're suggesting is untrue, this is the only account I own or have owned. I am a Newcomer and have learned to use the interface through those past edits and reading various guides. This should be apparent from the formatting mistakes I made while putting up the article. If you think I am a banned user or using an alt-account then there are other channels to raise that and you should take that discussion there rather than cast aspersions here. You should be focusing on the content itself, not the editor.Combustible Vulpex (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too, am curious about that. But an SPI, would be required. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Zaereth, Ravenswing, Andy and Frickeg. Strong violation of WP:NPOV and probably WP:NOR. The article is effectively one user's political attack "essay": the first sentence of the article shows exactly why it should be deleted - it puts forward an allegation that Morrison is a liar and then uses sources partisanly (if that's a word) throughout each subheading to back up that thesis. To the extent there are any valid NPOV sources about criticisms, it hasn't been demonstrated that the existing Scott Morrison page (or subpages about the Governments he has led) are not adequate places to put that content. The article is not redeemable and must be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The opening sentence has now been changed following criticism to read more neutrally. If you think the article is "not redeemable" by virtue of the topic, then I disagree with you. Veracity of statements by Donald Trump is evidence that an article can be written on the veracity of a political figure's statements and still be NPOV. If you think the content of the article isn't NPOV, then that's a content dispute rather than something that should go in AfD. As has been stated before, the question of whether the content should be moved to the Scott Morrison page is an issue of length. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of points in reply: (1) The opening sentence still is based on an allegation that Morrison is a liar and then uses particular incidents to back that thesis up. When it uses statements like "credibility" and that sort of thing then it veers away from NPOV into attack page territory. The page is defamatory, and if Morrison wasn't a public figure used to receiving criticism it would have been deleted some time ago. (2) In terms of your arguments about content, there comes a point at which an article is so badly written in violation of Wikipedia policies that the better option is to get rid of it. This is clearly one of them. Other users have indicated that the page borders on G10 speedy deletion, which suggests it does fall into that sort of category. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To go further, some of these "examples" aren't backed up by secondary sources describing the criticism (e.g. the whole Novak Djokovic section doesn't include any sources describing any criticism of Morrison at all - it's hard to know what the "veracity" that has been challenged in fact is), are statements not attributed to Morrison at all but to others (e.g. the 2019 bushfires example which refers to a statement by his office, not by him), or are statements where there's an easily available explanation so are hardly a criticism of the veracity of the statement (e.g. the Hillsong one where statement that he "hasn't been at Hillsong for 15 years" could just be a statement that he hasn't attended it as his local church for that time, rather than not at all). The article heavily relies on opinion pieces to explain the alleged criticisms too (often as the only secondary source). It is a complete mess, and there is no other explanation than it is an attack page that violates Wikipedia policy. Deus et lex (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted a fair few of the examples where there was no merit to the criticism (as described above). Further to that, a significant number of the alleged "criticisms" in the article are just refutations of the primary claim by ABC Fact Check - that really isn't a justifiable criticism that has been reported on by independent sources. Some of the others are just petty. Every example I look at in here has problems. Deus et lex (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An attack page; clearly serving as a list of bad things Morrison did. Perhaps an article called Scott Morrison controversies could be created, but the concept of ScoMo's evaluation as a reliable source seems rather unnotable, so this is not the article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but in my opinion even a controversy section becomes an NPOV problem for the same reason. Not only do people incorrectly use the word "controversy" ("a widespread public debate", not simply anything negative about a subject) merely walling it off in its own section or article creates an intrinsic unbalance. I like the analogy of a UPS plane. Before they load cargo on a plane, they first load it into sections called "igloos" (due to their shape). They carefully weigh each igloo, to make sure they are all balanced, regardless if one has a million packages or just one. If they load all the heavy stuff into just one igloo, the whole plane will be off balance and go down in flames. This isn't much different from WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, and other aspects of NPOV and NOR, including synth. Instead of walling it off in its own section, information should like this should be distributed throughout the subject's article in its proper place in the timeline of events. Same info, but now the article is balanced. Zaereth (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Trump "article" should be deleted as well, but I'm not going to nominate it. If someone else wants to, I'll put in my two cents. With Trump, he's a bit of a special case, in that I don't think anyone could ever accuse him of lying. I don't think he could pull off a lie with a script, cue cards, and props. The man simply has no filter; whatever goes through his mind comes out his mouth. As much as I've never liked him, even before politics, I do believe that is the one thing that made him so attractive to so many people who are on neither side. Everything he says may be completely wrong, but at least you know it's what he truly believes, and to those people this exposé will only serve to reinforce their support of him; opposite to its intended purpose. Without careful thought, sometimes these things just backfire in the face of their creators. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 10 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 where this can be incubated and improved as Burton attains more playing time. While there isn't a strong consensus that he doesn't ever deserve an article, those arguing KEEP did not provide information beyond the deprecated NFOOTY. While this doesn't necessarily require AFC before restoration, I'd imagine a quick return to mainspace would result in G4 so suggest time in draft space for coverage to appear. Star Mississippi 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Burton (footballer)[edit]

Jake Burton (footballer) (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 player has twice represented Tranmere to scrape past NFOOTY, I don't think there is sufficient coverage to merit an article at present. It is a TOOSOON case. The best option may be to draftify. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY and - also meeting "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional." having played in the English Football League a fully professional league. There is no reason at all for this one to be nominated as an AFD - has three FL appearances, one FA Cup appearance and 2 also in the Football League Trophy, where he appeared in the 2021 competition final for the club vs Sunderland. Zanoni (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zanoni WP:NFOOTY is a guideline on players likely to be notable, not an absolute guarantee that someone is notable. Don't see that they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302, yep get this has crept in - but frankly it's still contested. This player has played three times in the Football League, and a Football League Trophy final as well. There's loads of articles out there with someone who played in EFL matches in the early 1900s with one, two, three appearances yet they are also notable - often as they played for clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham etc. Basically these deletion nominations are made by those making decisions on *who they think* are notable Zanoni (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY, but only just due to only playing two league matches. Rillington (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rillington: - three league matches...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, ongoing career - needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and is 20 years old with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per nom. Subject, as far as I can tell, lacks WP:SIGCOV which would be required for a standalone article. Those noting he meets WP:NFOOTY are failing to address the lack of WP:GNG, which is required of all articles. Consensus on this topic per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES has previously resulted in delete. That said, the subject does appear to be fairly young in his career and will likely meet inclusion criteria in the future so pushing to draft makes sense now. The only coverage I can find looks to be small, incidental, and or/routine such as this, this, this, this, etc. If draftify is not an option, then I'd vote delete. GauchoDude (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of the keep voters are also ignoring the fact that WP:NFOOTY has been removed, and that it was only ever a guideline anyway on who might be notable, not a hard and fast rule of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Meets WP:NFOOTY and I expect the article to expand further in the future as he continues to play.
  • Preferably Draftify but otherwise Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. This is a modern day athlete, so if there is no coverage on him in this golden age of internet coverage then he just aint yet notable (WP:TOSOON). Whether he might have significant coverage in the future is WP:CRYSTALBALL. WP:NFOOTY, which currently doesn't exist, did require all subjects to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a tough one - probably should be kept for encyclopaedic reasons, sourcing is pretty bad, career is ongoing but not in a fully professional league, GNG argument possible but not clear cut. Any option seems to be on the table - I'm in between weak keep and draftify. Surprised to see WP:NFOOTY is deprecated, what the heck did I miss?!? SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer The various participation criteria of WP:NSPORTS was deprecated as it was deemed to be a rather poor judge of whether athletes were notable or not. It has also been made clearer in NSPORTS that all athletes must pass the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really always been the case in terms of the GNG but hopefully this will lead to better enforcement, though we didn't need to throw out all the SNGs. I can't find any slam dunk GNG sources for Burton and two of his appearances appear to have been brief. Still somewhere between weak keep and draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strict (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only the programming entry is a legitimate (and minor) entry, which can be handled with a hatnote in Strict. The other two are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. One of the other entries is okay as well. My bad. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic-trap diplomacy[edit]

Strategic-trap diplomacy (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 majority of the article sources do not mention any "strategic trap" and the bulk of this article seems to be straight-up OR. The term is used by one analyst of Sri Lanka, Asanga Abeyagoonasekera, but does not seem to have received significant coverage in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Debt-trap diplomacy. The entire article is based on one source[1] which mentions a term coined by a single commentator. The article continues as a blatantly biased essay. Not to mention the creator and primary editor of the page has a conflict of interest. [1] Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sri Lanka faces Chinese 'strategic trap': Expert". ThePrint. 2022-03-26. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
  • I oppose this merge because I think it would be UNDUE to mention this term on debt-trap diplomacy article. There are thousands of Google Scholar articles about debt-trap diplomacy but I bet no more than 1 discuss "strategic trap". (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR. Seven search results, Wikipedia and its mirrors. Looks like a User:Asangaabey's self-publication. Keeping a redirect is unjustified.--Chanaka L (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
incorrect assesment on "not received significant coverage", it has received international news coverage, kindly refer to the following link https://www.dw.com/en/dw-news-asia-with-biresh-banerjee-30-march-2022/av-47236523 Asangaabey (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/india-tries-to-pry-sri-lanka-loose-from-chinas-embrace.html Asangaabey (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - puffery about a half-year old novel coinage with lots of WP:OR thrown in; charitably WP:TOOSOON, but right now this is not an item that has received clear coverage / discourse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parti communiste du Québec (sovereigntist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parti communiste du Québec (sovereigntist) (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)

Party recognized during 2 general elections, from 2006 to 2012, but never having presented a single candidates. Affiliated to no international organization. A split from the historic Communist Party of Quebec, which has not been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer since 2003, but which has run candidates in 9 general elections and is now running candidates in the federal election for the Communist Party of Canada.

In addition to sources from the group's main page or activist blogs, external sources clearly indicate that members were acting as a collective within Québec solidaire or the Parti québécois (Lavoie, Jasmin. "Des communistes séduits par PKP" [archive], La Presse, October 21, 2014) after the party lost its authorization in 2012 for lack of members. The party currently has no official recognition in either Québec solidaire, the Parti Québécois, or the Bloc Québécois. There is also no evidence that the group was officially constituted as a collective from sources that are not internal. Eshko Timiou (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Quebec. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As mentioned above, the party never ran a candidate at an election. Limited external source that only refer to the Party indirectly. Most of the article is original research without reliable, published sources. Eshko Timiou (talk) 19:57, 5 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Kumar Tanti[edit]

Kamal Kumar Tanti (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)

Notability issues and G11 issue. Nang Nandini (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:@Nang Nandini I am improving it. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't understand how this can be both notability issues and G11 issues. The only promo here is the notability claims - awards, etc. The problem is that this is a largely unsourced BLP, not that it's promo, let alone unambiguous promo. -- asilvering (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering G11 is crystal clear. Lack of WP:SEC indicates more issues. Furthermore Yuva Puraskar is low level award and not eligible enough for notability. Nang Nandini (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nang Nandini G11 is for articles so promotional in tone that a complete, fundamental rewrite would be required to salvage them. This article isn't even promotional in tone: it's a prose list of books and awards. This is an entirely normal thing to have in short author biographies. If the awards aren't relevant, you can simply remove them. -- asilvering (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering I have double checked the new sources. Most are either interviews or primary sources. Furthermore as an author the article is TOOSOON as no such book reviews available either. Nang Nandini (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nang Nandini There are already at least two book reviews on the article. One was present when it was nominated for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering the books are translated by others. Even The Hindu source is also an interview. Interviews are not enough to pass GNG even. Nang Nandini (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviews of a translation confer notability on the original work. Indeed, the very fact that the work is translated is a strong indicator of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I agree with Asilvering. It's an unambiguous promo. While trying to cite claims, I am really getting it hard as most claims in the article have no way to cite with any resource. Even so, I am trying to find sources, may be we need to re-qrite the article. But the G:11 is a valid concern here. I can't !vote as I'm involved with the improvement of the article. Regards --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denny's Beer Barrel[edit]

Denny's Beer Barrel (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)

Local restaurant that fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. For sure, there will be references for various reviews and travel logs, but this establishment is not notable. Mikeblas (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 3 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blink (2022 film)[edit]

Blink (2022 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)

Lacks notability for a standalone article based on a short film that premiered on Youtube. When doing a simple Google search ([6]), only one reliable source (The Hollywood Reporter) mentions the film. As such, it fails notability guidelines. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable cast, notable crew, and mentions in these articles: [7], [8], [9]. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The three sources above appear reliable (discussions for 1 and 3) and have already been added to the article. Definitely at least passes GNG. Bsoyka (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one short article in a reliable source (Hollywood reporter). I can't see slashfilm.com nor bloody-disgusting.com as reliable sources. All three cites, though, are very short blurbs about the film. Having a "notable cast" isn't one of the criteria for film notability. This doesn't meet any of the criteria. And I hope it isn't improper for me to mention here that the article was created by Some Dude From North Carolina, one of the keep votes above. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How are two full-length interviews "very short blurbs"? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one that is full length is slashfilm.com. That is also the only interview - quotes scattered through an article \= interview. The other two are brief articles, and the TWR one is only partly about this film - it then goes on to talk of other activities of the creators. The bloody-disgusting one is essentially an announcement that the film will be shown. That comes under WP:ROUTINE. Interviews are not independent sources for wp:blp articles about people, and I'm assuming (please point to the policy if I've missed it) that is true for articles about creative works that interview the creator(s). I did look up bloody-disgusting and slashfilm; the latter is stated to be reliable for the genre; I don't see a RS decision on the former. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Disgusting is an established WikiProject film reliable source for horror films as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 9 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! 20:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Per comments from Bsoyka and Some Dude From North Carolina. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hollywood reporter is too short to be considered significant coverage. Slashfilm is an interview (thus not independent), so it does not contribute to notability. The third is just a trailer announcement which again does contribute to NFILM / GNG. No reliable reviews cited or found -- Ab207 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is prose in the interview and enough in the other sources for a close pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Land Art Mongolia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dolgor Ser-Od[edit]

Dolgor Ser-Od (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)

A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Search found social-media, press releases, name-checks or WP-mirrors. The article seems to be part of a small walled-garden created/edited by two single-purpose accounts, along with an article on her partner Marc Schmitz (currently at AfD) and their curatorial project Land Art Mongolia. Possible WP:PROMO and WP:COI creation. If acceptable sourcing is found I'm willing to withdraw the nom. Merging Redirecting is another alternative. Bringing it here for community feedback. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 3 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosy Salon Software[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria - sources appear to be mostly PR pieces, listicles and coverage in places that are not independent, reliable sources. firefly ( t · c ) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came to another page with discussion and saw this one. I know we can't compare but looks better than other similar pages and having reliable sources as well.JK.Kite (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Hi, included some references. There are a bunch of other references available as well but I kept it simple and factual as per your tutorials. Rosy is actually a huge brand/software in the salon world, powering more than 25,000 salons throughout the United States. I believe deserves a chance. Thank you SarahBill1 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources which mention Rosy Salon Software (some don't, which doesn't help establish notability at all) are not independent, or have other issues:
Salon Today has some articles that look alright, but to meet WP:GNG I'd want to see 3-4 reliable sources, not just one publication doing the heavy lifting. Sunmist (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources do not seem to pass WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting for the record that I've just blocked SarahBill1, the author of the article who has !voted above, for abuse of multiple accounts - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jericeeek. The vote above precedes the block, and that of their multiple sockpuppets, so I won't strike it, but I suspect that this is not their first account, and that they are part of an older UPE sockfarm. Girth Summit (blether) 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 19:14, 10 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Shooster[edit]

Stephen Shooster (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)

PROMO article created by a banned UPE sockpuppet editor User:Jeremy112233 that fails every applicable notability guideline (ANYBIO, GNG, NARTIST). There just are no sources, because he isn't notable. Neither of the companies he has run are notable or would pass NCORP. The only source with any detail is this profile from the school he went to, on the occasion of his creation of a scholarship in his name, in honor of his daughter that also goes to that school. So... not in any way independent. [10] Theredproject (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be someone with a hobby, who has not been the subject of professional critical discourse. I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Who's Who in Art listed here is no longer published, but I suspect in any case that one self-nominates for most of those publications. He has self-published a book that is a someone's life story. [11]. The only notable thing that I can find is that his art is for sale at Saatchi and for impressive 5-figure prices. Nothing, though, indicates that works have actually sold. Most of the article is about his call center business, and that doesn't rise to the level of notability. Lamona (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 10:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermansyah Muchlis[edit]

Hermansyah Muchlis (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)

Technical and weak passing of the recently removed guideline WP:NFOOTBALL but no evidence of passing WP:NBASIC. No relevant coverage in the hits at Google News or an Indonesian source search. Similar case to Arie Priyatna Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV that would lead me to believe subject meets criteria for a standalone article. I was only able to find passing mentions such as this and this, which in my opinion isn't doesn't meet WP:N. GauchoDude (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from what I see the footballer passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soccerway and World Football are far from WP:SIGCOV. Have you found other sources? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Like the others above who tried, I was unable to find any significant coverage on the player. Alvaldi (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search on his name on Indonesian news sites turn up more about a murderer with the same name that chokes his wife to death. Not notable, he is playing at a pretty low league in Indonesia, and apart from an article about what he is going to do on Lebaran holiday there is no coverage about him. SunDawntalk 01:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 which in no way excludes future discussion of a possible article merger. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hostomel[edit]

Battle of Hostomel (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 Battle of Hostomel is indistinguishable from the Battle of Antonov Airport. The one would not have happened without the other. Merge all unique data from this article to the Antonov article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Keep — The battles are very much different. One is for an airport (which started 24 February and ended on the 25 February) that gained massive international attention and the other is the battle for a city, which started on February 25 (right after the airport battle) and ended with the Russian withdrawal on 1 April. No reason to merge or delete. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The battle for the airport and the battle for the town were two separate engagements. Further, the battle for the airport has shown to be notable enough to warrant its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you have to ask yourself if there would ever have been a battle for the town had the airport not existed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I believe there would have still been a battle. Let's assume hypothetically that the airport never existed and the Russians didn't perform their Ride of the Valkyrie helicopter assault. The Russian forces would still be advancing north after capturing Ivankiv (Battle of Ivankiv). In order to besiege Kyiv from the western side they would still have to capture Bucha, Irpin, and Hostomel since all three towns/cities are literally on right on Kyiv doorstep. The existence of the Antonov Airport pretty much reinforces that. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - True, all of this should be merged with the Battle of Antonov Airport. Also, sources are innacurate and the battle ended with a Russian victory, while the creator of the article still claimed that the battle was still going on. SavageBWiki (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confused on where you see that creator claim. Both battles have ended (Airport on 25 February and Hostomel on 1 April). Also, could you explain why it should be merged, because they are two separate battles. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hello everyone, I am the creator of the Battle of Hostomel article. First off SavageBWiki, I never insisted that the battle was ongoing. You can check the edit history if you want proof. I haven't edited the article in a long time. Second, could you please elaborate how this is a "Russian victory"? While Russian forces did occupy the town, Ukrainian forces were still fighting for control over it and ultimately Russian forces withdrew from the town. I hardly consider that "Russian victory". Third, the reason why I created the Battle of Hostomel article is because I initially proposed changing the name of the Battle of Antonov Airport to "Battle of Hostomel" to encompass the airport and the town. However, several editors suggested that I create a separate article instead since the airport battle has its own notability. You can check here Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that that was the right thing to do when things were still fluid. Now that's it's over in this theatre, we can see with a wider eye what the bigger plan was. It's clear that the 2 actions were all a single, interdependent piece and should be treated as such. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The battle for the airport and the battle for the city are 2 different battles with 2 different objectives as already discussed in the talk page of the article for the Battle of Antonov Airport that I created. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article clearly distincts the battle for the airport and the battle for the town, both of which are notable. In addition to the cited sources, several uncited sources exist and seem to get this beyond WP:NOTNEWS. I'd be open to a potential merge to Kyiv offensive (2022) in the future, but for now I think it's sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: hahaha better written here as the Article Battle of Hostomel Airport that still says it with Russians... since couple of days back to Ukrainians, so you Wiki experts seems to be lazy... and trying to delete this... This Wiki makes me laugh ... --188.96.90.63 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: without prejudice of a possible merge which can be discussed in the talk pages. MarioGom (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Be a Soldier[edit]

I Want to Be a Soldier (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 suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 16:45, 3 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 Omba Mokomba per consensus, including the nominator. Star Mississippi 02:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Brown (actor)[edit]

Benjamin Brown (actor) (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 with role on Omba Mokomba. Regardless of the outcome of that AFD, that seems to be the only role this guy has ever had of note. All of the other roles are minor one-shot background characters. Delete or, if Omba Mokomba is kept, redirect there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Omba Mokomba, of which this person was the star, though they are likely not notable outside of that. BD2412 T 17:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the generic name makes him an unlikely merge candidate, come to think of it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I know, there isn't another Benjamin Brown who is an actor mentioned in the encyclopedia. There may well be one, in which case this title would need to point to the disambiguation page, Benjamin Brown. The content on the actor could still be merged to the show that appears to have been their only starring role. BD2412 T 18:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Insignificant subject in regards to notability guidelines and sourcing but has a place in the Omba Mokomba article as a lead role. Common name shouldn’t prevent the merge, just needs specification. NiklausGerard (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) with no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House Broken (2009 film)[edit]

House Broken (2009 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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no sources on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a review from Common Sense Media. Needs two or more suitable/reliable sources/reviews to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Nyaupembe[edit]

Dougie Nyaupembe (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 player seemed to have real prospects when the article was created but things haven't worked out and I no longer think he has enough significance for an article. He only just scrapes by the existing NFOOTY. I'm the article creator. Best to delete. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY and - also meeting "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional." having played in the English Football League a fully professional league. Zanoni (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, when you created the article, No Great Shaker, in the edit summary you included as the reason "creating article – EFL appearance qualifies under notability terms" Zanoni (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the article, NFOOTY had more authority and it did look as if Dougie had a promising league career ahead of him. Maybe he will still achieve his potential but, as things have gone, it's looking unlikely, which is a shame. He was badly let down by the situation at Bury. With hindsight, I think I created the article TOOSOON. Pity, but there it is. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a hill I wish to die upon Giant Snowman but it is the inconsistency of this which amazes me. Will delete this one with one EFL League One appearance (and another EFL Trophy) appearance - but there are literally tons of articles on players who played in the FL post 1946 who get to stay, sometimes with a couple of lines on articles and same number of appearances. Whilst I am sure they had some press coverage of the small numbers of appearances these are lost to time but as they are mentioned in Hugman they get to stay? Zanoni (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search did not provide the WP:SIGCOV required of a standalone article, in my opinion. I was only able to find passing and routine mentions, such as transfers and game reports, which I don't believe are enough to establish notability. GauchoDude (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also called up to the Zimbabwe national team albeit not capped and there is press coverage about that Zanoni (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So then where is it? GauchoDude (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks to fail WP:GNG, unless anyone can find substantial coverage. The sources in the text seem to be passing mentions, and transfer news, which don't demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 3 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 14:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rossborough[edit]

Nick Rossborough (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. Couldn't find any significant coverage for the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 14:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Won just over half his MMA fights, but the important thing is there is a lack of significant independent coverage. I found fight results and mentions in databases, but that's not the kind of coverage that shows WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cale Yarbrough[edit]

Cale Yarbrough (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:MMABIO notability criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Guide[edit]

Beth Guide (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)

COI article, weak notability, fails WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Italy, and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, hits in GNewspapers are for the head of the Lois and Clark Fan club. Oaktree b (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found some stories about her house flooding but no real secondary coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination but I'm curious about the image. Article creator says it's her image. So what's the connection between the editor and the subject? Or was the image added under false pretenses? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete During the AfD, I edited the article to remove promotional content and was not able to find support for WP:BASIC or other notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For some reason these spam consultants tend to have very spammy articles. It makes it difficult to assume good faith with respect to the origins of those articles. In any case, the marginal sources used here do not make a case for any form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly-sourced and limited support from sources as written. Not enough to establish notability and unsuitable for mainspace. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matias Recchia[edit]

Matias Recchia (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)

Most of the coverage namechecks him. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Knud Truelsen (talk) 11:57, 3 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 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Saez[edit]

Manuel Saez (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 tried to uncover coverage about him, but seems like another non-notable person with a COI article. I should note that there are some mentions about him and his startup in publications like NYMag but mentions are not enough. Fails WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 11:37, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hagan Capital Group[edit]

Hagan Capital 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)

Non-notable private equity firm. Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 11:32, 3 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. Speedy deletion, CSD G7, as the article gives no indication whatever of importance: a player in a local boys' team, and that's it. (The page has in fact been repeatedly created under different titles in different namespaces, and the editor who created it has done no other editing, so I have also blocked the account.) JBW (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadnan Asraf Jisan[edit]

Sadnan Asraf Jisan (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)

Youth cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG according to my searches. Possible autobiography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article also appears to be a direct copy of the source quoted as a reference - [15]Nigel Ish (talk) 10:18, 3 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. this has been running for three weeks and there is valid opinion on both sides with regard to continued career garnering coverage and the lack of presumption of notability. Unlikely that consensus is going to emerge with NSPORTS in such flux. Star Mississippi 02:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Ghilenko[edit]

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

Not enough independent in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG at present. Short articles like this, this and this are the best results I can find. Under the new Olympic guidelines, the subject no longer meets WP:NOLY either. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no presumption of notability, so unless editors can find sources that meet WP:GNG this article needs to be deleted or redirected. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources available in the article, I feel that this satisfies the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article is now sourced, I agree with Canadian Paul. --- Løken (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI looked at this article a while ago and felt unable to vote. I reviewed it again today and checked out the new sources, specifically the https://asnta.ru/ and the Radio Chișinău one, which in my opinion demonstrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Bai Holkar[edit]

Gautama Bai Holkar (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 fails Wikipedia's General notability guidelines (GNG). No significant coverage about her anywhere. This article also does not cite any sources. IconEditorMaster (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some mentions in GBooks, Imperial Gazette about how she founded a town/city, don't think they're useful though. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - via the WP Library/ProQuest: Essaying historical characters come with a sense of responsibility: Snehlata Vasaikar [Hindi TV News] (Times of India, July 20, 2021, "Historical show 'Punyashlok Ahilyabai' is based on the honorable life of Queen Ahilyabai Holkar [...] Renowned actress Snehalta Vasaikar, who essays the role of Gautama Bai aka 'Ahilya's mother-in-law'..."). Also: Being a mother myself, I know how easy it is to get blinded by love for our children and lose objectivity of the situation: Snehlata Vasaikar (TOI, Jan. 2021, "While the show highlights the unique camaraderie between Ahilyabai and Malhar Rao, it also throws light on Gautamabai’s (Malhar Rao’s wife) deep rooted and enormous love for her son Khande Rao. Like any doting mother, she used to sometimes turn a blind eye to her son’s shortcomings."). Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: Reply: No, she is another Gautama Bai Holkar. This article is about the wife of Malhar Rao Holkar III, not about the one you are talking about. (Wife of Malhar Rao Holkar). IconEditorMaster (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are finding information about her, so don't confuse with Gautama Bai Holkar, who is the wife of Malhar Rao Holkar. This article is about the wife of Malhar Rao Holkar III. IconEditorMaster (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the article, she was died on 12 May 1759. And her husband, Malhar Rao Holkar III was born in 1806. This is impossible. This article is incorrect and don't cite any source. IconEditorMaster (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found more sources that confirmed she was a Rajmata, queen consort (Maharani), see below...
@Beccaynr: How about my sources ? VocalIndia (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: I think your expertise will be helpful in determining notability for a standalone article. I am curious about whether there is a redirect target where information and sources could be added, and the related need for WP:DISAMBIG due to the existence of another Gautama Bai Holkar. I think the challenges presented in this discussion support doing something to help our readers. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep looks abundantly notable as a maharani with an entry in the professionally edited 'The Ruling Chiefs, Nobles and Zamindars of India' ([23]) and another in a recent biographical dictionary of old Indian female royal 'Maharanis: Women of Royal India' (Page - 94, ISBN 1935677640, 9781935677642, Mapin Publishing, 2015), excerpted. She plotted to install her adoptive son on the throne and enjoyed as the "queen dowager". 117.18.231.103 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:05, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rise (unreleased film)[edit]

Rise (unreleased 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)

Unreleased film with unknown release date. No evidence that the film will be notable if it is ever released. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was actually never filmed/produced. It was cancelled before production, so this Wiki entry should be deleted. 173.251.241.10 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Even if filmed, it has been shelved indefinitely. Clearly NN, at least until released. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Coulson[edit]

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

Has never played in a WP:FPL game and does not appear to pass WP:NBASIC according to the sources in the article as well as searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest. The only source providing more than a trivial mention is Fife Today which is a routine apprenticeship announcement. I would suggest deletion without prejudice to recreating if and when he passes NBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. GiantSnowman 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know, Scottish football has decent coverage, he is on the books for a fully-pro club, two articles popped up, [24] and [25]. They are primary sources know I guess, but we do tend to use them on football articles. I switch over to a BBC article in the article. Also the more he plays the more coverage he has, NBASIC will be probably be covered at some point. I would not delete this article, if anything it would be better in draft space than this delete culture. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to draftifying. The only reason I didn't send it to draftspace is because the article is quite old, having been created in 2020 and so not eligible under the new page review section of WP:DRAFTIFY. It can always be moved over as a result of consensus at AfD instead. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would tend to say this is a case of too soon. Apart from one appearance for a team in the second tier, all of his appearances have been for a team playing at the very bottom level of the Scottish League and I don't think the level of coverage is anything exceptional for a young player at this level. At 18 he could well develop to have a successful career, though other players of similar age are regularly playing in the first tier, so I would have no problem with an article being created at that point, but for now I think it has to be delete. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject appears to lack the WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. I could only find passing mentions surrounding games such as this, this, and this. GauchoDude (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources lead you to believe this? GauchoDude (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Howard[edit]

Ezra Howard (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)

Whilst being twentieth in the list of Peruvian YouTubers in terms of subscriber count is a claim to notability enough to escape WP:A7, I'm not seeing enough for WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NBASIC. I have searched for sources and conclude that the ones currently cited are the best. Source analysis to follow, which will explain why he fails NBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ezra No No YouTube is self-pub No ✘ No
https://trome.pe/tecnologia/internet/youtube-son-10-canales-visitados-peruanos-fotos-136200/ Yes ? No Mentioned as part of a list but no detailed coverage ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdIKErTkDA4&ab_channel=EzraHoward No His own video No No ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK0pnv7rOqs No No No Link no longer works ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg2De3aqylQ&ab_channel=EzraHoward No His own video No No ✘ No
https://andina.pe/agencia/noticia-culmino-rodaje-cinta-peruana-papa-youtuber-726413.aspx Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20210421011537/https://www.studio92.com/radio/huella-se-lanza-como-musico-y-le-presenta-su-primer-sencillo-a-chino-y-adolfo-noticia-1009366 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://andina.pe/agencia/noticia-mira-aqui-teaser-de-cinta-papa-youtuber-739152.aspx Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttUqVxuAv0&ab_channel=EzraHoward No His own video No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the above analysis of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spiderone's source analysis accurately explains why the cited sources don't contribute toward notability, and my search found only a few more passing mentions. Fails WP:BASIC/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted attack page. El_C 10:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship of the Rajapaksa brothers[edit]

Dictatorship of the Rajapaksa brothers (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:POV statement rather than an actual topic and contain WP:OR allegations against WP:BLPs and sources have WP:RS issues with an over-reliance on opinion pieces and unverified claims which makes it more of a WP:SOAPBOX UtoD 07:57, 3 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! 03:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Rose Kurian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amala Rose Kurian (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 actress. The only news about her seems to be those of her clarifying that a person busted for operating a prostitution ring was somebody with a similar name and not her. Has done some small roles in major films, and lacks any references to indicate WP:N is met Jupitus Smart 04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lack of reference Onmyway22 talk 09:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Lacks "significant" roles in notable films to meet NACTOR -- Ab207 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep (withdrawn) (non-admin closure) — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Il pescatore[edit]

Il pescatore (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 PROD'd this article with the reason, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG. It was opposed by the article's author, with the reason, "the song itself is one of the most popular in the whole of De Andre's discography. Its popularity is attested by the inclusion of its lyric in several published works not about music, such as poetry anthologies and school books". Popularity is not a valid argument to fulfill notability. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, sources found and article improved, making article pass notability. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 23:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apparently the nominator is nominating for deletion all articles by the same creator, and while the creator seems to be ignoring en.wikipedia rules on sourcing and notability criteria, the nominator is himself disruptively ignoring any attempt to WP:BEFORE. The song easily passes GNG (just look at Google Books for a hint of its coverage, there's enough material for a class B article at the very least) and NSONG (by the way it reached #13 in the Italian hit parade). I made some corrections and added some sources to the page (more work to come). Cavarrone 10:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. I did not ignore any attempt at WP:BEFORE, I took a look for each of the articles I nominated (but I clearly wasn't thorough enough). I make mistakes though and I apologize; I will attempt to be much more thorough in the future AfDs. Thanks — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has sufficient RS. The song has a history and that is evidenced here. Lamona (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent sources (mostly in Italian) including books results available for this charting song. AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Peerla as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas with the Yours[edit]

Christmas with the Yours (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 PROD'd this article with the reason, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG. Only 1 source (see WP:RSDISCOGS). It was opposed by the article's author, with the reason "very popular among Elio e le Storie Tese's fan base and the single was successful. Also, the quoted source is an extremely reliable and documented fan page in Italy." Multiple sources are generally expected for notability, and the popularity argument is not valid, see WP:POPULARITY. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:37, 3 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. A decision to split the article into their respective persons can take place in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mags Harries and Lajos Héder[edit]

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

fails WP:NBIO Launchballer 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly split as they have independent existences and not all their work is joint. PamD 09:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just expanded the article including Harvard Art Museums holding, etc. See WP:NARTIST. PamD 10:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found good sources when I searched "Harries/Héder" although not all of it was about them. I think maybe the article should be titled Harries/Héder Collective and then have subsections about their individual work. With art in the collections of two museums criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST is met. CT55555 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is a clear WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG pass. Mags Harries is a very well known public artist who has created permanent sculptures and installations in multiple cities. She is also reprensented in several notable museum collections. Her partner Lajos Héder is not as well known as she, but that is not a reason for deletion. Here are a few items of interest found in a quick WP:BEFORE: her public art piece (long term permanent public art) for the of city of Des Moines [26]; permanent public art work at UMass Museum of Contemporary Art: [27]; permanent public art work for the city of Los Angeles:[28]; Boston Globe feature: [29]; work in RISD Museum: [30]; permanent public art work for the city of Scottsdale, AZ: [31]; public artwork for the city of Austin [32]...this is just a fraction of what can easily be found online. It is recommended that a WP:BEFORE be done before nominating an article for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the sources shown above and arguments presented by Netherzone. Theredproject (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Each artist has an identity on VIAF and on wikidata Mags Harries and Lajos Héder. While individually one will have shorter article than the other, in future it will better to have distinct authority control. Alternatively the article should be moved to "Harries/ Héder Collaborative". WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Withdrawn' per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omba Mokomba[edit]

Omba Mokomba (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 TV show. Was mentioned fleetingly in one newspaper column and that was it. A search for further sourcing via Google News, Newspapers.com, etc. found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Newspapers.com search returns over 6,500 hits, and although many are likely just program guide listings, I can see a few full articles right off the bat. For example, Evan Lavine, "Omba Mokomba delights and teaches viewers", The Star-Democrat (July 6, 1998), p. 10, is a substantial piece, at least 300 words describing the show. BD2412 T 02:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BD2412: As I found that article in more than ten newspapers, it appears to be a press release and not substantial coverage. I scrolled all the way to the bottom of newspapers.com and couldn't find anything else that wasn't just a TV listing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A press release would not criticize the pace of the show and the number of segments; this is more likely a legitimate third-party piece that got picked up by a bunch of newspapers. As noted, the show was also deemed "high quality" children's programming by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Although there is not a significant volume of text in that reference, it is a solid plaudit for a program of this kind. I think that's enough. We have plenty of article on crap programming, so we should work harder to keep those that were quality. BD2412 T 18:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TenPoundHammer: I have found a 1998 New York Times article on children's programming with two paragraphs on the show, and have added quotes and refs from that to the article. BD2412 T 02:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this should seal it—Winnie Bonelli, "Animals Take Over Sunday Programming", Herald News (August 7, 1997), p. D5. It has several paragraphs of coverage, and I have also added this to the article. BD2412 T 07:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Albrigt Andersen[edit]

Knut Albrigt Andersen (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)

Musician does not appear to meet musician notability criteria; see: WP:MN

Socksage (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For things these old, you ought to check the newspaper archives and similar (not sure if relevant since outside of US, but still....). If no sources can be found there, then Delete in its current state. Rlink2 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be telling us whether sources can be found. Otherwise that is not a meaningful contribution to an AFD discussion. The closing administrator knows what notability is. Xe needs you to find out how it applies. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Uncle G, Ok, I will keep that in mind. I too thought it was boerdline, hence why I said we should find more source..
      I do not have access to JSTOR so I wouldn't have found that anyway. Thank you for the advice. Rlink2 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thorsen 2003 source already in the article is a non-trivial biography of the subject's life and work. The research not done by Rlink2 above turns up things like JSTOR 23506400 and recital dates and recordings in catalogues, so with one full biography and ancillary sources like that there is it seems just enough for an encyclopaedia article here, although I would prefer more. This is very much a borderline case. Some of the things from the main source should not have been used verbatim or in Wikipedia's voice, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I should note, before I made this AfD discussion page, I had already checked for more information about this musician by doing a cursory search that included looking into digitized Norwegian newspaper archives, and had come up empty. That I (an Anglophone who knows little about Norwegian pianists) did not find anything doesn't mean there is nothing there. Agree that this is a borderline case -- clearly I lean towards Delete, seeing that I made the nomination in the first place. Socksage (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a borderline case, this discussion might benefit from a few more days of consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:33, 3 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SharpOS AOT[edit]

SharpOS AOT (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 found no significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Isaiah Saw[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dream Isaiah Saw (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)

Previous AFD kept via WP:PERNOM. The current sources are just trivial mentions of the song in the context of choir concert reviews, which are not a way to convey notability. Not a single source in the article is about the song itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A "meh" discussion 2 years ago is no excuse for skipping WP:BEFORE. [33] and [34] are the first two mentions in the above Google News link, both from the 2021 (the most recent) Christmas season. Here's more. Pretty sure all that is in addition to Hobit's contributions to the prior AfD. There's a NYT listing from 2014 which is a bare mention, and of course YouTube hosts a number of instances of notable choirs singing it: while neither contributes directly to notability, they each demonstrate that this relatively young (20 yo) choral piece is real and being widely performed by appropriately diverse choirs. That is, it's not a niche, fad, or promotional piece, but an actual article on a topic that our readers can be forseeably curious regarding. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer: Your argument for deletion isn't about the sources that exist (and discussed in the prior AfD), but about the status of the article? Hobit (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: "Not a single source is about the song itself". Every source present just mentions the song in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources in the prior AfD and the ones above. Topic seems above the WP:N bar unless I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens and Hobit.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: @Mythdon: How many of these sources are about the song itself? My count is zero. They're all about choir performances. Not the song. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more that the sources show Dream Isaiah Saw to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The song dates back to 2001, but multiple sources (despite being mostly brief mentions) have shown Dream Isaiah Saw to still be notable 20+ years later. This here is more than just a brief mention and talks about how Dream Isaiah Saw was composed by Glenn Rudolph after 9/11 which is definitely about the song itself (it's history and whatnot). The article may not completely satisfy the letter of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSONG, but the subject is still notable and merging/redirecting this content (as it stands) would not be feasible given there's not a proper target to merge/redirect it to. Since there's enough sources to demonstrate that the content does have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, deleting it wholesale and nominating it for deletion altogether it itself a violation of the spirit of WP:BEFORE. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get your point, but I'd think the performance of a song, and the song itself are basically the same thing? I mean if I read a review for a play performed by a certain cast, wouldn't that count toward the notability of the play? Is a song any different? But in any case, [35] is very much about the song IMO. The second-to-last paragraph of [36] gives us a few decent sentences about the song. [37] has a couple of sentences too. Adding in the ones that are just about the performances, I think we're over the bar. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough coverage identified in the previous two posts to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Jclemens. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Millionaire for a Day[edit]

A Millionaire for a 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 on a short film has no sources besides IMDb (this has been a problem since 2019 at the least). Since, per WP:NFSOURCES, IMDb does not count as significant coverage, so WP:NFILM is not met. My WP:BEFORE check did not turn up anything, but a book published in 1914 (2 years after the film this article is on, and I did not find any relation) appears to be muddying up the results, so I may have missed something. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 00:01, 3 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_3&oldid=1082262778"