Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 05 April 07 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Cultural Organization[edit]

Abbas Cultural Organization (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:ORG. No significant indepth coverage. The sources provided merely confirm events that have happened and are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 30 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! 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. All we have are announcements of an event organized by subject, such as this, but not about the subject itself (there are plenty of these around); announcements, such as this, of events in which many organizations participate and among which is our subject; a report about a tribute to notable actor Nagesh, which happened to have been organized by our subject; and so on. It's all about other persons and events, indirectly mentioning Abbas. We just don't have the sources. And the fact that the article has been created by a single-purpose account does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Daily Wire. There's consensus against keeping this, ignoring the rather nonsensical contributions by the IPs. Whether to merge anything is up to editors. Sandstein 08:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy's Razors[edit]

Jeremy's Razors (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)

Subject does not meet notability per WP:CORP parqs (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job fascists, go delete the page, just because it is about a company openly declaring conservative views.
  • I guess neither Harry's or Gillette pages are not going to be deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:940:181:D65:92C7:DB9A:123B (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether our article subjects have "liberal" or "conservative" views. Wikipedia does concern itself with whether our article subjects do or don't pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in real media, which takes a lot more than just one or two footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning merge and redirect to The Daily Wire. The most noteworthy aspect of this subject seems to be that relationship. The current content would thereby be retained, as a section. BD2412 T 06:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge and redirect: Not notable in its own right. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. May be useful to cover briefly at the Daily Wire article. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic company fails NCORP's notability criteria. Don't see a need for a merge/redirect for a brand new company at this point in time under those circumstances especially as it isn't even mentioned in the Daily Wire article. HighKing++ 13:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • A) To the point of the others above, we don't need to delete every article that pertains to conservatism.
  • B) This article is cited by Fox News, which is considered generally reliable.
  • C) We should give it time, I'm sure this will generate more journalism.
Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dswitz10734: To respond to your first "argument", we couldn't care less if a razor company is "conservative". To your second point, we have actually explicitly determined (see WP:FOXNEWS) that Fox News talk shows are not reliable sources. This particular source is the disinformation agent Tucker Carlson who has spread bullshit Kremlin propaganda about American bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Finally, no we don't simply wait for sources to show up to justify an article (see WP:TOOSOON). Hope this helps. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder, thank you for your time! About Fox News, this is a problem with Wikipedia. We don't like to cite conservative sources then complain when articles about conservatives don't have enough sources, which leads to deletion. I don't believe this article is the problem, only a symptom. I think we need to legitimize more conservative sources because an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral can't be neutral if they're only willing to cite one side of an argument. I hope to hear from you soon, Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dswitz10734, No, it's a problem with Fox News, which has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable in matters that involve politics and science, and especially their talk shows, and even more especially among these talk shows, Tucker Carlson. I consider myself a conservative, but if that means that I use a known fountain of lies as a source and pass it off to be true, that I am somehow being abused if someone calls that out. The problem is not with the person who calls out the lies, but the person who told the lies to begin with Jacona (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona thank you for your time! To what I said earlier, Fox News isn't exactly the issue. Fox isn't the only news site that leans conservative, others like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Daily Caller are also not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. Thanks again, Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are constantly classified and reclassified via consensus of all Wikipedians who choose to contribute. These sources are considered unreliable not based on their being liberal or conservative, but on whether they routinely publish inaccurate information. To this point, liberal sources, for example MSNBC, are considered (just like Fox) to be generally reliable on News, but not so on Talk Show content. For information about sources that are considered reliable, check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you want to air grievances that sources you like are being mistreated, go Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But this is not a forum for anyone to claim bad faith on the part of the community by asserting conservative sources are being persecuted by the community.Jacona (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Dswitz10734. Let me address your points, if I may:
A. We actually do not delete "every article that pertains to conservatism." A casual walk among the lemmas should suffice, especially the ones pertaining to conservatism. See WP:NPOV for more.
B. FoxNews is not an unacceptable source. (See WP:RSP.) But it is one source. We need more and they must be reliable. Got any?
C. No, Wikipedia does not allow poorly constructed articles to stay up: They're either improved (as soon as they are identified as inadequate) upto the level where they're acceptable - or they're deleted. And, so far, no one has managed to improve this article's sourcing.
Rest assured there is no "anti-conservatism" conspiracy around here. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever can be salvaged onto the article on the Daily Wire and make this a Redirect to it. There are simply not enough reliable sources out there supporting the independent notability of our subject. The few that are mention it in conjunction with the Wire. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 12 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! 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robiul Islam Jibon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robiul Islam Jibon (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. Coriannakox (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 30 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! 23:34, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Party[edit]

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

Small Trotskyist party almost entirely sourced to its own website and electoral returns. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV beyond noting the party exists. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:RSPSS: Most editors consider [the World Socialist Web Site] to be reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 30 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! 23:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per User:Namiba's three sources that illustrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep. There are at best two-and-a-half adequate sources, already cited above, and, try as I might, I cannot find others, besides the usual self-references, routine listings (e.g. this), etc. As the fortunes of this new party have indeed suffered from the pandemic's lockdown, the lack of notability might be attributed there. So far, the subject barely reaches an acceptable level of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 12 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! 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jack (webcomic) (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)

Almost all sources are from the comic itself, and no third party coverage could be found. Web Cartoonists' Choice Award has been deemed in the past not to be a major award for the notability of a comic, and its existence means nothing if no third party sourcing exists. Last AFD in 2012 yielded a couple sources, but they seem to have gone 404 and don't seem to have been reputable anyway. WCCA was considered more notable in 2012, but decisions on arbitrary web awards have become stricter since. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966)[edit]

Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966) (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)

An ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility. Such titles do not confer notability, see WP:MONARCH. The contents of the article are almost entirely genealogical, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BIO, and a Google News search for his German name (Sigismund von Habsburg-Lothringen) reveals a grand total of one local newspaper article about him donating laptops to a primary school. It's also worth noting that he has no article in the German-language Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:32, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Conley[edit]

Houston Conley (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)

Run-of-the-mill person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Not seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Alabama. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites in a highly cited field. No pass of GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: would be notable if the claim in the lead were true: helping to "launch and facilitate desegregation in the United States education system" is a pretty big thing. But the cited sources don't really back up that claim. StAnselm (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability, misleading/improperly-sourced. In my own research I found no sources linking subject to academics and segregation, or anything of note. NiklausGerard (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject does not clear the notability hurdle. All we have are name-drops in listings such as this or in articles about someone else entirely, such as this reference in an article about Conley's descendant Mike Conley Jr.; irrelevancies such as this or this; and so on. The claim, right in the opening paragraph that Conley is "known for helping launch and facilitate desegregation in the United States education system" is an inexcusable exaggeration. And the fact that the article was created by a banned sockpuppet with many a now-deleted text in their record does not help at all. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 12 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! 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Striar[edit]

Michael Striar (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)

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: per G5. Article was created as one of only a handful of edits by a now-indeffed sockpuppet ... and as it happens, looking at the investigation archive [4], the modus operandi of the gang was as paid editors who would disguise their new article creations around a handful of trivial edits. Lo and behold, this is the only article the sockpuppet created, and the sock made exactly two other edits over 16 bytes. Advise salting. Ravenswing 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, Ravenswing. I have already been through the contributions of all the socks and nominated all but one (a minor historical figure, long dead) of their extant new article creations for deletion or speedy deletion. Just in case you were thinking of doing the same! Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of any kind of real and significant notability. The aroma of the promotional verbiage comes on stronger than that of wet socks: "became a fixture", "was quick to capitalize", "received international attention," etc. Why, oh why. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent. I am concerned with tone as well,WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Enge[edit]

Eric Enge (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)

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:GNG. References provided look to be mentions-in-passing or rely on company produced material, press releases and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nzgabriel, as you created this article over five years ago, it would appear that you have had long enough to do the work. On the subject of work, your initial creation has many of the hallmarks of paid editing. Are you familiar with our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and do you have a declaration to make? Edwardx (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is, not though for lack of trying, a non-notable businessman. The photoportrait is impressive, the sourcing anything but. We mostly have, to be brief about it, news items about business developments, corporate moves, etc, but very little about the person itself. And cramming the article with weak sources is always a warning. I mean, what is this, for example, supposed to prove? -The Gnome (talk)
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. Although the arguments for deletion are prima facie valid, they have not attracted enough support in this discussion to result in consensus to delete. Sandstein 08:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erna Flegel[edit]

Erna Flegel (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 nurse whose claim to fame and notability is that she worked with Hitler on his staff. Some of Hitler's entourage and staff are certainly notable, but she is one of the most obscure members of that group. Even through a ton of works have been written about Hitler, she was mostly forgotten, and only gave it seems a single interview in 2005, shortly before here death, that generated a bit of media attention, but nothing enduring. I couldn't find a single work about her that meets WP:SIGCOV. The BBC article here is the best we have, and it's pretty short. There may be something in this academic article ([5]) but I am unable to access it (paywalled/downoload limit exceeded). There is also a Russian probably academic-level article here, but it doesn't play nice with my machine translation tools, so I can't judge if it is of much help. I am not sure if we have a good merge target. I'll end by noting that our short biography of her does not suggest that she did anything notable in her life outside serving as part of Hitler's medical staff, so WP:NOTINHERITED logic is worth considering. Arguably, her association with him generated very little notoriety, and maybe too little for her to have a stand alone article. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the complete contents of declassified interview are also available, and that is now linked on the page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She gave two interviews, one in 1945. The interview was declassified in 1981 and shows up in a series of books because it conveys the final days in the Fuhrerbunker. The second interview is the 2005 Guardian interview. The interview itself was covered given the importance of her role in portraying the final days of Hitler's life. I added all those citations and the following sentence to the page
The notes accompanying the interview note that the final days of the activity within the Führerbunker was of interest to westerners and "none depicted the final days more graphically than Erna Flegel",[1] and Helms himself notes the interview was "solid history".[2] DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(minor edit for readability) DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if two sentences of commentary about her old interview pass muster at WP:SIGCOV... if anything, there is a chance her 1945 interview could be notable as a historical document, but she still isn't notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was not clear here, the sentences about her 1945 interview I listed were to show the importance of the original interview. The news coverage of her 2005 interview with the Guardian is quite extensive, and was covered in multiple news outlets. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean Since the Guardian piece is not very long, is here something better I am missing? Can you list the best sources that you think pass SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian piece (though I realize it is an interview) is 1600 words long.[6] Two other articles that pass WP:SIGCOV are the US News and World Report.[7] and the book Hitlers death: Russia's last great secret from the files the KGB [8] The article in Bulletin in Anesthesia History[9] would also pass SIGCOV. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean Thanks. The Guardian piece is problematic per WP:INTERVIEW/WP:PRIMARY, and I'll note it seems to contain no analysis by the journalists. The piece in the US News and World Report is not, I fear, SIGCOV - it discusses her report for a paragraph in a piece that is not focused on her. The book has even less, it doesn't seem to mention her report outside citing a fact from it (presumably), and otherwise just mentions her in passing as one of the bunker's residents. As for the Bulletin, do you have access to it? Each time I try to access it (over several days) I just get the 'Download Limit Exceeded' screen. If you can access it, can you provide a description of the coverage, or quote it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:SIGCOV says that ".. does not need to be the main topic of the source material", the two paragraphs about Flegel in a article on the Allies role in World War II is relevant and SIGCOV.
The interview is interesting since the fact that she gave the 2005 interview was picked up by the Associated Press and stories appeared in the news of multiple countries. I have added these stories to the article.
I also added details from two articles published in the Bulletin of Anesthesia History (one linked above, and a second that is the first part of the work published by Defalque). These two articles discuss Flegel and her work with Ernst-Günther Schenck. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Corsi's 2015 book adds details about the intelligence community's response to Flegel's about the caskets holding Hitler and Braun (in the page), and I have added coverage from Jonathan Mayo's book on Hitler's final days. All of this adds up to WP:BASIC. Also, given that she was in the final group of seven people in the Führerbunker when captured by the Soviets makes her an historically relevant person, even if nothing is known of her life between the 1940s and 2005. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean Thank you for expanding the article. While I am still not sure we have much SIGCOV here, there is arguably a lot of borderline SIGCOV then when added together do make it an interesting case. We will see what happens, but I think your improvements are likely to save this article, unless someone else raises any significant objections. Thank you for your efforts! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Interview with Erna Flegel. DOC_0000617219 from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ^ Helms, Richard; Hood, William (2003). A look over my shoulder : a life in the Central Intelligence Agency. Internet Archive. New York : Random House. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-375-50012-1.
Piotrus, a footnote worth noting (no matter the outcome), you have shown objectivity and courtesy without ego driven pointy comments. I commend you. AfD discussions are not always conducted in such fashion. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She turns up in mentions in GBooks, one snippet mentions an article in the Guardian in 2005 I think, she might be notable is we can dig up enough sorcing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep; just enough to meet notably. Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek Would you mind elaborating to move your comment beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE? TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, I was thinking her short bio information could be transferred to another article, such as Dr. Ernst-Günther Schenck or Dr. Werner Haase. But, I decided to wait to see what might be further developed, before replying here. I was already aware of her and her portrayal in the film, Downfall. Since then, User:DaffodilOcean has added sufficient information for a "weak keep". She has been interviewed several different times and quoted in newspapers' and books. With that said, I hope that further details can be added as to her observations and opinions given. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She received significant coverage in major sources (for example The Guardian, The Baltimore Sun, The Australian, DW: "Former Nurse Tells of Hitler's Last Days" [10]) around both interviews, multiple of the sources listed don't just have the literal interview but add additional context/reporting. The article mentioned in the nomination, "A Sequel to 'Surgery in Hitler's Bunker", is nearly a full page mostly covering the declassified interview. Skynxnex (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wander by WP perhaps twice a year and it seems to never fail that WP has topped its own absurd state of what it includes versus what it rejects. WP has hundreds of thousands of articles on obscure artists, academics, singers, activists, etc who have a few ephemeral/local sources, but here it wants to reject an individual whom fate placed at a pivotal time in world history and who has thus appears in literally hundreds of books (do quick G book search), who has been portrayed in historically-based movies like Downfall, who has been interviewed extensively by news organizations like the Guardian. Please save any whataboutism rebuttal. That itself is an argumentative fallacy whose purpose is to procedurally disqualify comparisons that one doesn't like. 128.252.11.235 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources outlined by DaffodilOcean, the Guardian article in particular. Ficaia (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a template on the page related to the final occupants of the Führerbunker, if we delete this article, she will be only who was in the bunker till 2nd May, without an article on her. The guardian article is completely about her, and many books turned up on G books search. Elmisnter! (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Web science as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web life[edit]

Web life (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)

Web life is a concept, that proposes that the World Wide Web (Web) has, or could, evolve into an entity worthy of consideration as a life form in its own right...

This is not a mainstream theory. There was one book proposing this theory published in 2007. The other sources cited in the article are unrelated. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't appear to be an established concept, but rather a proposed viewpoint that hasn't garnered significant notability. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is indeed not an established theory, but that's not quite enough to justify deleting the article. Dick (2010), Web Science and society: Towards a theoretical foundation for an emerging field of study notes that Tetlow's idea was attacked by Tim Berners-Lee in the context of establishing the Web Science Research Initiative. So it's possible that the idea might be encyclopedic or that there is a reasonable merge target for at least some of the material. I'll look into this. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Web science. While I don't think there's the SIGCOV to support a decent independent article, Tetlow's proposal of web life was made in the context of a reasonably visible and influential contribution at around the time that the WSRI was being established. We could reasonably incorporate this material into the article, split between new sections on the history of the subject and the web life proposal proper. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Brunnock's claim that the article is documenting unrelated contributions, that would argue against my merge proposal and suggest we should do a TNT delete of this material on SYNTH grounds. However, Tetlow cites Capra in his 2009 Investigations into Web science and the concept of Web life and Capra's ideas are obviously in tune with Telows. (The citation of Nitja is an aside which I didn't look into). It's also true that web life is a fairly kooky-sounding proposal which might give grounds for WP:DUE concern about the fit of the two materials. But web science generally is home to a lot of kook-adjacent material: I'm inclined to think we just merge it and DUE-ness can be recovered by pruning. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Capra's Web of Life was written in 1996 and makes no mention of the World Wide Web or the Internet. It even says at the top of Web life, Not to be confused with Web of life. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, Capra's work does not count as SIGCOV for the idea since it is not documenting the topic of the article, but a merge does not need the existence of SIGCOV, only that the content is encyclopedic. I was arguing against a potential objection to the merge on the grounds that Capra's work is irrelevant and perhaps SYNTH. What do you think of the idea of merging? — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Against. If the book is not notable, then the book's thesis is not notable as well. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a misapplication of our notability guidelines, which says when a topic deserves a standalone article. I agree that it does not. It does not say whether material has a place in Wikipedia, which is a matter of other content policies, such as verifiability, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. I don't see that you have shown this, hence my merge opinion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is still going on? Folks, not only is this article not notable, it violates WP:FRINGE- Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Please delete. Thank you. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fringe speculation that we have no reason to cover. Merging any of the content elsewhere would just preserve the silliness. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That sentence from FRINGE seems to be misunderstood: it states a reason why it is important that we follow our policies on verifiability and neutrality; it does not say what fringe science consists of or how we should handle material that does not deserve its own page. For that, the guidance is "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight". Merging seems to me an opportunity to improve the web science article: while the web life hypothesis has not seen significant uptake, the broader class to which it belongs, that the web has significant emergent properties, was an important idea at the time the discipline of web science was taking form and still sees continued development. A merge outcome is not promoting the work of a kook: Tetlow is a respectable member of the web science community, one of the first distinguished lecturers at the Web Science Institute, one of the two founding departments of the Web Science Trust research network [11], and Tetlow's book saw substantial comment in the early days when the scope of web science was being established. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate. By your reasoning, the AIDS article should point out that Vitamin C can cure AIDS. [12] Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This insinuation misrepresents what I said and is beneath you. Wikipedia's content needs to be verifiable and our coverage of topics needs to be neutral. Deletion policy is a crude tool in pursuit of these ends: while not having articles on topics we cannot properly cover does help us, deleting reliably sourced content that is relevant to topics we can adequately cover generally does not. We do cover Pauling's fringe views on vitamin C and we do so through enforcement of our policies in regular editing, not deletion policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of lack of independent notability. Then, merge into Web science selectively some material that can be salvaged. This proposal can be accused of erring on the side of generosity. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 12 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. Ping me if you want to source this and attempt a merge. I doubt it would be worth the effort though. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talktime[edit]

Talktime (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 for this term. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term does appear in multiple reliable dictionary entries, but this doesn’t constitute SIGCOV, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Toadspike (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into State of health, which talks about the general concept of figuring out a battery's time and health. This term was much more common in the 90s and 2000s when battery capacity was measured in minutes rather than hours and phones were mainly used for calls, especially in advertising, so there is at least precedent to the term. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would need to be referenced before merging per policy. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this anecdote does not warrant an article. In my view, the proposed redirect to Early life and career of Joe Biden#Other experiences, where the topic is mentioned, would make sense, but there is no clear consensus for that here. It's therefore up to editors whether to create (and then possibly challenge) that redirect. Sandstein 08:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corn pop[edit]

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

I don't think we need a stand-alone article about an anecdote from Joe Biden. Nor is it a plausible redirect. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why on earth would anyone for a second consider deleting the page which I just created and posted five minutes ago? It is scrupulously cited and balanced in every way. Talk about a snap, knee jerk reaction. Wikipedia was once a national treasure. Apparently, no longer... Ray.lowry
The page is entitled Corn Pop, why would you conclude that it is a stand alone page about an anecdote from Joe Biden, rather than a page about Corn Pop? Ray Lowry 20:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this article is meant to be about the actual person with the nickname "Corn pop" mentioned by Joe Biden, then reasons for deletion are even stronger: WP:BIO1E would apply. Singularity42 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences where this is summarized (though the name should be capitalized and we also have Corn Pops). Biden's anecdote got some coverage, but Corn Pop as an individual is not notable. I would encourage the author to keep in mind that "So was Corn Pop a bad dude who ran a bad bunch of boys? The world may never know…" is not an encyclopedic tone. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone issue can be fixed, but with reference to WP:BIO1E, it seems to me that the following remarks are instructive: "a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." Setting aside the question of whether Tank Man is somehow more important or more widely known than the events that day in Tiananmen Square, it is surely the case that Pop Corn is more important and widely known than Biden's campaign rally that day, an event that was pivotal in his campaign. Goajax (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC) — Goajax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or redirect It's not written in an encyclopedia tone, it reads like an essay, plus WP:BLP1E CT55555 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to Comments If you looked at the citations, you would see that it is extremely likely that Corn Pop (with no s) was a real person. As to notability, I would say that when a former vice-president and major party presidential candidate declares you to be a "bad dude who ran a bad bunch of boys," and claims that you once threatened him with a straight razor, it makes you notable, especially when considering that candidate is now President. Last I looked, Squeaky Fromme has her own Wikipedia page. The suggestion that information about Corn Pop be redirected to Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences is hardly a serious one. It is not the main Wikipedia page for Joe Biden, and though it references Corn Pop, readers would only end up seeing that page if they stumbled upon it by accident. Moreover, the reference to Corn Pop is not hyperlinked, and thus cannot be found by any search. If reference to Corn Pop were added to the main Joe Biden page, it would be deleted without any discussion whatsoever in about 30 seconds and we all know that. Let me present a hypothetical situation: A comedian makes a joke about Joe Biden and Corn Pop, or a reference is made regarding both in a TV show or a movie. If a viewer was not aware of the significance of Corn Pop/Joe Biden, that person could enter "Corn Pop" in the Wikipedia search bar, and all questions would be answered. Or another hypothetical: A student of let's say middle school age is told to find information about Corn Pop for a school project. Both hypotheticals are classic examples of how Wikipedia is used on a day to day basis. As to encyclopedic tone, the final sentence in the article is admittedly snarky. But the rest of the article is absolutely balanced. It doesn't make undo fun of Joe Biden. Neither is it is written in a mocking manner. It presents the opinion of some that the story was told and used by Biden in a patronizing manner, while presenting the opinion of others, along with some documentary evidence, that Corn Pop was a bad who was a real dude. Ray.lowry
  • Delete - no independent notability whatsoever. This is an extreme version of WP:BLP1E - the "event" wasn't even reported at the time, since it involved a bunch of teenagers. At most, Redirect to Early life and career of Joe Biden. And Ray, it hardly needs pointing out that the reason Squeaky Fromme has a page is because she tried to assassinate a sitting US President and went to federal prison for it. If she had only gotten into a schoolyard scrap with young Leslie King Jr, she would not be on Wikipedia. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct on the matter. If regarded as being important enough to be on a page it should definitely be stuck under a sub category on Biden's page. Again, im not even 100% sure its important enough to be mentioned somewhere. Cognent (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have made edits to accommodate the three issues presented by Wikipedia editors with the Corn Pop story. I have re-written it in a more encyclopedic style, and have omitted any snarky or opinionated comments. I linked it to existing Wikipedia pages, and have also linked existing Wikipedia pages to it, so it is no longer an "orphan." As to notability, it was the topic of several weeks of intense media coverage, much of it very derisive towards Joe Biden, at a time when he was battling to remain a relevant presidential candidate. William "CornPop" Morris had far more than his 15 minutes of fame. He had more than 15 days of fame, though everyone at the time thought he was a figment of Biden's imagination. And again, the suggestion that it all be summed up in a few statements in the Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences page is not practical. Even knowing exactly where to look, it was very hard for me to even find the Corn Pop reference, and it had no searchable hyperlink. Perhaps if the text of the Corn Pop page were placed in the Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences page under its own title, say, "Corn Pop" or the "Corn Pop Incident" it could be given a hyperlink and thus show up in a Wikipedia search. As it is, there is no practical way to find the info, requiring interested individuals to abandon Wikipedia in favor of a traditional Google search. Is that what you want? I have one request. I inadvertently named the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_pop with a lower case p, and I do not know how to change this. It creates issues with links to the Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences page. And I commend you for knowing who Leslie King Jr, was. User:Ray.lowry
  • Redirect to Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden#Other_experiences per Reywas92 and Ganesha811. This is a case of WP:BIO1E where the subject lacks independent notability per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I redirected it there, and within two minutes it was deleted. The Early life and career of Joe Biden page is semi-protected. That is why a created a separate page in the first place. Ray Lowry 21:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • LET CORN POP STAY - Let me get this straight So Joe Biden makes his Corn Pop speech in September of 2019 when everyone had written him off as a serious candidate. He was mocked relentlessly by media outlets for weeks on end. They all thought the story was a figment of goofy Joe's imagination. Thousands of Corn Pop memes circulated endlessly on social media. Yet one year later, Biden had survived and was poised to unseat a sitting president. You cannot deny that the Corn Pop story had legs. Countless people from both political parties used it to try to tank Biden's campaign. And now we learn that the tale was as real as Hunter's laptop. People once referred to the New York Times as "the newspaper of record." Wikipedia is now the world's encyclopedia of record. Somewhere there needs to be a searchable Wikipedia reference to Corn Pop so people in the future can know what this incident was all about. He is mentioned one time in the Early life and career of Joe Biden page, but there are no links to it, and it appears in no Wikipedia search. I created a separate page for this purpose because I knew if I placed additional Corn Pop info on the semi-protected Early life and career of Joe Biden page, it would last about ten minutes. When I did place it there, it was gone in less than three minutes. The Corn Pop page I created is fair and balanced. It is supported by legitimate sources. It is free of opinion, or mockery. It is in reference to an incident that went on for week on end that many tried to use to bury Joe Biden's candidacy. And to top it all off, Corn Pop was a real person. This article is at least as legitimate as the Tank Man article referenced in the People notable for only one event section of Wikipedia rule WP:BIO1E. I rest my case. Ray.lowry
  • Delete Given that the "event" for Corn Pop was Biden mentioning him, he fails WP:BLP1E. Comparing this to the WP:LASTING impacts of Tank Man or Squeaky Fromme is a ludicrous whataboutism. Ray.lowry, please do not WP:BLUDGEON discussions. Your views are noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but this isn't what Whataboutism is. Read the Wikipedia article on it. Whataboutism is when one claims that if x is wrong then y is just as bad or worse. But Ray and I aren't claiming that Tank Man is worse or a greater offense to the ideals of Wikipedia than is Corn Pop. Our point is that Tank Man is presented as an example -- a Platonic Form if you will -- of a case where it is good to include entries for individuals even though those individuals are primarily or exclusively known for being players in bigger events. The thesis is that Corn Pop played a critical role in a critical time period in Biden's campaign. Personally, I don't understand the claim that Corn Pop was not important. He was certainly important enough to Joe Biden to mention in a presidential campaign speech decades later. Are we trying to say we know more what is important to Joe Biden's life and campaign than Joe Biden himself does? Goajax (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) — Goajax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    "If Tank Man can stay then why not Corn Pop" is as whatabout a whataboutism I've ever heard. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have changed the title to include the capital "P" in the title, to address an issue brought up by Reywas92 and Ray.lowry in the course of the discussion. It was necessary to disambiguate the title because Corn Pop presently redirects to Corn Pops. This should make it easier to create a redirect (which there is support for) if the page is deleted. Sal2100 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I didn't know how to fix the lowercase p in the title. Ray Lowry 20:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Remember WP:TRUMPNOT? Not everything a president says, does, or tweets is automatically notable. KidAd • SPEAK 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good one. An exhaustive search of three minutes uncovered the following Trump-related Wikipedia pages
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/The_Donald
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonyms_of_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump Ray Lowry 13:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    Every subject of each article you have listed, the protests, lawsuits, even the subreddit, have been reported on the news a plethora of times and each article has tens or hundreds of citations, while Corn Pop has only had a brief spike of news exposure all because they got mentioned in a story told by Biden. Jurta talk 15:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'The other guy has more', as if Wikipedia was about keeping score, is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Each article is evaluated individually. If there are unworthy articles that you think shouldn't exist, they too should independently be AfDed, not used as justification for retaining an equally bad article and hence dumbing down the whole encyclopedia to the level of its worst article. Agricolae (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is beyond obscure. There's no way this guy is even close to notable unless you rewrite the notability guidelines to include anyone that a US president has ever mentioned. Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This incident lacked the sustained coverage that would demonstrate independent notability overcoming WP:NOTNEWS. After Biden's term, when the unavoidable authorized and unauthorized biographies start to be published, we will get a better idea of the emphasis this particular anecdote is given, but at the risk of WP:CRYSTAL, it seems unlikely even then to receive sufficient converage for independent notability. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself has huge problems with coatracking. It is way more about President Biden, than about Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris is clearly not notable. The fact that part of the article is devoted to proving he actually existed and is not a pure fabrication of Mr. Biden tells us just how non-notable he was. There may be an article such as Joe Biden Corn Pop Story that would be workable, but for now I do not see any reason to give that more coverage than we already do. Mr. Morris seems to have been dead before this became even a semi covered story, and so we have no actual coverage of him in this event, so an article on him is not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and change the title to Joe Biden Corn Pop Story. The page is already listed under Category:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. Corn Pop may be obscure, but the incident surely was not. And if the incident is not mentioned on Wikipedia at all, did it ever happen? Has Eurasia always been at war with Eastasia? Ray Lowry 20:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Having a Wikipedia article is not the determination of whether something exists. This is not Google. There are clear policies about whether a subject has a Wikipedia article. Those policies have been cited extensively by those supporting deletion of the article. So far, your arguments have come down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("That article exists, so why shouldn't this article exist"), WP:ITEXISTS ("By not having a Wikipedia article, we are denying it's existence"), WP:INTERESTING ("People who are interested in the subject will have to search Google instead of Wikipedia, so we should keep this article"), and to some extent WP:ITSINTHENEWS ("It was reported on in the news when Joe Biden mentioned him") (although that hasn't been the main argument in favour of keeping it). None of those are policies for keeping an article. Singularity42 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV narrative weakly sourced elevation of anti-Biden political campaign WP:BLP disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per WP:NOPAGE, this article would be better off as a few sentences in a different article. I'm aware that you have attempted at doing this, Ray.lowry (talk · contribs), but please be aware of WP:UNDUE as most of your attempts were reverted per that. Jurta talk 11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block and has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Hossain Rony (cricketer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the current version of WP:NCRIC as has not played at senior international level for his country. Also nothing within the article to demonstrate WP:GNG nor in a WP:BEFORE search. The article appears to be an unnecessary duplication of Iqbal Hossain Rony, which is currently a redirect. I don't see any value in turning this article into a redirect. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 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 redirect to University of Maine at Augusta. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University College at Rockland[edit]

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

Article is a redundant content fork of University of Maine at Augusta for one of its eight satellite campuses Oswako (talk) 19:06, 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! 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeth Vasudevan[edit]

Vineeth Vasudevan (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: TOOSOON Has only one notable film as an actor. Also lacking sufficient coverage. Onmyway22 talk 18:30, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better decisions group[edit]

Better decisions 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)

Borderline G11 eligible Article on an Organization that fails to meet WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing of substance, all I can observe are hits in primary sources, press releases and user generated content, all of which we do not consider reliable. Needless to say there is no WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it is not that notable but the article itself is acceptable. It is mostly alright except the article is not very important and so i'm leaving it at neutral. Dawn Lim (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under CSD G12. Even after being trimmed the article is still a one to one copy of text on the subject’s website. firefly ( t · c ) 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Bayle[edit]

Yves Bayle (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)

Completely and utterly non-notable guy who has a degree and a job. Given the amount of SPAs popping up, I figured i'd just AFD it and put the article out of it's misery for good. CUPIDICAE💕 17:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given article's history, agree with approach to do this with an AfD, but hopefully a SNOW close. Singularity42 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CV and barely that.--VVikingTalkEdits 17:45, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glory of Fellowland[edit]

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. The WikiProject Video games custom Google searches found a press release and a sparse entry at the IGN database. Metacritic doesn't have an entry on the game. I'm unable to find any reviews or coverage of the game in Google, only the usual social media sites, fan wikis, and unreliable review sites. Woodroar (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the only RS that came up in search results is that aforementioned gamesindustry.biz press release. 182.1.116.185 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, no significant coverage of subject present. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:16, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Jay Kaplan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Largely unsourced. The Banner talk 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
Based on this, Mr. Kaplan is worthy of notice, as his history as a published caricature artist is remarkable and significant, having been published more than 5000 times across North America, as well as, being commissioned by television studios and broadway plays. He is an interesting and unique, and in turn, a notable talent. Gilligansisland (talk) 01:24, 9 November 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! 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Jewett Charter School Coalition[edit]

Mount Jewett Charter School Coalition (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)

Highly unencyclopedic and not notable. We don't normally have articles about elementary/primary schools, especially when they were just in the planning stages, and doubly so when plans to build them never actually eventuated. The only reason I'm nominating this for deletion is that there's no good redirect target. I initially thought of redirecting it to Kane Area School District but, even before my steam-cleaning of the district's article in response to long-term disruption, it didn't mention this controversy. Information about it was removed from the article about the borough it's in way back in 2018, because it was obsolete. I was almost tempted to delete this myself under ignore all rules; proposed deletion is too easily reversed for my liking (and the article creator has edited relatively recently), so here I am. Graham87 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails GNG. 174.212.227.143 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Does not pass WP:GNG. First, primary schools are never/hardly ever notable. Second, a "Coalition" that has been attempting to start a charter school without success for 14 years is even less notable, if that's possible. It's a small-town newsless dustup that died at least ten years ago. Third, the tone fails WP:NPOV, the text appears to be laden with WP:NOR and the prose not even close to encyclopedic. I usually can find something positive in any article, but this one is a trainwreck with not much of a train. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:02, 12 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. The two "keep" opinions do not address the reasons advanced for deletion, which is failure to meet WP:GNG. Sandstein 08:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Samoa relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is mainly based on primary sources (Mexican government). There is very little to these relations, no embassies, trade is very small. The visit by the Samoan Prime Minister was for the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference and not for advancing bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fail to understand why after 3 years (when you decided to nominate Mexico-Tonga relations) that this is now an issue and should be considered for nomination? Relations between nations change and develop and I've updated all articles relating to Mexico's foreign relations accordingly. This article should remain. It is relevant and should not be deleted. Aquintero82, (talk); 22 March 2022, 16:30 (UTC)
There is no set order or time when an article can be nominated for deletion after another related one. Being "relevant" is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article lists 8 citations and there are more that exists. It is incorrect to say that the Mexican government citations are primary sources because this article is not Mexican government. Such incorrect assumption would be like saying that Boeing is a primary source for the Wikipedia article airplane when it is, in fact, a secondary source. Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Notability is not inherent or inherited, and if there is nothing special about these relations, then there's no point to have an article (relations between many countries are routine and of little historical significance...). Reserving judgement since, well, I don't have the inclination to do a proper source search at this time of day. A more apt comparison of the Mexican government sources (for writing an article where the Mexican government is one of the two main actors) would be using Boeing sources for writing an article about, say, the Boeing 747. Maybe appropriate sources for statements of fact, but not good enough for notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Nom, who raises sound, policy-based arguments. Keep votes aren't based on policy or guidelines. Yilloslime (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is against policy to delete an article based on no embassies. There is an consulate staffed by an honorary consul. It is against policy to delete an article based on little trade. The claim in the initial AFD that the visit of the prime minister was for another reason is NOT supported by any citations. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My policy argument is based on failing WP:GNG. Honorary consuls are really minor volunteer roles and definitely not as significant as a full embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Honorary Consuls being "really minor volunteer roles", this is definitely not true. Honorary consuls are sometimes involved in very time consuming work and pay for very significant expenses in running the counsulate. Once the Honorary Consul of Pakistan in Boston's hard work was brought to the attention of the President of Pakistan during a trip to the US. The consul was then promoted to Honorary Consul General as a result. Charliestalnaker (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
has this honorary consul to Samoa actually done anything that has been reported? LibStar (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another policy to seriously consider is If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Throughout the years, I edit the pages when relevant information comes in. As stated countless times, relations between nations evolve and grow and I will continue to improve each article that I closely watch. It would be helpful if you LibStar would assist in editing a page rather than proposing them for deletion because of the policy you choose to follow. Aquintero82 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on notable articles, those that have questionable notability can be considered for deletion. You can't deter other editors from nominating articles. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 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 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Mosaic[edit]

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

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Except for one news article which glancingly namechecks this group's existence because a spokesperson for it gave a brief soundbite to a reporter on a topic other than this group per se, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as press releases and the self-published websites of organizations that aren't media. (I also had to strip one circular citation to another Wikipedia article, which is not permitted at all.)
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt the group from having to the subject of real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to a lack of significant coverage by independent sources. I found a bunch of sources on Newspapers.com, but they're all passing mentions. There's plenty out there to verify the group being the oldest or largest trans support group in Ottawa at various points in history or who some of the past presidents are, but no source devotes significant attention to the group itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:55, 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) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CausaLens[edit]

CausaLens (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 / WP:ADMASQ on a non-notable company. References consist of routine business reporting, non-RS sources like Forbes contributors, passing (or no) mentions, etc; the only one that comes even close to RS sigcov is the Wealth & Finance News, which isn't alone enough. BEFORE search finds nothing beyond social media, company listings, and the like. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web Language[edit]

Web Language (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)

Abandoned HP product that, as far as I can tell, was never acknowledged outside of HP. Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 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 delete. ✗plicit 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Hundal[edit]

Aman Hundal (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. only 1 significant role, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Doesn’t have reliable news coverage. IndaneLove (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete. Hundal's role in Dulla Bhatti is significant enough to count toward WP:NACTOR, but I agree that she hasn't appeared in the "multiple" significant roles that that guideline requires. My search didn't find sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG, either: although there's a bit of coverage in Punjabi, it's mostly trivial and I would't consider any of it to be sigcov. Not notable, in my view, at least not yet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin M. Heiman[edit]

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

The article essentially has no sources. He was a stamp dealer, and the one source is recognition for an organiztion of stamp dealers and collectors. My search for sources did not find any substantial sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 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 redirect to Ettan Fotboll. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Division 1 Östra[edit]

Division 1 Östra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed, one reference was added. Looks to fail WP:NSPORT, A Swedish league, I could not find a related Swedish Wiki, nor could I find any significant references that were not mirrors. The main page at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotboll_i_Sverige does not mention the league. Jeepday (talk) 10:46, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Peppers[edit]

Don Peppers (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)

Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Deleted before as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Rogers. Edwardx (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP:Basic or WP: GNG. Promotional more than anything, not suitable for the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 18:19, 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 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Kaushik[edit]

Avinash Kaushik (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 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 keep. Consensus is that the party meets GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance EPP: European People's Party UK[edit]

Alliance EPP: European People's Party UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Former AfD nominee. Nothing has happened since to prove notability or importance. No notable or important election results . doktorb wordsdeeds 09:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator has previously nominated numerous articles for deletion as part of his continuing campaign to delete all minor parties from Wikipedia. If his nomination is not succesful, he will be back again in a few months with another nomination, and another. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) which was unsuccessful includes a partial list of his target articles, including this in 2014. Nothing has changed since. Emeraude (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, as the niminator says, nothing has happened since the previous AfD to justify bringing another. Emeraude (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the in-depth coverage from sources such as EurActiv, BBC and Europolitics. I have recently argued in favour of deletion at several AfDs relating to minor parties lacking such coverage. For me, this party clears the sourcing bar. AusLondonder (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. To my surprise I seem to be the major contributor to this article. In fact much of the content of the article is actually unrelated to this micro party, including content I added myself. When I looked up information for it, this party did not seem to be much more than a single bloke with a Tweeter feed. On the plus side, it did stand candidates in London for EU Parliament elections once, gathering a meagre 28,000 votes, and got some press coverage for this feat. Place Clichy (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kept at AfD back in 2014. "Nothing has happened since to prove notability or importance." is irrelevant as editors felt the subject already met WP:GNG back in 2014. NemesisAT (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Scott (businessman)[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by the subject himself.

Was up for deletion in June 2021 (no consensus) as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Scott (businessperson). Edwardx (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still nothing notable found since the last discussion to delete. Largely self-promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Great spot Edwardx I'd love to know how this got this far - as nomination says the article was created and edited by the person in question. Massive undeclared COI. Deleting this page isn't sufficient - he should be blocked as an editor! MaskedSinger (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it did go through AFC, so perhaps it should have been picked up at that point. Edwardx (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding everything about this peculiar. Could sockpuppets have been involved? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ness is a huge IT company in Israel and a strong player also elsewhere. Extremely notable. gidonb (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He needs to be shut down and these pages need to be scrubbed from Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the author and, yes, the subject of the page in question. Please take a look at the Talk page.
There, you can see that I submitted the page for review through the proper AFC process and identified my COI. I solicited feedback and made improvements and then resubmitted for the independent review. It was approved independently. The history is all there. 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And while it is not my place to argue whether I am notable or not because I have an obvious bias, I will refer people to the arguments in the prior debate on this very topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessperson). 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You dare talk about proper process where everything about your presence here is a stain on Wikipedia. If you were someone notable and edited your own page, it would be a problem. That you create your own?!?! That you create one for the company you work at?? And you think this is fine. You're a bit too slick for your own good and you've been caught out. Your account/s should be shut down and this page should be salted. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete did not expect the author to admit it's just an ad for himself. Gabe114 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (simple). While we absolutely can clean up WP:COI, the subject does not pass the threshold of the WP:GNG. So we can clean up but the article should still be deleted. In other words, the discussion above is not all that relevant. OK, if the person socked, that may still have an impact on other articles. We can review that. But not everything that was written by a sock or in COI has to go. This article does. We should take rational decisions, each article on its merits, and not work from spite. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Methods aside, subject has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sources are not independent nor reliable. From what I have gleaned from the links posted, in that industry, mentions are potentially standard and not indicative of notability. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:17, 12 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. This could be closed as either a keep or a merge without much issue. Most of the concern is about the state of the article, including the nom, not the lack of existence of sources. Landing slightly on the keep side of the needle does not preclude a merge should it be possible to cover Jessie within the list, but there is no consensus to delete the material. Star Mississippi 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie (Toy Story)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jessie (Toy Story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article seems to be a subject of edit warring. I tried to find more reliable sources per WP:BEFORE that mostly talks about Jessie to settle this, but failed. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough secondary sources discussing Jessie to be notable. This and this paper together seem enough to me to establish the minimum required by WP:GNG. I have seen a number of shorter commentaries. If someone finds it necessary to provide more sources, I can look some more. Daranios (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Toy Story characters#Jessie. Whether potentially notable or not, the current incarnation of the article is heavily lackluster; it should be merged until someone sees fit to make it encyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current article and its very disappointing reception section do not carry sufficient assertion of stand-alone significance to warrant keeping this per WP:GNG. Regarding the sources found by Daranios, the first one doesn't seem to have a SIGCOV analysis of her, although it may be sufficient to reference a single sentence saying that she has her character, described as not-stereotypical and not-meek, has been acknowledged (but in passing) in a gender-themed analysis of the TS3 movie. Arguably, however, she doesn't even get a dedicated sentence of analysis, since the topic is the relationship between characters (and so the topic of her relation with the male lead is discussed). The second source contains a few sentences or so of analysis, and is better. If User:Daranios would like to add them to the reception section, maybe we could keep this. Otherwhise, we can (soft) redirect this or keep so someone else can improve this... IMHO the notability right now is borderline. One more source and I might be convinced to vote keep (but right now I see one passable source, and one that's borderline, and that's just below my rule of thumb of two sources - note that I consider the current reception useless, as it covers the voice actress reception, not the character). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Bo Peep's article is a good example of the potential of coverage from a gender-themed reading/perspective, and this is all very recent as a result of that character's appearance in Toy Story 4. Which does make me wonder why the same effort hasn't been made for Jessie, a character who has been more prominent throughout the Toy Story franchise's history. I think the real question here isn't whether Jessie is objectively notable, but whether a standalone page about Jessie should exist in mainspace if the coverage of secondary sources is this lacklustre and an entry about the character in List of Toy Story characters adequately covers all salient information about her. 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Haleth (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several articles, magazines, reviews, books, podcasts, and shows discussing the character, and she even gave a CGI-present speech at the Oscars on her own, which could definitely pass Notability Guidelines alone. However, it goes without saying that it definitely needs a major cleanup, and if someone is willing to improve the article, I see absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. Moreover, the character even has won an award, which is also acceptable through Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines (which was part of her speech at the Oscars). But, a simple and reasonable compromise could be moving this page to the draft space until it is complete. 2603:7081:2501:8692:29AA:F5D6:DEE2:1AED (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lord of a Fantasy, and I thought you retired already because of this reasonable rant of yours at your userpage. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I retired my account, not my contributions. Don’t bring up irrelevant points like this, it’s hurtful and inconsiderate. --2603:7081:2501:8692:29AA:F5D6:DEE2:1AED (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strange to insinuate that the main female character of one of the biggest movies ever created is un-notable, while characters like a hammy sea witch, Ursula, get entire articles with no issue. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is hard evidence of significant coverage about Ursula, which demonstrates that the character is culturally relevant among certain segments of human society. I am not seeing anywhere near the same level of discourse about this character. As Wikipedia editors, we should not be solely concerned about the in-universe significance of fictional characters within a piece of media, and especially without secondary sources to back up her significance outside of it. Jessie is not the only main female character in the series, Bo Peep's appearance in Toy Story 4 seems to have generated a flurry of pop culture discourse that is more substantial then Jessie ever had throughout her entire existence. Haleth (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ursula is a culturally significant character, especially in the Disney medium. However, I wouldn't argue that Jessie is less notable than her, probably even equal if you consider the praised reception Jessie has received since her debut. But Ursula has been around for some time and has been regarded as one of the best-animated villains, unlike Jessie, who has been listed as "underrated" in several review articles but still holds a strong reception. But, regardless, both characters have received significant coverage since their respective debuts. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Look at what the Woody (Toy Story) article used to look like. It wasn’t as bad as this one, but it was pretty dang bad. I worked on the Woody article a lot to get to a GA and almost all the references I searched through when trying to raise Woody to a GA talked about Jessi in them too. I’m most certain that if someone actually put in the work and effort into this article, it could be a GA. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Woody is the main character, and before you started working on the article (great job btw), the reception appeared to be fine already. Meanwhile, Jessie is just a supporting character, if I recall. The article has been neglected for a decade, and has very weak sourcing. Hence, I started nominating this article for AfD. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well I have updated the the reception section and there are still more refs that can be used. I think this definitely passes WP:GNG ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work right there. I also saw that there are other usable sources on article's talk page to be used. The reception section looks kind of good already. I'll stay neutral on this and will be withdrawing the AFD nomination when merge voters are satisfied with it. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to withdraw the nomination, you should only do so after you reach a conclusion on your own that this article is salvageable, as opposed to gauging what other editors' potential response would be. Haleth (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively speaking, if you only consider the fourth films and tv series and spin-offs. Jessie, however, is actually a main character, third importance, actually (or tritagonist). Several review articles point this out. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They reviewed the actual film only, and most of it was passing mention about Jessie and didn't talk about her. Another just notable argument Lord of Fantasy? OnlyFixingProse (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep doing this to me? You can’t even respond to my talk page message, or any message from me to you in general, but yet keep attacking me. Grow up and keep to the relevant discussion or I’m reporting you again. --2603:7081:2501:8692:6497:31A4:42C1:4A98 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zxcvbnm's argument. Two years ago, I have had a look before this current AfD to see if there's any coverage reliable secondary sources, and quite frankly there was barely anything of note. Jessie had a moment of prominence from her debut in Toy Story 2 but basically faded into the franchise's background in the years since. The nominator of the first AfD from way back in 2008 (which ended in no consensus) summed up the article's longstanding problems. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. More then a decade later, that clearly hasn't changed. I am not sure if I agree that this article should be considered for deletion, but unless a dedicated well-informed editor like Kaleeb18 puts in the effort now to actually demonstrate to us that significant coverage specifically about the character does exist, it should be taken out of mainspace and redirected to the list because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a standalone page. Haleth (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haleth Kaleeb expanded the reception sec, could you take a second look if its fine already? Not sure if this [15], [16], [17] and other usable sources on the article's talkpage are enough. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed on principle to this article being considered for deletion to begin with, though it is understandable given the context that the page was subject to a brief edit war with one editor recommending that the page is taken to AfD to have the dispute resolved. As I have suggested before, the issue to deliberate on here isn't whether the topic is notable or not, but whether the article (still poorly written and constructed in spite of Kaleeb18's improvements) should continue to remain in mainspace given its ongoing content issues. Haleth (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Jessie was a significant and central character in Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 (even a more present character than Buzz), the protagonist of Toy Story of Terror!, a major character in Toy Story 4, and has appeared in numerous Disney media. She's literally labeled as the tritagonist of the franchise. Bo Peep on the other hand had only one significant appearance, and that was in Toy Story 4. Regardless, she's just as notable as Woody, and more recognizable and significant to the stories than Bo Peep. On the other hand, she literally received an award at the Oscars in 2000 (may I also note that she's currently the only Pixar character to win a non-voice-related award), so I don't know why you think she's not significant. Yes, obviously not as much as Woody, but she's really close, probably even equal to Buzz when you consider her significance in the third film and her spin-offs. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an Oscar, but an award from the National Cowgirl Museum from the year 2000. I agree that it is a sign of significance. Then again, the nominator's concern is that there aren't enough extent secondary sources which specifically discuss her in enough detail, especially from an out of universe perspective, but it doesn't look like there are any secondary sources which are interested in discussing the issue. Whether Jessie is the franchise's second or third most important main character is irrelevant if we are to consider to whether she should be getting a standalone page split from the main list of characters. Haleth (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my points exactly, actually. Just not gonna repeat everything that’s been said, but I wasn’t saying that it was an Oscar, I was saying that she was presented with the award at the Oscars — just to clarify. --2603:7081:2501:8692:6497:31A4:42C1:4A98 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is still factually incorrect. The presentation for Jessie's animated speech for the cowgirl award was at the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame’s Annual Induction Luncheon on November 10th, 2000, not the Academy Awards that year or the following year. Haleth (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I thought she accepted it during the Oscars ceremony? I’ll have to look into that further. After all, the same sequence from the Oscars is used, and she’s wearing her official Oscars Uniform. But, again, I’ll look at an archive recording of the 2000 Oscars to see if this is the case. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's one secondary source which at least acknowledges that award, The Animated Movie Guide. In general I agree that we should focus on how much there is in secondary sources rather than compare with other cases. And for my part I am satiesfied with the sourced reception section as a foundation, just as Isabelle has summarized it. Daranios (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources at the reception and legacy section seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG and merit its own article (plot could use some trimming, though). Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 12:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs some work but the subject passes. More than a merged subject, provided coverage is sufficient and the evidence significant. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Correct me if I’m wrong (please), but it looks like the consensus is clear from what I’ve read in this discussion, and seeing as it’s more than a week old, there should be an idea of what to do at this point (and close it, of course). —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After a quick look, I don't know if the consensus is to keep the article or merge it with another. XfDs are typically relisted if the admin or an editor viewing it doesn't see a clear consensus that has emerged. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that, after checking the changes that have been made to the article since the AfD, I am still in the merge camp. A large portion of the reception is from listicles and trivial mentions. A lot of it feels like desperate grasping for any mention at all in any publication ever without any kind of clear and logical connection. SIGCOV has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt contrary to the Keep !votes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wanna add on to this, as I forgot to mention something earlier. How come there’s no discussion regarding the character’s backstory (in reception, specifically)? It’s just occurring to me know, and I know that, for a fact, it has garnered a lot of coverage in recent years, specifically from WatchMojo, IGN, and Screen Rant, with many even stating the scene as what made Pixar what it is today (with how it includes saddening tropes in its feature films / establishing their brand). Just thought I’d point this out real quick — it’s probably the biggest cultural discussion regarding the character, even more-so than the gender themes. And also, there was that giant internet theory in 2016 discussing that Andy’s mom was actually Jessie’s former owner (there’s a lot of publications on this too, although this more has to do with Emily and Mrs. Davis). —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By far not "any mention at all in any publication ever" has been used in the article. Though I agree that our reception section can probably be structured better - a typical problem which can be solved by editing and is therefore not an argument against the existence of an article. I have added short commentary (which includes the backstory) from yet another book source, which designates half a page (which I can see) to the character. This special edition of Entertainment Weekly has several pages on Jessie, mostly interviewing persons involved in her creation. Daranios (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios This is actually an excellent find for both the reception and development sections. Although I’d hold off on editing until a true consensus has been made. Nice work, though! —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 00:01, 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 redirect to Islamic sexual jurisprudence. ✗plicit 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views on anal sex[edit]

Islamic views on anal sex (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 is oddly specific and unnatural for an encyclopedia. There are no reliable sources supporting its general notability (WP:GNG) in the sense of focusing on this subject as their principle topic in a way that in turn justifies it as an encyclopedic entry independent from the main article Islamic sexual jurisprudence (a.k.a.: Sexuality in Islam). Basically what we have is a collection of Islam blogs/Q&A websites. But Wikipedia is not an Islamic blog or Q&A website, and should not be mirroring such material unless it has significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. On the contrary, not even a single reliable, secondary source is cited in this article. There is also some odd exceptionalism going on here. You will not find dedicated articles for anal sex in Judaism or Christianity (nor would I expect to). Wikipedia's main articles on religious proclivities towards sexuality (such as Sexuality in Judaism) are quite sufficient, and should remain so unless a very good case is made that the situation should be otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 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 redirect to Islamic sexual jurisprudence. ✗plicit 12:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views on oral sex[edit]

Islamic views on oral sex (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 is oddly specific and unnatural for an encyclopedia. There are no reliable sources supporting its general notability (WP:GNG) in the sense of focusing on this subject as their principle topic in a way that in turn justifies it as an encyclopedic entry independent from the main article Islamic sexual jurisprudence (a.k.a.: Sexuality in Islam). Basically what we have is a collection of Islam blogs/Q&A websites. But Wikipedia is not an Islamic blog or Q&A website, and should not be mirroring such material unless it has significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. It is also worth noting that even the sole academic reference is about touching penises, not specifically oral sex per se, further weakening the case for notability. There is also some odd exceptionalism going on here. You will not find dedicated articles for oral sex in Judaism or Christianity (nor would I expect to). Wikipedia's main articles on religious proclivities towards sexuality (such as Sexuality in Judaism) are quite sufficient, and should remain so unless a very good case is made that the situation should be otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 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 keep. This Keep closure does not disallow future AFD proposals with more solid deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house[edit]

Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house (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:UNDUE WP:BREAKING WP:DELAY WP:RECENCY WP:10YEARTEST Kejarwal was attacked in the past too why not no pages for [previous attacks https://www.dailyo.in/humour/arvind-kejriwal-slapped-kejriwal-slapped-aam-aadmi-party-politics-elections-arvind-kejriwal-funny/story/1/30561.html] Ddd421 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Ddd421 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy keep: no valid rationale for deletion provided. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment there are no pages for previous attacks. So this page too not warrant a space in wikipedia. Ddd421 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ddd421: you may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – it says, basically, that every article should be considered standalone in discussions like these. If you think pages don't exist that should exist, write them! If they meet guidelines for inclusion. But the lack of one article isn't a reason to delete another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:DELAY Ddd421 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I created the article. WP:SKCRIT applies as above. Article passes WP:NEVENT as it was a major political and crime incident. Venkat TL (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentWP:BREAKING Ddd421 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentWP:DELAY Ddd421 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CENSOR. Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment kejariwal was attacked/slapped regularly in the past. add all other past event and remane the page to attacks on arvind kejariwal then is page may pass WP:RECENCY WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have expressed your opinion. I suggest you let others express theirs. You have already made 20+ edits on this AfD page. you will be blocked from here, if you do not stop WP:BADGERING Venkat TL (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thanks Ddd421 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:UNDUE is not a valid reasoning for AFD. The article is written in neutral tone, the article is well sourced from multiple sources, the event is notable. SunDawntalk 08:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthe reason is the absence of pages for previous attacks on kejariwal thats why this page shall not be on wiki Ddd421 (talk) 08:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avansas[edit]

Avansas (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)

Pure brochureware / WP:ADMASQ on a non-notable company. Sourcing consists of press release regurgitations and other routine business reporting. In the past hour this has been created, speedied, and immediately recreated by editor with likely COI issues. So let's put it out to the community to judge, then. I contend it fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the user stating that they have "no [...] commercial connection" is completely false, as looking at their trwiki contributions reveals this message: "Hello, I want to add our company to Wikipedia but..." ~StyyxTalk? 00:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear Styyx, I left this company last week. I'm in another industry right now. But this was an unfinished contribution for me and I wanted to complete it. Please let's not make accusations without knowing the details. As I said with this company, I currently have no commercial affiliation. Ozgdemirci (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozgdemirci let's take this to your talk page, but just to say that you certainly do have a COI, if until last week you worked for this company. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Colorado[edit]

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

Article lacks any actual citations beyond baseline election results for presidential candidates for a federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Colorado. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, no real coverage. Zippybonzo (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is an entire MA thesis written about the SP in Colorado during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Here is another article about it. This book covers the topic extensively. Colorado, as a state with more than its fair share of labor revolt, was home to a very active socialist party/movement. The nominator should read WP:BEFORE regarding what to do in a situation like this. Notability is determined by the number and quality of sources on a topic, not by the sources on the article.--User:Namiba 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That Grand Junction article is about the national party. Not the state party. Toa Nidhiki05 04:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can you tell us the results of your WP:BEFORE process to help inform the decision making please? CT55555 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no clue what you're getting at, but I don't typically keep a record of nonexistent sources for non-notable political parties that don't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy and pasting the explanation I provided in the other place you asked also: "What I'm getting at is that there is a policy that informs the steps you should take before nominating articles for deletion and it includes searching for them in multiple places and it's not clear to me if you have done that. And therefore you are sort of forcing everyone else to do the background work that you should do before you nominate things for deletion." CT55555 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of BEFORE, I've been here for 15 years, and I would strongly encourage you to stop making WP:BADFAITH claims that I'm not following it. Toa Nidhiki05 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems weird to keep answering the same question in two place, so I'll just say that my starting point was hopefully clearly the good faith assumption that you did do that which is why I asked you to tell us what the process brought up. Rather than keep replying to questions twice, maybe just reply at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Green_Party_of_New_Mexico if you want to ask me more? CT55555 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have access to the book mentioned above Radicalism in the Mountain West, 1890-1920 Socialists, Populists, Miners, and Wobblies on Proquest or in a library? If the reviews here and elsewhere are accurate, this would seem to be significant coverage. Jacona (talk) 14:51, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Pilots[edit]

Math Pilots (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 school. There exist three sources, [18], [19] and [20]. Source 3 is basically syndicated from Source 2. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:27, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PathAI[edit]

PathAI (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 piece on an interesting but ultimately non-notable company. Sourcing consists of primary sources (mostly company websites), press release regurgitations, and a few scientific publications that don't mention the company let alone provide sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 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 no consensus due to lack of participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is hardly anything to these relations: no trade, agreements or embassies. The 2 high level visits were part of multilateral forums. The MV Maersk Tigris incident is covered in its own article. And the reading list is excessive and contains no mention of Turkey. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Oceania. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially non-existent relations, a Turkish-language search did not reveal any sources. --GGT (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the relationship is obviously slim, it does exist, and information given in this article is useful to the readers and sourced. The mention of the honorary consulate in Istanbul and the presidential visits cannot be placed in another better article. The mention of the MV Maersk Tigris incident is relevant to the relationship (and therefore to the article), while pointing to further details at that article. The only thing that needs to be purged in this article is the long useless and unspecific further reading list. Place Clichy (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just improved the article, including mutual agreements and other stuff. No reason to delete anymore. Randam (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:35, 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 merge to Stamen. And to Mating system as appropriate, per Uncle G. Sandstein 08:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monandrous[edit]

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

The article appears to be a misplaced dictionary entry. The content of the article is only about the usage of the word “monandrous” over multiple topics.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:30, 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 redirect to Tom McCarthy (sportscaster). It does not appear any further input is forthcoming and those arguing for Keep have not made the case for how the sourcing is significant. History remains under the redirect if a merger is desired. Star Mississippi 21:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McCarthy (announcer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patrick McCarthy (announcer) (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 GNG and ANYBIO. Any notability seems to be inherited which is not valid notability. TartarTorte 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Serves as the alternate play-by-play announcer for the Phillies, announces NCAA D1 football and basketball and AAA baseball. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationale was rebutted in the previous AFD discussion, which progressed to the (proper) subject of availability, depths, and provenances of sources for a biography. The last editor in the previous discussion didn't find enough, xe said. You should address that rather than repeating a rationale that fails to even address deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of sources on McCarthy. See [21], [22] and [23] Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1 is fine, but I wouldn't call 2 or 3 significant coverage. 2 is just a post about one of the calls he made and 3 is an announcement that he's going to sub as an announcer for a few Phillies games. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pennsylvania2. --Vaco98 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tom McCarthy (sportscaster) as WP:ATD-R. As with the last AfD, there's still not the significant, reliable, indeptendent coverage required to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. It doesn't matter what organizations he's worked for or what events he's been a part of. Notability is not inherited. However, a redirect as Template:R from relative is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per Qwaiiplayer. Notability is not inherited. JoelleJay (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Qwaiiplayer. Notability isn't inherited and there is not really any depth in coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Pennsylvania. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • People above you say that they aren't in depth enough. You fail to address that. How are they more in depth than others have stated? Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • GPL93 says the depth of coverage is inadequate. SPKSPP obviously thinks it is adequate. That is a matter of opinion. Rlendog (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        SBKSPP didn't say anything about depth of coverage, they just said the sources were "reliable enough". JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:21, 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 keep. Could be argued as no consensus, but the delete and merge, which would keep the contribution for attribution is functionally a keep, and "no evidence of notabilty" without a reason has been refuted by sources Star Mississippi 20:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derby du Languedoc[edit]

Derby du Languedoc (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)

Just how is this encounter between two neighbouring kick-the-ball outfits notable?? TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are derbies as important as this one that exist on Wikipedia ("Derby lorrain"). These two clubs have a very strong rivalry since the 1980s despite few matches between them. The two sources in English as well as those shared on the French version of this article will convince you. Moreover, the two cities are rivals because they are geographically close, have a similar size and fight to be the leader of the Languedoc-Roussillon region. Since the 2000s, the tension between the supporters of both sides has increased with many incidents both in and out of the stadium. The articles in English (sources on the page) will convince you of this. Despite the low popularity of this derby outside France, it is one of the most important football derbies in France. Fexedyte (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument for keeping Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is notable, I would at least expect to see some sort of an article in the French wiki. It doesn't appear to have one.... But a quick Google search shows it does, but the articles aren't linked, which I'll do in a minute. The French article is rather extensive, leaning keep at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this article exists in French. Within this article, you have eight different sources that mention the name "Derby du Languedoc" (this is a name given by the press and not by the fans). You can also translate into English to get a history of the rivalry and incidents that have existed since the 1990s. Fexedyte (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fexedyte, you are applying WP:BLUDGEON to try and get us to change our minds. Please stop. An "important derby" is something like Liverpool v Everton or Celtic v Rangers. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to compare this derby with the derbies you mention, let's be clear. Just to clarify that if articles like "Le Celtico" (which doesn't even exist in French) or the "Derby Lorrain" exist, a derby between Montpellier and Nîmes has entirely its place. And the sources in the press and on the French Wikipepia prove it. I give facts, not more. Fexedyte (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fexedyte that this is an important derby as this is the primary rivalry for both teams involved - both of these clubs are big clubs in French football with several honors as well. Lots of precedent for less significant derbies not being considered for deletion: Cambridgeshire derby, Nene derby, Essex derby, Lincolnshire derby etc. Exa200 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument for keeping Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not only a poor argument; it is an invitation to AfD the examples given, which are really trivial and dull even by the low bar for kick-the-ball articles.TheLongTone (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A cursory look at the French article shows loads of WP:GNG-surpassing coverage. Terrible nomination, needs improving, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposal describes the subject as an "encounter between two neighbouring kick-the-ball outfits". It is actually the encounter between a team created in 1919 and representing the city of Montpellier, "one of the largest urban centres in the region of Occitania", and an equally historical team that has twice won the national football championship. Hardly yer recreational kick-about at the local park. And try as one might, one can find few, if any, faults with the sourcing. This is a fine Wikipedia article as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Covered option. Whether to merge anything is up to editors. Sandstein 08:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buy-write[edit]

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

This page is a duplicate of Covered call. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or redirect). Sources do seem to use these terms slightly differently. Sheldon Natenberg's Option Volatility and Pricing says that a buy/write consists of "buying stock and simultaneously selling a call on the stock", as opposed to selling a call when one already has a long underlying position. Still, the basic concept is the same, and I think it can comfortably be covered in one article. But we should keep the other title as a redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:36, 23 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) 05:33, 30 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! 02:09, 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 keep. Or no consensus at worst. Sandstein 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pine64[edit]

Pine64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some Pine64 products are notable; the organization is not. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" on the subject of the organization. WP:ORGCRITE Sources in the article are primary, or original research, or coverage of products. The bits of history can be included with notable product pages. Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirect to "Pine A64" with content similar to this [24] link from, and as suggested by, Czar seems like a reasonable alternative. Consistent with: Pine64 is now listed in Template [25] as a Device. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the articles seem to talk about the company and its products in the same article, rather than just the products themselves. Since sigcov is being given to the company as well, the article meets notability guidelines. Rlink2 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They talk about the company as in brief mentions of the source of product. Rlink2, same question: can you link to 2 or 3 reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the organization? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two advocates for keeping the article but no sources provided that would establish the notability of the company, not their products, have been offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Germain, Jack M. (2019-09-17). "Pine64 Teases $25 Linux Smartwatch". Linux Insider. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.

      The article notes: "Pine64, founded in October 2015, is based in California. The company makes inexpensive Linux-based single board ARM computers that cost $15 to $20. It also makes an $89 Linux laptop called “Pinebook,” which runs on the Pine A64 board. A few Linux distributions, including KDE Neon, run on Pine A64."

      The article includes analysis from Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group. The article notes: "Pine64’s entire product line appears to target developers, Enderle observed. Since developers buy products, this product line kind of represents that its users are among the elite few who would know how to use them. 'Think of them like you would a class ring or a secret handshake. Having one means you are part of a group with a very specific skill set,' he said. That does not reflect poorly on the products, however. This approach might be very successful for the company. The developers really get to know their customers. In turn, those customers know the developers are focused on them. So using the products means they belong to the group, Enderle noted."

      This source passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage through providing history and background about the company, through focusing on "Pine64's entire product line", and through analysis from an independent analyst about the company's product line.

    2. Proven, Liam (2021-12-08). "Open hardware smartphone PinePhone Pro starts to ship – to developers only, for now. New e-ink tablet, too. Open mobiles, tablets and laptops are coming... slowly". The Register. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.

      The article provides an overview of Pine64's shipments of products for developers. The article notes that the company began with shipping "the crowd-funded $32 A64 SBC". It notes, "The A64 board, with a 1.2 GHz quad-core A64 Arm SoC – Allwinner's fourth generation after entering the market with a splash a decade ago with the A10 – formed the basis of the PineBook in 2017, and later the PinePhone." The article further says, "Now, slowly, the company's second-generation devices are trickling out." It discusses shipments of the PineBook Pro and the PinePhone Pro. The article does not focus on any one product. It provides an overview of the shipments of several of Pine64's products, so this source passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pine64 to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO, these are brief mentions of the organization - trivial or incidental coverage. They are not "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. See WP:ORGDEPTH In your quotes, the focus is on the product line. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article should be scoped to the product line, which we already established is notable. That the article needs cleanup is not a matter for AfD. czar 20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider both sources to provide significant coverage about the company. The first source provides significant coverage about the company's history and product line which I have detailed above. The second source discusses the company's product line in terms of its shipments. I consider coverage about the company's product line to be coverage of what the company is making and doing, so this is coverage about the company itself and meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. If the article was about only one product, then it would not establish notability for the company. But these sources provide an overview about the company's work as a whole (its product line) so do in my view meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage in providing significant coverage about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Compare and contrast these sources with a few used for Purism_(company), a somewhat similar company: [26] [27] [28] This is significant coverage of the organization, placing it in context of the industry, comparing it with other companies in the industry, as required for wiki-notability: provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. I agree the Linux Insider article gives a little of that for Pine64, but IMO it does not reach the threshold, and is primarily focused on the "teased" product. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. This article is marked as unreferenced since 2009. Web searches turned up only trivial mentions of this church. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:46, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Vinding[edit]

Magnus Vinding (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 individual, no substantial coverage of him or his books in independent RS found. (interviews/podcasts don't count towards GNG) (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability, poor sourcing (none of it seems independent), and (this is a feeling, nothing factual), it feels a little promotional to me. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the opinion.
    Both books Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications and Reasoned Politics have been endorsed by more notable individuals like David Pearce and Jamie Mayerfeld (e.g. here). I didn't want to mention this because that would seem like promotion, I thought. But if such endorsements serve as evidence of notability, I can include them in the article.
    Re. more independent sources: I just updated the article to include such sources. BR, Plasmastate (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you added seem to either be by Vinding or say virtually nothing about him. (t · c) buidhe 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails GNG, NBIO and PROF as per Google and Google News searches for the subject. I don't see any content that could be merged. The article is just a list of things Magnus Vinding has written, plus a redlink to the organisation he set up. Comment for Plasmastate: note that Wikipedia has established definitions of notability; it is not fully up to us to debate here. To keep this article about Magnus Vinding, it needs to be shown that he meets either WP:GNG, or WP:NBIO or WP:PROF (the two subject-specific guidelines for articles about persons). ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the subject does meet WP:GNG, since Magnus Vinding has been interviewed by a number of independent (as far as I can tell) sources, which I don't see a reason to call unreliable (interview 1, interview 2, interview 3, interview 4, interview 5, interview 6, panel 1). Plasmastate (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK and is that coverage (of Magnus Vinding) in those interviews significant? What's in the article doesn't seem like it. E.g. discussion of his background, things he did and his ideas ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interviews are clearly not independent sources (as they are produced, clearly, in collaboration with the subject...); and nothing else to substantiate a claim of meeting WP:GNG has been presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be consensus that the sources presented are sufficient to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of New Mexico[edit]

Green Party of New Mexico (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 state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added a couple of citations with brief mentions CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within the first few minutes of searching, I found a front page newspaper articles covering the state party.[1][2] A clear presence within New Mexico newspaper archives to establish a stand alone article with reliable sourcing; a small sample of a very large range of articles.[3][4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ "Greens at odds over logging, firewood, owls". Newspapers.com. The Albuquerque Tribune. 9 Dec 1995.
  2. ^ "Future Dim for Greens in State". Newspapers.com. Albuquerque Journal. 23 Aug 2010.
  3. ^ "Greens Wrecking Balance of 2-Party System in N.M." Newspapers.com. Albuquerque Journal. 26 Aug 1999.
  4. ^ "Richardson needs to focus on swaying Greens, not Republicans". Newspapers.com. The Albuquerque Tribune. 27 Jul 2002.
  5. ^ "Green Party upset with bill introduction". Newspapers.com. The Taos News. 5 Mar 2003.
  6. ^ "Green Party discounts split, stands behind Miller". Newspapers.com. The Taos News. 24 Sep 1998.
  7. ^ "The Greens have faded, but ranked choice remains". Newspapers.com. The Santa Fe New Mexican. 4 March 2018.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider whether the new sources establish notability for a stand-alone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment could the nominator please share the results of their WP:BEFORE analysis to help inform our decision making? CT55555 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no clue what you're getting at, but I don't typically keep a record of nonexistent sources for non-notable political parties that don't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm getting at is that there is a policy that informs the steps you should take before nominating articles for deletion and it includes searching for them in multiple places and it's not clear to me if you have done that. And therefore you are sort of forcing everyone else to do the background work that you should do before you nominate things for deletion. CT55555 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of BEFORE, I've been here for 15 years, and I would strongly encourage you to stop making WP:BADFAITH claims that I'm not following it. Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make any claim. I asked what you found when you did it (clearly assuming you did it) and then you said you didn't know what I was getting it, suggesting you didn't understand. CT55555 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try and phrase this a different way: if you did all the searches and they found nothing, could you say that, it would make it easier for people to make informed comments. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion if I found reliable, non-trivial coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This standard applies to every non-notable minor political party I've nominated for deletion. Toa Nidhiki05 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, you nominate a lot. And I like to make informed comment on them and each time you nominate without mentioning what searching indicated, it essentially forces anyone who wants to make an informed comment to repeat the process. As you are obviously doing all the work yourself, I'm requesting that you mention it.
    To look at it another way, I'm asking if you could please give us more context in your nominations. CT55555 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources above provided by User:Goldsztajn, are more than enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. In addition, when I searched Newspapers.com, I found many more articles (which I didn't bother to go through, I'm quite satisfied with the ones they provided.) Jacona (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goldsztajn and Jacona. There is enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 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 redirect to Egyptian influence in popular culture. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This closure has recently been contested on my talk page. But while "Redirect" was not "bolded" in anyone's response, it was mentioned as a possible alternative to deletion by several participants here so I opted for that result. I think that was a possible option open to the closer of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture[edit]

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

A combination of indiscriminate lists does not make the end result more notable, this is an example farm and clear failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While the topic may be notable, it would require a 100% rewrite to be encyclopedic and thus should be deleted. (Let's not get started on the quite literal duplicate version of this list at Egyptian influence in popular culture but at least that article has some (unrelated) prose). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:02, 30 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! 01:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not warrant a standalone article as currently written. Issues with sourcing. Good candidate to merge or redirect. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing to WP:PRESERVE that is properly sourced. Most of these examples are WP:IINFO and lacking in independent reliable sources. It's possible that someone could start an article about Egypt's representation in fiction, but we wouldn't keep anything from this version. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already stated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:00, 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 keep. Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article, if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. Golub[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of notability for this individual, outside of the television channel they founded. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would a redirect be considered by participants here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: You have voted twice, once for delete, for keep??? scope_creepTalk 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@@Scope creep: Whoops, wrong AFD. Silly me again..... Rlink2 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Chicago Tribune and Mercury News sources found by Beccaynr look to me like they meet the bar of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. (As I've said before, there is a sensible target for a redirect, and this would be preferable to deletion, but I don't think deletion is called for.) Lots of promotional language and unsourced material needs to be cut out, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:50, 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 no consensus due to limited participation; no prejudice against a renomination. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English Ceramic Circle[edit]

English Ceramic Circle (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)

Was deleted through prod, then restored through refund. However, can't find enough coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 21:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English Ceramics 1580–1830: A Commemorative Catalogue to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the English Ceramic Circle 1927–1977. Seems to be published by Sotheby's. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Rathfelder - yes I saw that. It's a catalogue put out by Sotheby's, but if you check out the info page here, you'll see that the major contributor was the organization itself. Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They seem to publish a journal(?) ECC Transactions, you have several pages of listings in GScholar. The digital archive is here: [29]. Not sure how notable that is, the ECC seems to be an historical research organization for tracing/documenting the history of porcelain in England. University of Cardiff has a description of the journal [30], as does the British Museum. The ECC presented what seems to be a rather substantive museum exhibit at a ceramics fair in 2017 [31]. I'm sensing they might just be notable if we can dig for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their name also turns up as a publisher in a "reading list" if you will prepared by the Smithsonian, [32]; I count 3 publications by them with enough clout to be mentioned by the Smithsonian as potential sources. Does WP:AUTHOR make allowances for academic publishers? The ECC appears to be one of a select few regarded as subject matter experts. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, Oaktree b - currently, it does not appear to extend to organizations or companies. Onel5969 TT me 10:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning keep even though sources are hard to find. They seem to have cooperated with the Victoria & Albert museum, publishing information about that collection. I found a short article from the The Burlington Magazine, 1948, about the circle (jstor). It speaks highly of their Transactions publication. There is also a review of the catalog of their exhibition (English Pottery and Porcelain: The English Ceramic Circle Exhibition Catalogue 1948 W. B. Honey), also in The Burlington Magazine (jstor). Those probably only count as one source. That same magazine also has some reviews of articles or issues of the Transactions. I have the feeling that within a certain context this organization produced significant work, but I haven't found proof beyond that one magazine. Also I note that the few cites I found in Google Scholar beyond the transactions themselves (using "English Ceramic Circle" -site:englishceramiccircle.org.uk) has only 8 items. The Google Scholar results of the transactions themselves show some articles cited a few times. It's very hard to evaluation these niche topics. Lamona (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two more mentions from the 1940s when the donated to exhibitions [33]. I feel like they are notable but can't find much to prove it. I'm frankly amazed a book hasn't been published about them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this discussion and for your comments and careful research on the topic. The ECC is a respected research body for British ceramic history. It hosts international lectures on ceramics (both live and, these days, Zoom), and produces its Transactions annually, generally a 200-300 page academic publication, as well as occasional one-off research publications. The British Library lists several items in its online Catalogue but it does seem that the Transactions themselves are hard to find. I’ll raise this with the ECC as it could be a compliance issue.
I take your point about external sourcing and would hope this could be improved, but I would urge you to recognise the importance of the ECC – in my opinion, as an experienced contributor to WP, it is more than worthy of a short entry. Thanks again. JasperWare (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 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 redirect to Blue Collar Comedy Tour. I have added a sentence mentioning the redirected subject. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Hunters (American TV series)[edit]

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

Yet another short-lived, non-notable CMT show. Only source is a TV encyclopedia, no other sourcing found. Prod declined for no reason Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 30 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! 01:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most of the mentions I can find are for a live action version of Cowboy Bebop, I don't think this is the same show. 13:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Animated series with name-in-lights comedians; I see no reason for deletion here as sometimes the only thing sourcing a show outside PR is a paper encyclopedia of the subject, especially due to its short-run/Yet Another Chaotic Viacom Scheduling nature. Nate • (chatter) 20:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mrschimpf: So by your logic, literally everything Larry the Cable Guy ever did is automatically notable because Larry the Cable Guy is in it, sourcing be damned? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It aired on a major American cable network, and that meets WP:N for me and we shouldn't be leaving redlinks on things that can be sourced or at least have a 'list of programs on network' they can be redirected to (as we could do easily redirecting this to List of programs broadcast by CMT). But going over everything again, it seems like this might be better off merged to Blue Collar Comedy Tour, as it involved three of the four comedians a part of that; it makes more sense to have some mention there at least with the Deadline and MCN sources more than its own article. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pets of Imran Khan[edit]

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

Despite the sources, the article is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The rationale of other head of states' pets page is non-entertainable as unlike United States presidential pets or Larry (cat) or Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, these pets in the article are not recognised or accredited by the State (Pakistan). They are personal pets of Mr. Khan. In case of having personal pets on WP, one can also demand article for Buffalos of former PM Nawaz Sharif.[1] Also see the contentions raised by others on the Talk:Pets of Imran Khan User4edits (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://scroll.in/latest/896105/pakistan-eight-buffaloes-belonging-to-ex-pm-nawaz-sharif-sold-for-2-3-million-rupees
  • Comment This has already been discussed well and there was a good consensus to keep. Is there something today that should make people want to delete, that wasn't existing the first time around? CT55555 (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in reply to above, partially) - the last nomination failed because the nominator did not really provide any reasoning to delete. The keep seemed more procedural than anything else. Although admittedly, the argument here is also not the best (non-native English speaker? No condemnation, but your words a bit hard to follow). The way I see it, the arguments to delete include:
  • Sourcing does not seem to be the best, and there was some concern raised at the last AfD about circular sourcing- that is, the article citing sources that cited Wikipedia.
  • The pets are, unlike those of other nation heads, not recognized in any way by the state.
  • IMO, this article is irregular: if there is enough coverage for a pet, that pet gets an article, but most pets of nation heads wind up as a list entry. A composite article like this is new.

Of course, there were also arguments made for keeping it, but I'll let others make their cases. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it seems inappropriate to have this conversation without the nominator informing the person who created the page. And I find all the justification that references other world leader's pets to be not relevant. Either this topic stands on its own or it does not. Basically I am not convinced by the justification to delete and I see keep as the default where there is no good justification to delete. CT55555 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nomination. To answer @CT55555, I am not very aware of the AfD process and was following the process as per the steps laid on WP that too being without sleep for 24 hours. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are not familiar with the AfD process, please familiarize yourself with it before using it. You should not vote to "delete per nomination" when you are the nominator. There is a link at the top of the page that explains the process. It is essential that you discuss this nomination for deletion with the person who created the page you are proposing deletion of. CT55555 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep We've already been through all of this in the first nomination, where consensus was clearly established in favour of keep. The nomination is essentially recycling the same points that were repeated in the last nomination. This essentially makes it an exercise in futility of flogging the dead horse. Dear nom., please at least read the mentioned AfD before being reckless and wasting everyone's time! Also, what rule permits both a nomination and a vote on an AfD? Have I missed a trick all these years? Mar4d (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snowball keep does not apply here; it does not roll over from previous deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my argument above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think have enough reliable source for passing WP:GNG. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 13:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per WP:N, Even if a topic is notable then "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'd have thought that this was a good example. Could readily be added to Khan's article which already includes a sentence on his dogs. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as per CT55555 and not Merge: Imran Khan is already 221kB long and will continue to get longer with Khan's recent impeachment. That's above the 100kB threshold at which the article "Almost certainly" should be split, according to WP:SIZERULE. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does need splitting but just splitting off his pets seems an extremely poor way of doing it IMO. Nigej (talk) 05:22, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Durán[edit]

Jorge Durán (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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and may not even pass the old WP:NFOOTY, no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude70 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while he might have met NFOOTY via three cup games, he didn't even appear in the league for Chiapas. He then ended up in the third league team Tuxtla F.C. that collapsed. No significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content is not notable, fails GNG. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:27, 11 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_6&oldid=1082729845"