Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 06	April 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Hussey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Coverage merely confirms she held roles. Lacking indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as written. BD2412 T 01:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google search does not reveal any in-depth coverage and would seem to be unlikely to. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG as well as WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST, as mentioned in nomination. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:41, 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 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, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Rede[edit]

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

I don't think he pass WP:GNG. I found his BFI page but I couldn't find enough sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 17:11, 7 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!} 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of the Golden Masks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF; article was created WP:TOOSOON. The Film Creator (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, with the potential for notability to be achieved if/when the film releases. BOVINEBOY2008 11:03, 2 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!} 23:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. It's entirely possible that this will clear the bar if and when it's released — a film with Patton Oswalt and Christopher Plummer in its voice cast is going to get noticed, that's a given — but the existence of two casting announcements isn't enough coverage to exempt a film from having to meet the primary notability criteria for films (which normally require actual release, not just verification of entry into the production pipeline.) Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Braveboy[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ, sourced largely to press releases and blackhat seo masquerading as journalism. CUPIDICAE💕 23:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Trinidad and Tobago. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While having a song featured on a Netflix show is good, that is about the extent of notability here. Possibly mention him on the Selling Tampa page instead. Sources are not independent, mostly interviews and blog acclaim. See the edit history; in addition to source and notability issues the article is written like an obvious promo. NiklausGerard (talk) 18:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Ally[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, probable UPE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything notable. Small details should probably be added to The HOW Foundation, of which she is the CEO. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7for7 (writer)[edit]

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

non-notable author. claims of vague awards with nothing to substantiate it - no sources to be found, at least none that are remotely reliable. CUPIDICAE💕 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails N and no sources exist. Does not assert notability, nor could it ever credibly assert it right now. Whatever 'sources' exist for this person are all press releases and posted on any reliable source. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails N — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mazayah Legend Andrews[edit]

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

nonnotable person whos claim to fame is being related to someone notable. Isn't a notable football player or otherwise notable for anything else. CUPIDICAE💕 21:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found [1] [2] and [3], but I don't know if they are reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not rs, they are paid for spam aka blackhat SEO which is why they were removed. CUPIDICAE💕 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable simply for the fact they were related to someone. I also wonder if the creator of the page is is independent of the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass GNG. Gabe114 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. There is some promotional sources for his fashion business, but this doesn't rise up to significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ejgreen77. Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 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 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Pozzolo[edit]

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

puff piece for a candidate, doesn't meet WP:NPOL, merely a candidate, no sustained coverage other than the typical "x is running" CUPIDICAE💕 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of a new candidate running for office. Nothing special about being a business owner, hasn't done anything notable (yet) as a candidate. Running in a district with a PVI of D+24, likely to remain non-notable. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:TOOSOON for an unelected candidate. KidAd • SPEAK 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kidad. MB 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring future officeholders to publicize their campaigns. But this fails to establish that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, nor does it suggest a reason to treat his candidacy as somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day should he win the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he wins the general election he will be notable. We have decided that in almost all cases challengers for legislative office are not notable, and there is nothing here to suggest that Pozzolo is the extremely rare exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political candidate. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kidad as an alternative to deletion and as an usual and appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olasupo Abideen[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non notable "social entrepreneur" who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The award they won is largely immaterial, a before search turns up nothing concrete. I’m not so sure returning money mistakenly paid into your account qualifies nor makes one notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject has no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Gabe114 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, "being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Awards that are conferred to him are not notable enough. SunDawn talk 02:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor Old Testament figures, A–K. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph of Issachar[edit]

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

A copy of a one-sentence Catholic Encyclopedia entry; there does not appear to be anything further that can ever been said about this figure, as he is just mentioned in passing as the father of one of the Twelve Spies. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of biblical characters who deserve a Wikipedia article, based on the content that exists about them. Numbers 13:7, in listing The Twelve Spies sent out to scout out the land, lists "from the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph". We are told nothing about Igal and his backstory, and there is even less about his father, Joseph of Issachar. We have nothing available to expand this any further. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'm amazed the article has lasted so long. St Anselm (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor Old Testament figures, A–K, which houses mentions like these. BD2412 T 01:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse BD2412's Merge solution. Especially since the figure was referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia and that may lead people to go looking to see if there's more info available.--Jahaza (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree too. St Anselm (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Gabe114 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. talk 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Twelve Spies. This is a person of whom we know (and can know) nothing apart from having a son. However, there should also be an entry on the dabpage for Joseph. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Smith[edit]

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

Possible ADMASQ on a woman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her thus fails to satisfy GNG. A before predominantly links me to press releases & user generated all of which we do not consider reliable. Furthermore being a CEO isn’t a yard stick used to ascertain Notability Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run-of-the-mill coverage of a business person. You don't get to have a Wikipedia article about yourself just for being the CEO of something. One of the references is a press release, another is an interview, and another is tertiary coverage. The remaining reference, is a gushing promo piece with no byline, that manages to say nothing of value. There's no article about First Securities Discount House Merchant Bank - if there was, redirecting to it per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON could have been an option. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article subject clearly meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion #3 as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria. @Timtrent:, you have been around long enough to know that this sort of behavior is inappropriate as it blatantly violates the standard behavior expected in the community. @Celestina007:, I note that this is not the first time you are canvassing people who share the same opinion with you in a discussion unrelated to them. This is a disruptive behavior. Kaizenify (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note that the editor above is the creator of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaizenify Specify which part of WP:NACADEMIC you rely on. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenify has added content to the article after the AfD nomination saying that Smith is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, and asserts that this means she is an academic. That is not correct. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education. Smith is a qualified accountant, not an academic. The procedure for becoming an FCA is to have been a member, with a licence to practice, for more than five years, or for members without a licence to practice, ten years' experience - and pay N120,000. 1,628 members became FCAs last year alone. This is therefore not a highly selective honour.

I do not believe I was canvassed to take part in this AfD. I was conversing with Celestina on their user talk page, where I saw they were reviewing an article they were concerned about, and chose to look at the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers they elected are not our business as Wikipedians. Fellowship of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria is a major scholarly society in the field of accounting in Nigeria. Our notability guideline does not cover how fellows should be selected or elected. In the same way we will not care how a legislator or supreme court judge is elected.

Kindly note that scholarly societies are not meant for people who lectures in academic institutions or conduct researches only, it also meant for professionals in that field. Kaizenify (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenify, you've claimed that Smith is notable under criterion #3 of WP:NACADEMIC, which has two parts to it:

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or
The person is a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

Assuming you are asserting that they meet the second part of that criteria then it is for editors to judge whether ICAN is (i) a major scholarly society, and (ii) whether it reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. We need not judge the first part, because the second part is clearly not so. If the organisation accepts applications from its members to become a fellow solely on time served and paying a fee then that is not a highly selective honor. But in any event, considering that the notability criteria that you are referring to are a method for assessing the notability of academics, none of this applies because Smith is not engaged in scholarly research or higher education. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments above have been dismantled. We lack the sourcing needed to show notability. We are not about to add 2,000 plus people in one profession from one country a year, so any criteria that would do so is not a valid inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ide Owodiong-Idemeko[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a businessman and politician, he fails ANYBIO and fails NPOL as being a candidate or aspirant doesn’t indicate notability as documented in NPOL Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOLITICIAN failure, WP:BIO failure. Is this UPE? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I’m not seeing decent coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus is clear, but this does not preclude a merger discussion such as is happening. That does not require continuation of this AfD as there's no one arguing for deletion. Star Mississippi 14:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Smart[edit]

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

This comic artist and writer is clearly prolific and successful, but I cannot find significant and independent coverage of him. WP:BEFORE gave me two additional interviews, which I have added to the External Links section of the article. The other references are:

An interview at Creative Bloq
An article by him
A reference in an article on CBR.com - refers to him as "a cornerstone of The Dandy's current artistic line-up" but is not WP:SIGCOV
Three links to a bookseller's page

Might be possible to merge some of the content to The Dandy. Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few refs, will look at expanding further. Artw (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has at least 2 substantial sources - ComicsAlliance and Wired. There are interviews, which don't count for notability but show that he has gotten significant attention. I added sections to make the article more navigable. Lamona (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has written many traditionally and independently released comic books, for which there are ample reliable sources. I expanded the article a bit and cleaned up some things. The subject has received significant coverage. Thus, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Go to any book shop and the children's section will be full of his work. From a quick google search there are ample sources, this easily passes the WP:GNG. Eopsid (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which sources established his notability? Many seem to mention him in passing. Perhaps some of his work is notable but is this any different than a member of a band who is notable in regards to the band but not deserving an article independent of it? A redirect to The Dandy seems appropriate until notability-establishing sources outside of interviews can be added. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the Dandy would be the most appropriate redirect. The article itself mentions Bear (comics) as his best known work and there are reliable sources on his more recent work like Bunny Vs Monkey too if you do a search online. Eopsid (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I named the sources above: ComicsAlliance and Wired (both in the ref list). Also, with his long list of publications, reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus (plus the two main sources and all of the interviews), he passes WP:NAUTHOR. He's definitely not "a member of the band" as he both writes and illustrates his comics. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 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 snow delete. I wasn't able to send the student a copy of the content as their email wasn't enabled, but I've left a recommendation of how they could otherwise contribute to Wikipedia on another student's talk page. Offhand there's nothing here that can be merged, as it's all WP:OR. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Inability to Smile[edit]

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

Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. See also: Draft:The Inability to Smile. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-encyclopedic material. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Come Let Us Sing Anyway. The book the story is in is notable, so the summary of the short story could go there, and the editor should be encouraged to redirect their attention to non-OR editing on a story that is in itself a valid topic for wiki coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another collection of original research. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. SN54129 15:26, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Shahriar Rimon[edit]

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

non-notable businessman, minor coverage in typical churnalism outlets but nothing truly in depth. CUPIDICAE💕 20:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People —MdsShakil (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 06:16, 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 merge to Online community manager#Culture and appreciation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Manager Appreciation Day[edit]

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

Niche observance that fails general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable sources. News coverage seems to be limited to online trade publications that publish a yearly article interviewing and showcasing community managers in celebration of this day ([4] [5]). A PROD questioning this article's notability shortly after creation was removed, but I still don't see references that give me confidence in notability. Bridget (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. Bridget (talk) 22:18, 31 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, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Online community manager#Culture and appreciation. MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Online community manager#Culture and appreciation. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:25, 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 merge to 'Allo 'Allo!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen Madonna[edit]

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

Is this fictional painting, a TV prop, notable in light of WP:GNG? The coverage is limited to plot summary plus very minor coverage of a sale of a prop and even more minor coverage related to a creation of a replica. I proposed a meger at Talk:'Allo_'Allo!#Merge_from_The_Fallen_Madonna but the merge was opposed by a single editor. I think it's time to bring this to the AfD then, given the GNG concerns. This is an amusing propr, but given the limited coverage, one that merits no more than a redirect and a brief mention in the article about the TV series, not a stand alone article. PS. Worth noting that over the last decade, the dozen or so articles about the characters from this show have been brought to AfD and all have been turned into redirects to the list of characters... (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Artois). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support the merger as proposed. Lacks enough importance for a standalone article but could be mentioned in the main one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 'Allo 'Allo! - Not independently notable enough to warrant a split from the main article, and its role in the plot of the show is already briefly described there, but the sourced section on the real-world events regarding the prop would be appropriate to merge over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 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 no consensus. and none appears likely to emerge. Star Mississippi 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug (tuber)[edit]

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

Stylishly written, but probably a case of NOTNEWS...? Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I approved the draft article and moved it into mainspace. I would not have done this if I had not been convinced that GNG is met. It's incredible how much news exposure this item was given in New Zealand. And this went on for weeks and then got a second wind when the genetic test results were released. I see from article sources that international media also picked up on it and, yes, whilst it's not the most important issue on earth, it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements (multiple RS; in-depth coverage). Schwede 66 09:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I would not have nominated this at AfD if I had not been convinced that GNG is not met...... I think the spirit of NOTNEWS precisely guards against articles like this. Multiple RS & in-depth (if not repetitive) coverage are insufficient when it comes to topics that are inherently 'water-cooler' ones with no lasting impact... Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, also of course. We'll see what the wider community has to say. Schwede 66 08:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just struggling to find an equivalent article here. I am just not convinced that the subject is inherently notable, particularly because "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I really believe that the number of "bursts" of significant coverage is secondary to the fact that this is, frankly speaking, frivolous. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it ironic that we don't have an article for the actual largest potato in the world... Part of me wonders if things would have panned out differently if they hadn't named this tuber. Psychologically, at least, I think it'd be easier to see why this "largest potato claimant that turned out not to be the largest potato" (as opposed to good ol' "Doug") shouldn't have its own article here. But maybe that's what makes all the real difference, huh Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received two bursts of coverage, once in November 2021 when it was discovered and once in March 2022 when the results of the genetic testing were released. If there had only been a single burst of coverage then it would probably fail NOTNEWS, but because sources apparently deemed it important enough to run stories on it a second time, it's enough to pass. Mlb96 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has cleared the GNG by far, with very reliable sources, and does not fall under any of the four categories at WP:NOTNEWS. Deletion is completely uncalled for. Toadspike (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~A groaning keep~~ ~~with the Ukraine Russian war going this is epic journalism. Meets WP:GNG because it was well covered NealeWellington (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete or merge as per Sandstein. I have changed my mind and whilt agree it is covered in mainstream media I really don't think the tuber will stand the test of time. NealeWellington (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS "2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... routine news reporting of announcements."

I am not saying we have to be consistent, it is just not practical. But, does anyone remember Anna Wilding. She fooled media into covering her and because of it we deleted the page. Are we keeping the tuber because it had no nefarious intent? The same with the judge whose son broke Covid rules, her dog was also untrustworthy.[6]

I just want us to remember today for future discussions. Today we clearly say something does not have to have any value or importance, it has to has coverage. I am not necessarily against this, it is a literal reading of our rules, but it is different from what I have been seeing on other discussions. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best selectively merge to Tuber. WP:NOTNEWS applies, even when multiple media have picked up this incredibly trivial human interest story. Sandstein 18:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to wide coverage over two different occasions - if it has just been reported November 2021 then it would be a delete. Also as not a person or business no worries regarding promotion or ego building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs) 09:59, April 3, 2022 (UTC)
Delete or merge per Sandstein. If this was a record size for a tuber (or potato, had it been one) it would at best be merged into the appropriate botanical article.-gadfium 19:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. No demonstration of lasting notability, which is a factor. It's just the "human interest story" of the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of lasting notability. Single sentence mention in tuber is enough. SWinxy (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to extensive coverage (New Zealand, British, American) at 2 points: the discovery of the "potato", and its demotion to gourd. So not just any old news item. Ficaia (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fails notability guidelines. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 06:25, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo in popular culture[edit]

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

A mostly unreferenced WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of trivial references to the battle of Waterloo in media, with an added weirdness such as commemorative objects and events, Waterloo in quotations, and even a list of reenactment events. Zero evidence there any reliable sources that address this topic. If any rewriting were to happen, WP:TNT would apply. Article fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and Wikipedia:IPC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Yet another unnecessary split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another "in popular culture" article that is nothing but a list of largely non-notable trivia, without a single source actually discussing the actual overall concept of the Battle of Waterloo's depiction or use in popular culture. This one is particularly poor, as many of the entries are not even examples of its use in popular culture, or are simply times someone used the phrase "met his Waterloo". As such, there is really nothing that warrants preserving. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with this view that is largely just a collection of trivia. If there is a need to talk about the long term cultural impact of the battle, then it should in the first instance be done in its article with references to appropriate sources (and not just be a glorified list in any case). Dunarc (talk) 20:46, 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 as G4. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanasura (2022 film)[edit]

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

Previously the Draft:Ravanasura is declined by Ts12rAc and despite being suggested by reviewer Robert McClenon, the article is published from a new user. The topic not yet passes WP:NFILM. Cut and paste move from a different user. Strong indication of Sock. DMySon (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing has changed since the previous AFD. This is still a non-notable unreleased film. An unnecessary disambiguator has been added to the film title in order to game the system by avoiding the lookup for the previous AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Matera[edit]

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

Non-notable member of two notable bands. The two sources are passing mentions. I cannot find more that passing mentions in my WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and not enough coverage to meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone may have thought Matera was eligible for his own article because he has been in two notable bands, but he has no coverage in his own right and he apparently has no notable activities outside the two bands. His membership in each is mentioned at their articles and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed from the article's talk page, it seems that the article's creator is also the article's subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosângela Lopes[edit]

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

This BLP does not appear to meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 15:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find anything about her other than the single FIBA source already in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when all we can say about a person is they were on a roster, and do not even say what games or how many games they played in, that is a pretty clear sign of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ramsay (Finnish football player)[edit]

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

Played in the 2nd and 3rd division of Finnish football, neither are professional. Lacks significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source used is transfermarkt which is not reliable. If he plays in a professional league, yes we should keep it but not now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and old NFOOTBALL. confirmed by SW. Giant Snowman 19:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:24, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Destinations[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows do not get an automatic notability freebie just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed -- the notability test is not "it exists", but "it received media coverage to establish that it was seen as significant". But the only footnote here is a directory entry, not analytical coverage about the show, and the article has been flagged for that problem for a full decade without ever having a single new source added.
Note that the result of the first discussion in 2012 is not definitive: our notability and sourcing standards have evolved considerably in the past decade, nobody ever even attempted to add even one of the claimed sources that got the article kept the first time, and following the proffered Google search link now, I mainly just see glancing namechecks of the show's existence in coverage of bikini models, with very little evidence of coverage that's actually about the show in any non-trivial sense. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The length of the show's run is less important than the utter lack of sourcing. "Bikini Destinations" + "HDNet" and "Bikini Destinations" + "Casey Bennett" both turned up absolutely nothing on GNews, GBooks, or Newspapers.com. This is a similar scenario to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMT Hot Twenty, where a show that has been ongoing since 2013 had its article deleted due to a complete lack of sourcing. Given the precedent of that AFD alone, I think it's enough to call time on this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none appears likely to emerge given the discussion has been open for three weeks. We have two core issues here: access to non-English sourcing inhibiting further input, and question about the RS status of Sina. While the latter has received extensive discussion and appears to have been resolved, I don't see any indication that further input is forthcoming. This can be re-nominated at a time when more input is likely. Star Mississippi 14:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Hu Jiang (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Failure to launch. Mediocre. scope_creep^Talk 13:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Taiwan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Significant coverage:
  1. 褚姵君 (2009-10-28). "武虎將被迫剩4個硬踢走博焱" [Wu Hu Jiang. Forced to leave, 4 left. Kicked Bo Yan away.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C1.
  2. 鱼鱼 (2009-09-11). "武虎将不怕打斗怕泡妞寺唯宏正放弃学业(图)" [Wu Hu Jiang is not afraid of fighting, is afraid of picking up girls. Si Weihong is giving up his studies (Photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-03-21. Retrieved 2022-03-21.
    The article was published by Sina Corporation's Entertainment division (Chinese: 新浪娱乐). I consider this to be a sufficiently reliable source in the same vein as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC).
    The article notes: "According to Hong Kong media reports, the Taiwanese group Wu Hu Jiang will be very good at everything in the new drama, but they feel that it is not difficult to shoot fighting scenes, but it is more difficult to go out with girls". I was unable to find these Hong Kong media reports, but this demonstrates there is offline coverage of Wu Hu Jiang in Hong Kong.
  3. 王筱君 (2011-01-01). "武虎將解散跨完年bye bye: 胡宇崴變豬哥亮師弟寺唯宏正恐接兵單" [Wu Hu Jiang will be disbanded, bye bye after the new year: George Hu turns into apprentice Chu Ke-liang. Si Wei Hong is afraid of receiving army order]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C2.
  4. 楊起鳳 (2009-09-12). "武虎將送紅內褲祝陶子敲鐘" [Wu Hu Jiang will give red underwear as a gift and wish Matilda Tao ring the bell]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C1.
  5. 褚姵君 (2010-02-01). "武虎將宣傳待遇輸飛輪海" [Wu Hu Jiang promotion. In how they were treated, they lost to Fahrenheit]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C2.
2. Less significant coverage or passing mentions:
  1. 阿L (2009-08-13). "【漫博 09】藝人團體「武虎將」站台動畫《噬魂者》Cosplay 大賽" [[Comic expo] Artist group "Wu Hu Jiang" rally for animation "Soul Eater" Cosplay Contest]. gamer.com.tw [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-21. Retrieved 2022-03-21.
  2. "强辩、武虎将、东城卫三团拍《对手》MV" [Champion Band, Wu Hu Jiang, and Dong Cheng Wei: three groups filmed the MV for "Rival"] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2009-03-12. Archived from the original on 2022-03-21. Retrieved 2022-03-21.
  3. "胡宇威" [George Hu]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-21. Retrieved 2022-03-21.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Hu Jiang (traditional Chinese: 武虎將; simplified Chinese: 武虎将) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1.2, 2.2 are non-RS as they are unreliable. They rest a classic PR and routine coverage for a band that were too mediocre to succeed. What you consider reliable is unimportant. Only the reliable sources noticeboard decides that. scope_creep^Talk 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, please do not edit my comment to strike out the Sina Entertainment sources I had provided. On what basis are the Sina Entertainment sources unreliable? I consider this to be a sufficiently reliable source in the same vein as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC). I do not consider articles spanning several years in the reliable newspaper United Daily News to be "classic PR and routine coverage". Cunard (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2nd time, the RS noticeboard decides what is notable through consensus. There is script that tells you whether it is RS or not and gives you a visual indication to tell you. It is NON-RS. You saying it is considered reliable, is outside consensus and is WP:DISRUPTIVE. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What script tells you the Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable? I do not have this script and do not agree with this script's saying the source is unreliable. On what basis is the script saying the Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable? Please provide links to the WP:RSN discussions where it was determined Sina Entertainment was unreliable. I did not find any such consensus. Cunard (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Script noticeboard or the AFC/NPP noticeboard will tell you. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of either of those. Please link to them so we can see whether they are proper policy- and guideline-determining noticeboards, rather than something dreamt up by busibodies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not aware of any consensus that marks Sina as unreliable, the only RSN discussions I know of is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#RfC: Sina.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356#Sohu and Sina, which basically classified it as a news aggregator with no consensus on it's reliability.Jumpytoo Talk 01:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that Sina Corporation both publishes original content (the two Sina Entertainment sources listed here) and reprints (with credit) articles from other publications. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is related discussion on the talk page at Talk:Wu Hu Jiang (band)#Removal of two Sina Entertainment sources. I consider Sina Entertainment to have similar reliability as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC). I see no consensus that Sina Entertainment sources cannot be used to establish notability and cannot be used to cite information in articles. Scope creep, as you are making the claim that Sina is unreliable, I request that you provide evidence for the assertion that there is consensus that Sina Entertainment is unreliable. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are unreliable sources so they non-RS. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've said that already. What you are being asked for is evidence that it's true, which it may or may not be, but we just don't know at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: You know, every time I meet you, you never assume WP:AGF. The simplly haven't seen it is because you don't review any article at AFC/NPP. Your's views are widely known on this point. So i'll repeat it just for you. The two sources above, when you hover over them, a dialog come ups that says "Generally unreliable source". So they are Non-RS. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and Cunard are in disagreement with each other, so, by very simple logic, one of you has to be wrong about this source. Acknowledging that is not a failure to assume good faith, but what any rational person would do. I have no idea which of you is wrong, but it would help enormously in deciding that if you could simply link to the discussion where it was decided that this source is unreliable, rather than go on about a tooltip whose provenance I have no idea of. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use the script because your not in those groups. All I know is the script has been on the go 4-6 years and its accurate. I'll go through the rest of the references tommorrw. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Headbomb's script (didn't think of that earlier, brainfart)? Per WP:UPSD it says This is not a tool to be mindlessly used, It does not answer whether a source should be used or not and It is not perfect. Pinging @Headbomb: to see if they can clarify why their script is marking Sina as unreliable. Jumpytoo Talk 17:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are relying on your membership of a (superior?) group to determine whether a source is reliable, rather than WP:CONSENSUS? I'm perfectly happy to accept that this source is unreliable, but only on the basis of evidence, which hopefully Headbomb will provide as getting that information from you seems impossible. Your attitude is no different from someone claiming that content should exist in an article because it came up on a Google search. I always assume good faith, so you probably really believe that you are making a valid point, but you have displayed your incompetence here, so there's no need to assume anything about your competence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sina should have been in yellow (depends on contributor/topic), not red. I've updated my script accordingly. That said, on original content published by Sina (rather than simply aggregated), people did not seem to be impressed in bothWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#RfC: Sina.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356#Sohu and Sina. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions seems to be nearly all about Sina as a news aggregator, and make no judgement of the reliability of Sina Entertainment that appears to generate its own content. To determine any consensus people should read the disclaimers in WP:UPSD, and start a proper discussion at WP:RS/N about Sina Entertainment if they think it should be deprecated. We could have been here sooner if people had treated this as a discussion rather than a battleground and simply given straight answers to straight questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with the edit below) I have just noticed that the nominator said "only the reliable sources noticeboard decides that" when the reliable sources noticeboard said nothing of the sort. I had assumed good faith, but that assumption seems to have been incorrect. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I didn't know who wrote the script. I use about a dozen or more on a daily basis and don't know who wrote any of them. I did say at the top to ask around. scope_creep^Talk 20:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you were lying when you said that you had evidence that this source was not notable. The "only following the script" defence is not accepted here, or anywhere else for that matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: "So you admit that you were lying" this sort of language isn't helpful (see WP:CIVIL). Focus on the issues, not the people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the sources to the article based on the discussion in this AfD that no WP:RSN or other discussion has concluded that Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources found by Cunard. Passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC) This editor has been indefinitly blocked for making personal attacks and not here. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says:
Striking out text (e.g., <del>...</del>) constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline.
...
Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.
The talk page guidelines do not mention "striking" anywhere else on the page. The talk page guidelines do not support striking the comment of an editor who has been blocked for a non-sockpuppetry reason, so I oppose striking VocalIndia's comment which I view as made in good faith.
Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination of the references:
Ref 8: [7] Clickbait site, typical of new band. Looks like PR designed to introduce the band. Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No

Ref 7: [8] Event listing. Likely Non-RS. Secondary:No Reliable:Yes, In-Depth:No

Ref 6 [9] This is more PR. The album will be available for pre-order on 3/18. Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No

Ref 5 Can't find it.

Ref 4 The reference trans text reads like more PR. I would suggest Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No

Ref 3 [10] Another clickbait site, part interview part PR. Secondary:No Reliable:No, In-Depth:No

Ref 1 and 2 looks similar coverage for a new band that constitute PR to launch the new band. Marketing. I'm assuming the reference entries above are the same as the refs in the article. However, none of it costitutes in-depth coverage as band hasn't been in existance for long. Its all PR. They were on the go for less than 2 years and have no historical or encylopeadic value to Wikipedia readers. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The four United Daily News sources, which were published in 2019, 2010, and 2011 and are not publicly available, provide significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject and are not PR sources. The 2009 Sina Entertainment article provides detailed coverage about the band's performances in the TV series K.O.3an Guo and discusses how they "are increasingly famous in Hong Kong, and there are many fans chasing cars when they go to Hong Kong to promote". The Sina article further notes that Hong Kong publications also covered the band. Although the band was not in existence for very long, it received sustained significant coverage in the two years it was in existence so it passes Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Cunard (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, based on the sources in and added to the article by Cunard. Thanks 117.18.230.60 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA editor who has made no contributions to wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade[edit]

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

Article contains virtually no citations, and none of them are to reliable sources. Any useful information, if properly sorted, can be added to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep The article was very weak, but it's really easy to find lots of information on them. I did so and added some. This article needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of your additions provide WP:SIGCOV of this group. Your first is literally just a random image you found, your second is a Supreme Court case, and the third is an article about the actions of a few party members, but provides no detail into the organization itself nor any detail beyond the fact that it exists. WP:GNG requires multiple sources providing significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the truth in your point, most of these are passing mentions, but the first one is front page coverage of their launch/founding in a publication. So respecting the rest are passing mentions, I'm going to downgrade to "weak keep" but I still think more effort could be made to improve this article, and that there is at least one in depth piece of coverage. CT55555 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply existing is not evidence of notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sources added thus far fall well below that threshold. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an apparent lack of WP:BEFORE and, worth repeating, the extent of sources added or not added has no bearing on notability. The existence of Texas v Johnson alone is reason enough to keep; the point is that while Johnson himself is notable, the whole reason Johnson (the case) exists is because of the praxis of the RCYB.^[1]^[2]^[3] ... but beyond that, 2,000+ hits on Newspapers.com over a 30 year period between 1975-2005, some examples: LA Times (1990),^[4] The Times (Munster, Indiana) (2001),^[5] St Louis Dispatch (1980),^[6] Tampa Tribune (1978)^[7]

References

^ Welch, Michael (March 1993). "The flag-burning controversy: Protection of a venerated object as social control". American Journal of Criminal Justice. 17 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1007/BF02887626.
^ Goldstein, Robert Justin (1999). "The Revolutionary Communist Party and Flag Burning During Its Forgotten Years, 1974–1989:". Raven: A Journal of Vexillology. 6: 19–40. doi:10.5840/raven199963.
^ "5 Arrested After Flags Are Burned Protest: - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Los Angeles Times. 9 July 1990.
^ Hernandez, Marita (12 June 1990). "Group accuses police of brutality". Los Angeles Times.
^ Mone, John (27 May 2001). "CHA Residents Unite Behind Group: Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade fighting against redevelopment, police brutality". The Times (Munster, Indiana).
^ Stroud, Jerri (18 March 1980). "Man jailed for putting up communist poster". St Louis Dispatch.
^ Gerard, Eric (6 September 1978). "Mao portrait previewed on USF lawn". Tampa Tribune.

Easily passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources appear to provide in-depth coverage of the group. Some relate to the parent political party and only mention this group in passing. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like with all orgs, acknowledging existence is not equal to WP:SIGCOV and is not sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's independent, reliable source, significant coverage from hundreds of newspapers, I've cited four from across a 20 year period. This is a clear pass of NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence provided by Goldsztajn.--User:Namiba 12:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmartLynx Airlines Estonia Flight 9001[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A minor accident (a training flight gone wrong, no casualties) without WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Plus the absence of any citations. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively minor incident. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A rather minor incident with no casualties. ExRat (talk) 18:33, 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 redirect to Reform Party (New Jersey). The subject is already covered in the other article, making this an unnecessary fork. A cursory glance seems to show that page seems to be adequately sourced which should address the concerns of the "delete" votes in this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of New Jersey[edit]

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the uncited material (i.e. 90%) of it and rebuilt it based on what I found from doing WP:BEFORE type searching. CT55555 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the Patch source only mentions the party's membership, and the other added source is to the party itself. Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've commented rather than voted, because I'm not saying this is enough. I'm hoping that my efforts might motivate others to consider improvement, if possible, as a preferable option over deleting. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remains unclear what the relationship is to New Jersey Reform Party, but that could be explored and potentially merged if indeed there is one.Djflem (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above. An editor has attempted to locate significant coverage in reliable sources and been unable to do so. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and commendable efforts by user CT55555. Would not object to a merge to a related article as an WP:ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1085141.html Djflem (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Can you elaborate? AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From source:

"Plaintiff Reform Party of New Jersey is best known through H. Ross Perot's campaign for the Presidency in 1992 and 1996. Perot received 15.6 percent of the popular vote in New Jersey in 1992 and 8.52 percent of the popular vote in New Jersey in 1996.

The Reform Party focuses on campaign finance and election reform in order to open the political system to new voices, and on fiscal reform issues directed at ending deficit spending. In 2000, the Reform Party presented Pat Buchanan as its candidate for President, Pat DiNizio as its candidate for U.S. Senator, and several candidates for the House of Representatives. The Reform Party of New Jersey has never presented a candidate for Governor or State Senate.

The Reform Party had two Assembly candidates in 1997 who received 0.04 percent of the total votes cast. In 1998, the Reform Party ran two congressional candidates in New Jersey. These candidates earned 0.09 percent of the votes. In the 1999 general election, the Reform Party had one Assembly candidate and two other candidates using similar designations.

The Reform Party presently has approximately 275 enrolled members in New Jersey. These dues-paying members hold elections for officers and organize a steering committee at an annual convention..."

Djflem (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of the court judgement to this AfD discussion, although the bit about having 275 enrolled members and their two state candidates winning 0.04% of the vote may be helpful to the discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The party was among plaintiffs in a case which eventually brought about changes in state election laws and ballot access. That's relevant. What continues to remain unclear is the relationship to [[New Jersey Reform Party, where similar claims are made. Are they one and the same? Djflem (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a plaintiff in a lawsuit is not remotely evidence of notability. Notice your summary doesn't even mention them having any notable activity outside of Ross Perot's federal campaign, and it's not even a reliable, independent source - it's just a court document. Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What did you come up with New Jersey Reform Party and the Reform Party of New Jersey, which certainly you explored when doing a proper one BEFORE for this nomination? Djflem (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nothing. That's why I nominated this. And the lack of sources from you proves me right. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain away this:

"Welcome to the New Jersey Reform Party". newjersey.reformparty.org. Archived from the original on 31 October 2000. Retrieved 13 April 2022., which as a header says New Jersey Reform Party, but then as an address offers Reform Party of New Jersey?

Benjamin, Pat, The Perot Legacy: A New Political Path, 2013, ISBN 9781614484738, which uses both names? Djflem (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Court rulings are certainly reliable sources.

COUNCIL OF ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PARTIES CAPP v. New Jersey Republican State Committee and New Jersey Democratic State Committee, Intervenors-Appellants, A-5698-99T5, A-5701-99T5.1 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division September 10, 2001)., which states:

20. Plaintiff Reform Party is incorporated as two distinct organizations. The Reform Party, a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation (“Reform Party Corporation”) has licensed the use of its name to its membership affiliate, the Third Party Membership organization, which has come to be known as the Reform Party of New Jersey (“Reform Party”).

21. Both the Reform Party Corporation and Reform Party are organized for political purposes under Title 15A of the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Law. Djflem (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A court document is a primary source, not secondary. It's irrelevant per WP:SIGCOV. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PRIMARY describes the use of primary sources; Wikipedia:Verifiability is important for facts and in making determination in AFD. Verifiability is crucial here since it's clear that there are two articles which seem to be discussing the same topic (Reform Party of New Jersey and New Jersey Reform Party), which has not been addressed.Djflem (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out you said keep per this court document. I'm saying the court document does not assist in demonstrating notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about notability would arise after verifiability has been established. Djflem (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect>>>>Reform Party (New Jersey).Djflem (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. 275 members out of a population of over 9 million is pathetic and does not show notability. Still less a 0.04% election result. The party deserves note as the (unimpressive) successor of the previous Reform Party, but not a standalone page. Nwhyte (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. Created by a sockpuppet of Jmaxwell10. firefly ( t · c ) 08:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Carter[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they've had roles -- the notability test for an actor is not "the article has a list of acting roles present in it", but "the article has reliable sources in it to support the significance of at least some of his roles".
But of the 10 sources here (11 footnotes, but one source is reduplicated twice as two separate footnotes instead of using proper name-and-callback format), nine are blogs that are not support for notability at all -- and the only one that comes from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet (Variety) is just a short casting blurb not substantive enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only acceptable source he's got.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better sourcing for it than just blogs, but nothing stated here now is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous AfD with "no consensus" featured arguments such as "We had a State Conference just prior to Christmas 2009." as rationale for keeping. Not notable as a separate organisation and notability is not inherited from the national party. AusLondonder (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate this is an actual notable political party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I don't see anything worth preserving by merging to Reform Party of the United States of America#Active state affiliates as an ATD. The latest membership is outdated as shown from 2012. The organizations website appears to have been last active in 2014. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:45, 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 14:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Florida[edit]

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

Non-notable political party that appears to never have achieved ballot access, let alone winning an election. Appears to have received no coverage in any reliable sources, failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article in woeful state regarding a completely non-notable political party. Zero evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and User:AusLondonder as non-notable political party. Could not find independent significant coverage. The article presently has three primary sources and a drop-in advertisement for the SPLC.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 19:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Legrand (resistance leader)[edit]

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

The only source we have on Legrand is a database of Holocaust survivors and victims. The Holocaust had something like 11 million victims (Legrand was not as far as I can tell a member of one of the two ethnicities that Hitler was trying to elimanate, so the database is unsing the term for the estimated 11 million or so), and I have no idea excatly how they define "survivor", is that everyone who was detained by Germany from 1933-1945, does it include people who were marked as victims and under Nazi control, but who were successfully hidden and never detained, does it include people who had their property taken or destroyed based on their ethnicity in the 1930s but emigrated before things got bad, does it include people who were removed from their profession based on ethnicity and emigrated immediately after, however it is defined it is seeking to collect the names of a huge swath of people with no consideration for notability or impact, and so is not a source that being in adds towards passing GNG. I was unable to find any other sources. It probably does not matter, but there is no article in the French Wikipedia on this person either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure yet, but I'm finding a fair number of hits off the bat with a quick search. He appears to have a connection to Samuel Beckett's resistance activities (ex here and here), as well as Virginia Hall's (examples here and here), and in terms of collaborator-priest Robert Alesch who infiltrated the resistance group that LeGrand ran (ex here). Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have so far added 8 new references. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of the citations added by GPL93 I would consider this leader of a notable resistance movement in the second world war to be notable as per GNG. CT55555 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the much-improved sourcing (with thanks due to GPL93). Atchom (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on added sources. Ingratis (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll dissent. The article has been improved, but it's cobbled from few mentions in passing. WP:SIGCOV is not met. What other source, if any, even published a biographical note about him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions are not few. I'm going mostly off Google Book previews, but Legrand appears to have mentions on multiple pages on pretty much any book on the activities Virginia Hall and Germaine Tillion, and also any biography of Samuel Beckett that includes his WWII activities. The Musee de la Resistance source, despite the title being the other Réseau Gloria founder, contains an equal amount of biographical information about Legrand. Best, GPL93 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep beyond the rather curious nomination, there are now enough sources to convince me that there's coverage - and very likely to be additional coverage in offline sources as well. At the very worst this should always have been a merge to Réseau Gloria and I'm struggling to understand why this was brought to AfD when that obvious alternative existed. As it is, doing so has produce a much better article, so I suppose that's some justification for the AfD process. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:04, 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 14:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ampaire Shakira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, assuming Chess to be a sport. Fails WP:ANYBIO. AT least one reference doesn't mention her. Others show she exists, not that she is notable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any substantial coverage that could justify subject's notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS. DMySon (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not received significant coverage (compare with Phiona Mutesi whose playing strength is similar but has a lot more coverage in reliable sources). Chess does not come under WP:NSPORT (we tried) but there is a WikiProject guideline, WP:NCHESS, which she doesn't meet either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Pandey[edit]

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

I don't see how this person is significant, lacks significant non-promotional independent coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Sustainable Development Forum[edit]

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

Failed to find sources in a BEFORE. Fails WP:NORG. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Good Game (TV program)#Kapowski. ✗plicit 11:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Makowski[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Could be a redirect to the defunct TV show that he was once briefly a part of. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Good Game (TV program)#Kapowski as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Good Game (TV program)#Kapowski as a WP:ATD. Unable and unlikely to find WP:RS outside of Good Game. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:06, 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 withdrawn, per WP:HEY. BD2412 T 04:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Larkin (novelist)[edit]

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

Tagged BLP-sources for over a decade. The single book review offered as a source does not establish notability for the subject as one of a series of coauthors engaged with notable author Larry Bond (from whom the subject can not inherit notability). Unsourced claim of having written "background information" for a boardgame does not add to notability. BD2412 T 02:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like the article was copied from here almost verbatim, so it's a copyvio issue. That aside, it looks like he's primarily known for his work with Bond, so my initial thought is to turn this into a redirect to Bond's article and add a sentence saying that he's collaborated with Bond. (Sounds like a nice way to say "ghostwriter".) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant towards ghostwriters, just that a lot of authors don't want to admit that they use them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: I don't think there is any particular basis to doubt that Larry Bond was the lead writer on his books. BD2412 T 19:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Larry Bond. That's his major claim to fame, as far as RS goes. He's mentioned in reviews, which is why I would say he should be included somewhere, but I don't know if the sourcing is enough to justify a separate article at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
1. Piippo, Laurel (1989-12-17). "Tri-Citian hits with 'Red Phoenix'". Tri-City Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Despite rocketing onto the New York Times best seller list for 15 weeks with his first book, Red Phoenix, Pat Larkin left the East Coast and his co-author Larry Bond and moved to San Francisco. ... At age 29, Larkin, a 1978 Kennewick High School graduate from, launched Red Phoenix, a military techno thriller. The book has Larry Bond's name on the cover, but as co-authors, Larkin and Bond each received a $150,000 advance and started on the book in 1987."
  The article further notes: "Writing the political chapters, Larkin drew on his experience working for three years in Washington, D.C., where he wrote speeches for 140 Republican congressmen. One of a staff of 14, Larkin's job was putting together briefing papers on issues similar to what character Blake Fowler does in Red Phoenix ..."
  The article further notes: "Anyone who thinks Larkin is an apprentice or subordinate or learner because his name is not on the cover quickly should be disabused of that notion by $500000. It purely was a marketing decision by the publishers, who wanted to keep only one name on the cover."
2. Sliwa, Carol. (1992-10-15). "And now a word from the other Patrick Larkin" (pages 1 and 2). The Berkshire Eagle. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
  The article notes: "Larkin went on to write speeches for former Secretary of Energy John Herrington, and then served as a speech writer for Pacific Gas & Electric in San Francisco before moving into more lucrative work. He now co-writes 'military thrillers' with Larry Bond. He said both of their books, 'Red Phoenix' and 'Vortex,' hit the New York Times best seller list as well as a variety of local lists. His third book has just been completed."
3. Fordham, Alice (2007-04-07). "You write it - we'll fill in the words". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-09-27. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
  The article notes: "Thriller writing does have a long history of collaboration. Twenty years ago Patrick Larkin was writing thrillers with Larry Bond, including The Enemy Within, but, as Larkin says: “In those days, it was quite unusual to have two names appearing on the front of the book, so Larry’s name went on.” Crucially, however: “We split the money right down the middle.” ... Also, while the co-writers have much to do in the way of knocking out the words, they might have less creative input than when Larkin was writing collaboratively. ... When Larkin worked on the posthumous Robert Ludlum series, the brief was even more specific. The editors suggested a plot outline, and the deadline was so tight that Larkin had little time to worry too much about getting the voice just right."
4. "Patrick Larkin". Gale. 2007. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
  The article notes: "Career: Novelist, researcher, and speechwriter. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, researcher. Has also worked as a political and corporate speechwriter. ... Also author of adventure modules for the Star Trek role-playing game and of background history for the Battletech universe. ... Novelist Patrick Larkin has authored original novels, coauthored uncredited novels with collaborator Larry Bond, and authored installments in Robert Ludlum's "Covert-One" series."
5. Book reviews:
  1. Champion, Brian (1993-09-26). "Technothrillers alive and well; Grand-daddy of the genre finds new regions for excitement". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    The book review notes: "A better read is Larry Bond's Cauldron. Bond was the unacknowledged co-author of Clancy's Hunt for Red October, and for some reason Cauldron co-author Patrick Larkin gets all the kudos (in the preface) but none of the credit (on the book jacket)."
  2. Cannon, Margaret (2005-08-06). "A midsummer's mass of murders". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    The book review notes: "Robert Ludlum's The Moscow Vector, by Patrick Larkin, St. Martin's, 416 pages, $22.95. This fat tome is the latest in the Covert-One series, which makes liberal use of the late Robert Ludlum's name. "Robert Ludlum's," "Series Created by Robert Ludlum" etc. The actual author is Patrick Larkin, and while he may be channelling Ludlum's spirit, he's not imbued with Ludlum's talent."
  3. "Robert Ludlum's The Lazarus Vendetta". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 40. 2004-10-04. ISSN 0000-0019. EBSCOhost 14625406. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
    The article notes: "Larkin (The Tribune ) picks up the reins for the fifth entry in the Ludlum-spawned Covert-One biotech series (The Altman Code ; etc.), ..."
  4. Allen, Paul (2005-01-29). "Ludlum still pulling the thriller strings". Coventry Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06 – via Gale.
    The book review notes: "The Lazarus Vendetta by Robert Ludlum and Patrick Larkin (Orion, pounds 12.99) ... Reputedly based on ideas left behind by the master thriller writer on his death in 2001, it stitches together the modern world's major obsessions - terrorism, eco-warriors and the ever-more pervasive effect of technological research."
  5. Kessel, Joyce (2005-11-15). "Larkin, Patrick. Robert Ludlum's The Moscow Vector". Library Journal. Vol. 130, no. 19. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06 – via Gale.
    The book review notes: "Larkin, the author of Ludlum's The Lazarus Vendetta, again deals with bioterrorism and the secret superspy/doctor Lt. Col. Jon Smith."
  6. Cohen, George (August 2005). "Larkin, Patrick. Robert Ludlum's The Moscow Vector". Booklist. Vol. 101, no. 22. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
    The book review notes: "Although Larkin is the actual author of this novel, "Robert Ludlum" novels now include 26 books, the latter ones, of course, written after his death but in the strong tradition of the novels he wrote himself. This new one falls in the Covert-One Novel series, now numbering six; Larkin also wrote The Lazarus Vendetta (2004), also part of this series. Moscow is the setting, and Larkin occasionally uses Russian expressions to remind readers of the locale."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Patrick Larkin to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The updated article has enough citations to prove the subject meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's excellent save. Multiple notable books with Larkin clearly identified as an important author, I see a WP:NAUTHOR pass. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cunard's rewrite. Atchom (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Narrow consensus is that this meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Please refrain from name calling in AfD discussions! (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Holmes[edit]

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

I created this article years ago, but now that I re-examine it, I can't find any real coverage of the guy, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. He was the screenwriter for a couple of well-known prison films, but didn't win any awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, California, and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR #3 for his body of work. Some of the films, and especially I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, were major films of the decade, and not just as hits but as social justice films. Holmes had a hand in 20,000 Years in Sing Sing and its remake, Castle on the Hudson; the original Maltese Falcon and its adaptation of a sort, Satan Met a Lady. I found coverage of his marriage in a newspaper and will see if I can find an obituary and other coverage of his personal life... but it's the professional life that matters here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources constitute much more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, several of the sources I included single out his work, so they are more than passing mentions of his name. At least one source I added isn't linked but is directly quoted. The marriage notice its photo are more than passing mentions; he is one of the two subjects of that source. If what you mean is the sources are not feature articles about Holmes, no, they are not, but it was not typical for screenwriters of the era to have much coverage like a star would, unless they were media hounds, which Holmes appears not to be. Coverage of the work of the authors of films in reviews is of relevance. I'll make this into a clippings file of a bio, sure thing! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When his name only gets mentioned once or twice per source, that's pretty much the definition of passing mentions. Other than his credits, we don't know much about his activities: That's a big red flag, indicating he belongs in IMDb, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passing mention definition is not to do with the source being about the contributions of multiple elements to a whole. Nothing or next to nothing in a film review would be relevant to anyone in it if that were the case. But we can agree to disagree on the character of a significant mention. I'm not sure what other sources you'd expect to see for a journeyman writer. Writers and other studio staff were taken for granted. There may have been more coverage of his work had he kept at it into the 50s and 60s and got into television, but for whatever reason, he did not. And we're limited to the papers to which we have access. I don't have Variety at the moment, but there may be coverage there, and I'll try to head to a university over the weekend to dig something up... Red flag? What "activities" do you want to know about? The main biographically- and notability-relevant activities of interest other than his body of work for a person of his profession would be Communist activities, and I haven't found him listed as a communist anywhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that "journeymen writers" don't qualify for articles. That's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia or IMDb is a false dilemma.

There is no policy or precedence on Wikipedia that indicates that notability inclusion guidelines discriminate against professionals... or we'd have few BLPs. We have many articles on writers who wrote for a living, on writers who only entertained and informed millions of people, on writers whose films made a little or a lot of money and on whose words some actors' stardoms soared. Of course a writer "qualifies" if a he or she has such a body of work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, having a body of work doesn't suffice. As WP:BIO states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He has not received "significant coverage", not by a long shot. Also, Wikipedia or IMDb is a WP:STRAWMAN you have concocted; it has no bearing on anything. I merely stated that IMDb has much lower standards as to whom to cover. Holmes satisfies its bar, but not Wikipedia's. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In conjunction with the review coverage, silly. I'm done with you here, but I have another 50 or so articles to sort through. Bye. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I could use another week to make another trip to the university to search for him under a few more name combinations--see the article's talk page. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:08, 2 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!} 22:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second note to closer: there are not many participants in the AfD discussion, but the article is much improved from the unsourced stub it was when it was nominated. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: prolific writer maybe but fails WP:AUTHOR #3 which requires not only major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work but also in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I'm not seeing that in the multiple sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To counter that vote: passes WP:AUTHOR #3 because...

a) "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Co-writing many screenplays is a significant body of work. I don't know that you were arguing against this, so... just sayin'.

b) "and also in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". Yes, his screenplays were the basis of the notable films.

OR

c) "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". A couple dozen (give or take) film reviews that talk about the plotting, pacing, dialogue, and other writing elements, naming Holmes, are linked or cited in the article.

No movies without the writer. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR #3, at least for the 3 Academy Award Nominations movie, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, if not other movies too. Here is a book about the making of the movie[11]. And it has multiple independent periodical reviews[12] (the Variety link is broken, try this[13]). StrayBolt (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Beginning to lean towards keep, but~~ that particular film is problematic for the Keep position: WP:AUTHOR #3 ...
a) "major role in co-creating a significant... work". Selected for National Film Registry, so yes.

b) "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". No - there are no notable works about the film (according to our own article).

OR

c) "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". As I read the sources in I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang they are generally about the events and the people depicted; with mention of the movie being incidental.

Let me have a look at a few more - ~~it seems likely that there is a pass here but I just haven't seen it yet.~~ Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. We just interpret differently. I see the screenplay as a separate work from a completed film and it seems you are looking for a book or some other piece of significant meta. C. The events and the people depicted are the film, are they not? That is what a movie review does... Talk about the characters and plot... DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the 1931 Maltese Falcon: fails WP:AUTHOR #3 as not a significant work, no notable works about that film. Springnuts (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call any adaptation of The Maltese Falcon "not significant" enough for its writer. Plenty of works about Hammett might have mention of Holmes; let's start with: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dashiell_Hammett_and_the_Movies/ceWaBAAAQBAJ?hl=en and continue by looking up critical studies of Hammett, specifically the first two adaptations of TMF. And, while were at it, we can do some searches for info on the impact of I am a Fugitive on prison reform. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Critical reception" section to the film's article, slowly adding refs. StrayBolt (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added this detailed book to Further Reading for now: Nollen, Scott Allen (2016-09-22). The Making and Influence of I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6677-1. StrayBolt (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DiamondRemley39's analysis. Atchom (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to draftification if someone wants to work on this, but at the moment it seems TOOSOON for an event held only once. Star Mississippi 14:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Muslim History Month[edit]

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

Lack of WP:NEVENT, cannot find significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe We have provided authentic references including source by New York State Senate: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/J718 Mansoor Elahi (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe We have provided authentic references including source by New York State Senate: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/J718 Mansoor Elahi (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe We have provided authentic references including source by New York State Senate: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/J718 Mansoor Elahi (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe We have provided authentic references including source by New York State Senate: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/J718 Mansoor Elahi (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A New York State Senate bill is not a independent source and does not count towards notability. (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with independent sources. Mansoor Elahi (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added sources don't mention the topic (history month) and therefore don't count towards notability. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First reference is clearly mentioned the news about the topic which is in Malaysian language and i updated and translated the title to English. The source of the topic is from independent source. Mansoor Elahi (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One correction the news article is from Indonesia. Mansoor Elahi (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also translate the news page and will see the topic related contents. Mansoor Elahi (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This strikes me as a NN event, so far held once. I note the article has no category and is thus an orphan. I do not know if the bill was passed. If not, it would not be legislation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added one source, added categories, introduced links, created the talk page, normalized formatting, added short description and added project tags. I'm not sure on the AfD decision, but hope this helps. CT55555 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate improvements to the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Soft Systems Inc[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ promo blurb on a non-notable company. Sourcing consists of press release regurgitations and other routine business reporting. No point in draftifying, as WP:BEFORE search only finds more of the same, plus the usual social media and company directories. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article obviously fails both of these guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY and WP:ORGCRIT. When an article doesn't follow the general notability guideline, it should get deleted. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear fail under WP:NCORP guidelines. Edwardx (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete there's a clear consensus that the material is not appropriate for a standalone. I will subsequently redirect as it appears that it could be a valid search term and there is some overlap in the material as per Rorshacma's !vote and those talking about searching. There's no indication the material is suitable for merging. Star Mississippi 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vercingetorix in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list since its inception, when it was split from the main article rather than just removed as unreferenced fancruft as proper policy would dictate. It remains mostly an example farm of any possible mention of the person in fiction. The folk hero stuff is already cited in the main article so I'm not sure there's anything else salvageable in the article that would merit a merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching scholar for strings like "Vercingetorix depictions" (not in quotes) yields 1, 2, 3. That's neither exhaustive, nor does it encompass most of the contemporary issues reflected in the list as it stands, but demonstrates that this is a notable topic and the list could, obviously, stand to be cleaned up. Further, INDISCRIMINATE does not mean what the nom says, but that's an ongoing issue. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a prime example of how not to do WP:IPC. This is indeed an INDISCRIMINATE collection of often unremarkable or trivial appearances (for example, appearing in a video game like Civ, where the role is entirely insignificant to the overall gameplay). The few that aren't, and likely those that are discussed by scholars (although, again, "depiction" could also refer to artistic depictions like a sculpture or a painting). The main article on Vercingetorix is short enough that there really is no need to split what little amount of actually encyclopedic content there is into this WP:Listcruft page. The topic being possibly notable doesn't mean A) that it necessarily needs its own page (WP:NOPAGE) nor B) that it is exempt from WP:NOT (it isn't, end of story). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only actual legitimately sourced piece of information currently in the article, from the Dietler article, is already present in the main article on Vercingetorix. The rest of the information is poorly sourced and extremely trivial. Many of the entries are not even, as the lead in states, times that he has "appeared in works of popular culture" but simply times his name was merely mentioned or used for something else. While the corresponding section on the main article could be filled out with prose information, it appears to be unlikely that the subject is extensive enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT, and as the only sourced piece of information that would be worth preserving is already in the main article, there is no real reason for this to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is slight possibility this could be rescued with sources found by Jclemens, but WP:TNT applies for now (given the article doesn't show the topic meets WP:GNG, plus the trouble with unreferenced WP:V failing TVTrope fancrufty style. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim, improve, or merge for the time being: As has been shown, secondary sources on the topic exist. Also see here, and I'd like to quote: "The last section, occupying the final sixty or so pages, is of a fundamentally different stamp. ... and the semiotic significance of Vercingetorix and allied images of Gauls in French art and more popular culture ... over the last two centuries is developed".
The current version is mostly lacking secondary sources to distinguish notable from non-notable examples. The existence of trivial examples has been remarked, but when for the case of Civilization Vercingetorix is a minor, we have Celtic King: Rage of War where, according to the web magazines, Vercingetorix' is one of the two main perspectives. And if you take the example of Asterix, we see that we do have more non-trivial examples. So it's all problems which can be solved by editing. In addition, examples like the festival in Alise-Sainte-Reine should be preserved, so I don't see that WP:TNT applies here. If one has problems with the current state, non-sourced examples can be removed until such time as someone puts in the work of checking for sources. That would lead to a temporarily stubby article, so I have no objections to a merge inbetween. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that even if there is some coverage about it, that doesn't necessarily always justify a page, especially if it can be covered in sufficient depth and detail on the parent article (WP:NOPAGE). On top of that, besides the TV-trope style fancruft listing, there isn't anything else to that page. The sources can be used to improve the relevant section on the main article, but there's no reason to keep this, which contains little useful information for that purpose anyways. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: "The sources can be used to improve the relevant section on the main article, but ..." Sounds exactly like an argument for a merge rather than delete to me. If we delete, both the sources that have been dug up and the information they reference is simply lost (except to admins), and can then no longer be used "to improve ... the main article". Daranios (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The useful sources are all listed at this AfD. The rest of the content is not useful as it is mere listcruft. You don't need it to start writing actual prose based o the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: "The useful sources are all listed at this AfD." If you think so, I guess we disagree on if e.g. the examples of Asterix, Celtic King: Rage of War and the Alise-Sainte-Reine festival should have a place on Wikipedia or not; their sources are not listed here, but only in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of including in the main article. Jacona (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... you mean merge then, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Delete. The information may or not be included at Vercingetorix, but that is a discussion for that article.Jacona (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want to throw away content that might be reused elsewhere, rather than following protocols per WP:CWW? That's kind of WP:NOTHEREish, wouldn't you say? Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, virtually any vote for deletion of any article is nothere. Jacona (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Vercingetorix. He was a major figure in the Gallic resistance to Caesar, as recounted in his Gallic Wars. As such, there is a legacy, generated by French nationalism, seeking to treat him as an earlier nationalist and an anti-Roman. That is a legitimate topic to be included briefly in the main article. The equivalent in England is Boudicca and in Germany Herman. When I first edited WP (long ago) many articles had popular culture section, which collected up allusions to the subject of the article, in film, TV shows, literature, songs, etc. These sections were generally deleted en masse long ago. We should not encourage their reinvention. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator did a whole bunch of these a decade and a bit ago, and a whole bunch of them have been deleted or redirected, including Syrinx in popular culture (AfD discussion) and the inexplicable Clint Eastwood in popular culture (AfD discussion). Looking at how little the article has changed in 13 years, it seems that this is just more of the same. Asterix, the films, and whatnot are all in the main article's edit history at Special:Permalink/272466997#Popular culture. The statues are in fact still in the main article. The arguments about how there's a silly way and a sensible way to do this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercingetorix in popular culture are compelling. 13 years on, we still have the silly way, largely unimproved, and have made no progress towards the sensible. Sweeping bad content under the rug into another article has never worked. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: "Asterix, the films, and whatnot are all in the main article's edit history". The corresponding secondary sources which are present here, and whose absence is often lamented, are not in the main article's history. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with Jacona on that. This content was removed because it was poor in the first place. There's no reason to think that Asterix belongs anywhere here at all. You would have been wiser to add your sources to List of Asterix characters#Historical figures, which is the place where the character in the comic actually belongs, and where it has been since 2008 before this bad article was even created. Lament that you didn't do it there, where it is still genuinely needed, not in this useless cargo-cult sweep-under-the-rug dump. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks proper sourcing and fails the WP:GNG. It's an original compilation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE examples instead of a WP:SUMMARY of what reliable sources have said. I wouldn't rule out an article about a similar topic, but there's nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuvan Bam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

End-to-end WP:PROMO, Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. WP:UPE and WP:SPA suspected

1. The reliable source articles are written by public not a official press staff. 2. This article content is mostly a promotional and looks like paid written. 3. He is one of the thousands Youtuber in India. Some coverage in the entertainment news portals as he was a grumpy. Religiousmyth (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 27.58.169.159 (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 27.58.169.159 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 27.58.169.159 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep AFD is not cleanup. Plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources that were not written by "public", including articles in The Hindu [14] and a Rolling Stone India cover story [15]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: I agree with what Ohnoitsjamie says. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Some coverage in the entertainment news portals as he was a grumpy - I wonder how the nominator knows this. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Surely agreeing with Ohnoitsjamie and Itcouldbepossible. The subject clearly passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG as well as WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's on The Cover of "Rolling Stone"! [16]. No need to look further. Jacona (talk) 09:20, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter Drmies (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Winkel[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced stub on a non-notable actor, whose only claim to fame seems to be appearance in a (likely non-notable) film. The sources listed (not cited) are non-RS, and a search finds nothing beyond social media and directory listings. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP:Basic or WP: GNG. No independent content that makes case for inclusion. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She was most notably known"--who writes that kind of stuff? Answer: a fan, or a sock, or both. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assi Nabbe Poorey Sau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased film since 2013 which lacks significant coverage on production to meet WP:NFF. No GNG-worthy sources found in WP:BEFORE. Ab207 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Onmyway22 talk 18:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No chance a subject in this condition passes notability. 114.125.125.172 (talk) 01:08, 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 redirect to Tegna Inc.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G/O Digital[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP. A small common business type. No historical value scope_creep^Talk 05:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Arizona, and Tennessee. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on parent Tegna Inc.. There is not much in this article, but it says the most operations were discontinued in 2018 and what was left became "TEGNA Marketing Solutions". The Tegna article does not reflect this, just saying it "owns" G/O, so it should be updated. MB 14:25, 31 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!} 06:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: A poorly-sourced article on a formerly-distinctly-named unit of Tegna Inc., with no indication that it ever attained distinct notability. As suggested above, some form of update might be applied to the information in the History and Properties/Digital sites sections there, but would require some coverage for the changes, which seems wanting. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tegna Inc.. MarioGom (talk) 17:09, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muntazah Oryx Investments[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a hoax created by some friends and I for a school project several years ago. Note all the expired references and external links and the lack of sources (that aren't simply copies of this article) available on this topic from a google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisit90 (talk • contribs) — Revisit90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether it was created as a hoax, an internet search shows that this is an obvious fail of WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a platform for creating hoaxes. At 8 years is that long enough to enter in the hoax records, or have we had too many last over 15 years to still care about any hoax less than 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly looks to be a hoax, unfortunately. Either way, there is zero coverage about this supposed company. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 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!} 05:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Asante (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A search for coverage found little significant coverage. There's one Guardian article, but search comes up with many namesakes like an attorney in the USA. The Chortle Student Comedy Award is hardly a major award. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has had some modest success (minor award in 2012), but falls far short of meeting WP:GNG. Has had ten years since for WP:SIGCOV to emerge, but I cannot find any. Edwardx (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Nothing substantial after an extended period of opportunity to establish notability, as previously stated. NiklausGerard (talk) 07:03, 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 no consensus. Sourcing is light, but not non-existent and reasonable arguments on both sides as to the notability of Olympic athletes in general have been made. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gill (gymnast)[edit]

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

He competed as part of a team of 45 British Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming last, with us knowing little beyond that.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

A search of Welsh Newspaper archives shows a few passing mentions as "H Gill", but nothing significant. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His bio has extensive info about him, including being club captain of his gymnast team, serving in WWI in France/Belgium, being a member of the council and later serving 12 months in prison. The claim of "and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" is incorrect. It doesn't violate any of the four points detailed at WP:NOTDATABASE. The article does put into context the subject, and has a reference to an independent source. If nothing else can be found on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Olympia is the type of source that never adds towards passing GNG because it is so comprehensive. Unless someone can identify other sources that cover him in detail, this is not enough to justify an article. Serving in World War I for example is not at all something that adds towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO per biography here and sources by User:Lugnuts. Especially interesting is that he later went to jail. This is not common among Olympians. Absolutely no WP:BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ANYBIO #3 requires an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Olympedia is not a country's standard national biographical dictionary, and as they seek to document every Olympian coverage of Olympians within Olympedia is WP:ROUTINE. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - ROUTINE does not apply to people, see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As BeanieFan11 points out, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to biographies. Per WP:NOTROUTINE: bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. Each person and biography is unique. As pointed out before, Gill is especially unique! Olympedia.org is registered in the UK and is developed by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians, also centered in the UK. It also has international coverage but Gill is not part of that international coverage. Gill represented Great Britain, here the UK, in the 1908 Summer Olympics. ANYBIO is met with no WP:BLP concern! gidonb (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My keep is also by the WP:GNG. Per said biography and source identified by User:Bungle. Since we established that multiple WP:RS, WP:INDEPTH and WP:V sources exist, the nomination can be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I'm not sure we can say that "multiple" sources exist that demonstrate notability. I have seen biographical articles with greater depth of coverage deleted before now. The news article I found about the embezzlement verifies this aspect of his biography and probably contributes meaningfully, but I remain unconvinced there is a sufficient amount of significant coverage for this to be an indisputable keep. I'd like to say otherwise, as I am keen to expand articles of this nature but only where coverage exists. I'm still neutral on the outcome of this though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle, I am 100% convinced that the source is WP:INDEPTH and also otherwise great. To your point, it is likely that some articles with similar in-depth sources have been deleted at one point of time or another, however, past mistakes are a totally unacceptable feedback system. See for example WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The principle that we do not want to be informed by past mistakes has been applied all through policies and guidelines several years ago. A perfect development! Note that we experience an avalanche of nominations, some articles are undeservedly deleted via WP:PROD, so among the masses, some deletions will go wrong. No need to repeat that. gidonb (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTDATABASE is something when it's completely a data with nothing. But if the admin things its a database then must delete it. @@@XyX _talk 01:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. DanCherek (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:ANYBIO? BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have looked and I can't say I am satisfied with what I have found that would make me want to either a) expand the article or b) consider it worth advocating to keep. Some passing mentions claim he was "well-known" in Abertillery although I have yet to find anything i'd be comfortable stating is significant. I'm afraid I also agree with BilledMammal that the Olympedia entry cannot be classed as evidence of WP:ANYBIO. There are certainly a fair few mentions of him in various newspapers from the period, but all brief/passing and none which in my view are enough to assert notability. I am somewhat on the fence and may persevere with searching but at this moment I am leaning delete. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12 April update: I have found this newspaper article from 1936 which details the embezzlement charges and subsequent prison sentence. This is more about the case for which Gill was a key element of, rather than about him individually. There is otherwise very little I have found and I don't know if an article about being sentenced to prison is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It offers some info that is not about the case, such as that he was married at the age of 21, had a child when sentenced and was held in "high esteem" (as well as responsibilities he had). It still isn't enough for me to !vote keep though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - newspapers of the day would almost always have referred to athletes like Gill as either Gill or H Gill (I'd go as far as to suggest that adding an initial shows more significance). Given the evidence we have, I'd say there's about enough to keep here. It's not an obvious keep, sure, but I think there's about enough and, I'd hazard, more in offline sources than we'll ever be able to find online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing: As much as i'd like to be able to agree, unfortunately we can't keep based on an assumption of there being historic material available. For what it's worth, I have already done searches under "H Gill", "H. Gill" etc and as noted, I saw numerous passing mentions but unfortunately none that i'd feel would be accepted as sufficiently significant. I am quite familiar and experienced in historic biographical researching and up to now I haven't been successful here. With that said, I remain on the fence and neutral (to a point) but we have to make decisions on what we know, or can evidence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw Im fairly certain that I've seen keeps based on precisely that assumption in the past - certainly when they've been edge cases I think it's just about enough to err on the side of keeping. And this is certainly not clear cut. I should add that there is, as Lugnuts suggests above, an obvious redirect possibility that could be used here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in a fair few AfDs of this nature recently, and on the most part (nearly always, actually) I have put the effort in to bring them up to a "keep-able" state and then !voted as such. I can't advocate keeping an article based on assumption or hope; keep rationales on that basis hold little to no weight when determining a consensus. I'd be very happy to be able to expand this article and express a desire to keep, which is my primary focus on wikipedia, but I am not seeing clear evidence of that being the right decision here (at this moment). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing interesting here at all. Competed in the Olympics, failed to win a medal. Led his local gymnastics club - not in the least surprising for an Olympic athlete, club is not otherwise notable. Fought in WWI - like almost every other able-bodied man of the day. Embezzlement - not very interesting. Family status - not remotely interesting. A very normal guy who had the chance to win an Olympic medal and lost. Nwhyte (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he passes the GNG. And no evidence there are likely to exist the independent reliable sources that he will. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Despite several weak keeps, consensus is that the sourcing, English French, Arabic or otherwise, does not meet NCORP. If someone wants to work on this in draft space to see if sourcing can be further IDed, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FoodBeeper[edit]

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

Food delivery app company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE local news articles about its launch. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Algeria. ––FormalDude talk 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, Transportation and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the major problem here is the sources aren't in English? because I've read the guidelines you're referring to and still think the topic is notable and doesn't deserve deletion. ~~~~ Rymknows23 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rymknows23. It isn't due to the language of the sources, I have viewed translations of them.

PS this edit of yours could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed. Regards MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, I contest the deletion because I think both sources and topic are notable and make a wiki article. The "local news articles" are Algerian newspapers' articles proving the service notable in the country. According to my research, no 'Times' or 'Le Monde' magazine will cover the service simply because it's not international. About the Canvassing thing, how do you suggest I ask people to join the discussion, since I'm open to other opinions and editing suggestions. Regards, ~~~~ Rymknows23 (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:David notMD, User talk:Hoary. Reason: Participated in editing and approving the article. Rymknows23 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still making up my mind, but veering towards a weak keep. The Seybouse times article appears to be contributing to notability (the Djazairess one doesn't). Looking at the sourcing generally, it's the usual problem: we outside Algeria will struggle to know whether the sources are reliable newspapers or the sort of outfit that publishes sponsored content dressed up as journalist-written. It needs someone aware of the Algerian scene to assess this, not a bunch of assorted AfD editors who don't know what they're writing about (in which group I include myself). Evaluating sources requires more than just the ability to read French (or Arabic). For what it's worth, I don't consider Rymknows23's teahouse post as canvassing as, although they're open about their situation as the article's creator, they have not chosen a biased venue, or worded the post in a way that encourages keepers versus deleters; they have instead said they'd like a fair debate, which is surely what we all want. Elemimele (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. May violate letter of the law but as Canvassing goes, it's a very weak one and understandable mistake. And lead to my source review, which I find all but one lacking.Slywriter (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only Seybouse is a potentially useable source. The rest are reprints of press releases with no journalist byline. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Seybouse article is definitely a good source, and the Akhbardzair article (going by the really clunky Google translation) seems to be a real article and not a press release. As I don't know Arabic, I don't know if the wording is due to Google's inability to translate well or because things are worded differently in Arabic than in English. It seems to me, though, to be reasonably acceptable as a reliable source, which would barely give FoodBeeper enough to qualify for WP:NCORP. None of the other sources in the article (as well as the three news articles I could find through my own searching) seemed acceptable for establishing notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for participating. I see you all agree on the notability of Seybouse Times article. In this sense, I can name two other sources I think are notable. Le Midi libre [fr] is a well established newspaper in Algeria, but as Slywriter mentioned, there are no journalist byline. However, what I noticed is there are no bylines whatsoever on the other articles in the page 12 where FoodBeeper is covered, nor on the following pages too. I also think that the last source I cited, Akhbar Dzair or اخبار دزاير, which translates "Algeria News" is notable and reliable. The piece of news, I believe, is not a press release, since , according to my research, no other newspaper covered it in that way. Rymknows23 (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria - the Seybouse article talks about the app and describes the delivery service, there is nothing in-depth about the company to meet CORPDEPTH - and I can't find any other references that meets our notability criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My feeling is that there is an English Wikipedia bias against corporations in small countries which have a corresponding small media presence. I believe the company is notable in Algeria. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. As far as I can tell, the company doesn't have articles on the French or Arabic wikis. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something for Rymknows23 to consider! David notMD (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think this also brings into question the claim that the topic is struggling to prove notability because of a bias in English Wikipedia. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle David notMD, Thank you for your remarks. I started writing the article with the vision of allowing some representation for the local businesses here on wikipedia. Another thing is, I prefer to write in English so it didn't really occur to me to write in Arabic or French. However, since I'm a bit active now on the French wiki, I might consider writing an article there. Regards, Rymknows23 (talk) 11:04, 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!} 04:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture[edit]

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

Another indiscriminate and mostly unreferenced list of media in which something appears in, failing WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:IPC. Many works listed just mention the topic in passing (ex. "In 1832, the fantasy story La Fée aux miettes by Charles Nodier mentions the quicksands in the Mont-Saint-Michel bay."). There is no evidence any reliable source has tackled this topic, so I very much doubt any rewrite is possible this time. Note that this was split from Mont-Saint-Michel#In_popular_culture, but there is nothing to merge back (in fact I'd suggest nuking the section in the main article too). Overall, this is one of the worst example of TVtropism I have seen around here, pretty irredeemable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are valid points, but many editors keep adding references to popular culture to articles and they get away with it because it is too much trouble to keep getting into edit wars deleting them. Separate article listing popular culture references at least provide somewhere to hive them off from the main article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale. And we have been deleting/rewriting such lists just fine. Unencyclopedic content should not be split from main article, just blanked. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An indiscriminate list with few references that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any further content on this topic can be incorporated into the main article, if referenced and in prose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a source for the quicksand part in French Fairy Tales: A Jungian Approach, page 190. It says "Out of gratitude he [Michel] went on a pilgrimage to Mont Saint-Michel, rescuing on his return none other but the Crumb Fairy, who was sinking into quicksand." I have also added sources to some other points in that section, mostly the books themselves.

Excellenc1 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would point out that it is not uncommon for major landmarks to have articles about their impact on popular culture, see for example Tower of London in popular culture, Piccadilly Circus in popular culture and for less well-known landmarks such as Battersea Power Station in popular culture. If we are saying this is a broader problem then it needs to be discussed in a broader way. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We could have a big RfC about those articles, but I don't see why. We already have the WP:IPC guideline, and articles not meeting it and other guidelines are being successively brought up here and discussed one by one, sometimes rewritten, sometimes redirected, sometimes deleted (but IIRC in recent years, never kept unchanged if they are just TVTrope-like lists of mentions). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like the recently deleted Eiffel Tower in popular culture article, this is a potentially notable subject with an entirely inappropriate article, consisting only of a TV Tropes style list of largely unsourced trivia. While a few of the individual entries may have sources verifying that they are true, there is not a single source discussing the topic as a whole, or anything showing why this is a distinctly notable topic that needs to be split off of the main page for Mont-Saint-Michel (which, should be noted, already has its own "in popular culture" section). Rorshacma (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's nothing from this article to WP:PRESERVE as most of it lacks proper sourcing, and is an original compilation of examples instead of a WP:SUMMARY of what reliable sources have said. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:53, 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. Possible merger or redirect option should be introduced in a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic School of Theology[edit]

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

Defunct school with only Primary Source coverage. Fails WP:PROMO, WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The article says it is affiliated to a university, not that it has merged with it. This looks to me like the theological seminary of a relatively small denomination. Such institutions are fairly small in terms of the number of students, but tend to be independent of other institutions, as the denomination does not want non-members determining policy (e.g. on curriculum) for it. The best of them have their degrees endorsed (or even awarded) by a larger institution. That is what I perceive here. If not kept, this should be merged to the denomination, as a section on theological education. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete. ~~WP:A7 No indication of importance~~. Seems to be a (likely very short lived) independent organization which was merged into Hope International University (HIU) and no longer has any form of independent existence. The 4 sources in the article include 2 broken domain names (expired or similar); HIU, which does not mention this organization on the linked page; and a press release saying that this organization was merged with HIU in 2009. The organization's page is available on the wayback machine, stating that its degrees are awarded by HUI. Policy is at WP:ORGCRIT - we need "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". We don't have that so this is a straightforward WP:GNG fail. Springnuts (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a decent case for merging into HIU. Not remotely as good for speedy deletion. Do you not think "This is a college" is an indication of importance? Please. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad and A7 excludes schools. Amended. Springnuts (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The advertisement tag was placed in 2009 many years ago I don't think at that pre internet era people will use Wikipedia as an advertisement which is now very common like salting and WP:HOAX, it's very complicated that whether to delete or to keep this article. @@@XyX _talk 01:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Robinson (Miss Texas)[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty pageant winners. There is no evidence that "Miss Teen Texas" is one of the more notable winners of a pageant, and none of these women has done anything of note since. All of the sources are about their wins in a low level pageant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all we have established that state level pageant winners are not notable unless we have coverage for other achievements or actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 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 keep. based on opinions that the sources offered during this AFD establish GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Ambrose[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. He played 1 game in the NFL in which he did not start (according to Pro-Football-Reference). Significant coverage does not appear to exist for this player.

While it does pass WP:NGRIDIRON, a single appearance in a game in 1930 is not enough to indicate notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (1) this person played in the National Football League, the highest level of football there ever was, which in my opinion should be enough for notability, and (2) Ambrose also (IMO) meets GNG, per [17] [18] [19] and [20]. If that's not enough, then consider me voting on IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Comment re-written at 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC) as NGRIDIRON no longer exists.[reply]
- Found his obituary here, and an article about him being team captain here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a long article about him signing with the Portsmouth Spartans, I'd say its SIGCOV, so he may pass GNG as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here it mentions that he was first-team all-Big Four in 1929. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd say he passes GNG as well. I'll expand the article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1930–1939)#1930. I expanded the article as best I could, but I'm just not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG. The fact that his obituary (here) doesn't even mention that he played in the NFL speaks volumes about the notability of his one-game pro football career. However, as an alternative to deletion, I favor redirecting to the existing list article which includes significant biographical details. Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that this is not SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that qualifies as SIGCOV. The other two, not as much. Did my own search as well and didn't come up with anything better. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I have significantly expanded the article (see differences between the nom and now), do you still think it should be redirected? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: I agree with you that this is SIGCOV. Have you been able to find anything else that qualifies as SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, [21] [22] [23] and [24] are enough for a GNG pass. And I know I could find another piece of SIGCOV if given enough time, if the others aren't good enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the volume of the coverage and what sort of article one might get out of that, the significance of it for indicating notability isn't ideal, either: the Wausau Daily Herald and the Portage Daily Register very much sound like tiny local papers from central casting. Upmerger might be the preferable outcome, though it must be said we don't have an ideal general solution to that yet. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to BeanieFan11 for finding the additional sources. --Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62 and IP; they don't meet GNG, and most of the coverage that we do have is routine local coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He does meet GNG, as local coverage does count towards GNG and ROUTINE does not apply to people. And do you really think having an entry in a list which gives just five details about the person's entire life is better than having a 19-sentence article ~~(on one of "the greatest tackles in the country")~~? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that Ambrose, in an era that included truly great tackles like Bronko Nagurski, Cal Hubbard, George Christensen, Pete Henry, and Link Lyman, was one of "the greatest tackles in the country" is ludicrous. The quote was idle puffery by a hometown, small-town (Portage, Wisconsin) newspaper as a result of Ambrose's playing at Carroll, a school that did not in 1930 compete at a high level even within the ranks of Midwestern football. The fact that he was cut after playing one game in the NFL, and that his obit doesn't even mention that he ever played football, further demonstrate that he was not remotely close to being one of "the greatest tackles in the country". Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think BeanieFan's sources are enough to demonstrate GNG, especially given the fact that most potential sources from when he was active are not readily available. While Cbl's redirect proposal could work, I don't see how including his bio (which is now fully sourced) within a list article with many other players is preferable to a standalone article, or how that would more be helpful to readers looking for information on him. Rlendog (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep I see no policy violations and seems to pass WP:GNG based on sources given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Nonnotable future film. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF since production is not notable. Must be deleted or drafted until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Georgia (U.S. state). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 31 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!} 00:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Expecting more coverage soon till the film release. @@@XyX _talk 01:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Girl (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Nonnotable future film; it’s been in post production since 2019. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF since production is not notable. Must be deleted or drafted until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Oklahoma. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 31 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!} 00:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm @@@XyX _talk 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Charlesworth[edit]

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

She is an active co-anchor who reports on a wide range of content for WABC, but I cannot find sourcing about her to establish notability. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way more than a publication of a person's employer to show that they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was in rough shape when nominated, but I found good coverage of her here https://skinident.com/fileadmin/img/spanish-pictures/pdf/Dermatology_Insights_2.pdf, a whole bunch of primary sources about her cancer and she's a key character in a fictional novel. I've added them in. CT55555 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subpar sourcing here doesn’t mean she isn’t notable. She is one of the most well-known tv reporters in New York City. Trillfendi (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further evaluation of offline sources Many of the sources are in the article are offline or do not have links. It could be assumed that those magazines establish notability, but because its offline, we can not see that content. Rlink2 (talk) 12:15, 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) 00:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week more to bring forth any additional sources that would establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've again added more to the article, specifically early life and family. The source I've used is mostly primary, but does also include some independent fact checking at the end about her father. I've relied on primary source for early life, but I consdier that sufficiently not controversial to safely use a primary source for. Additional comment, I did add several sources after the only delete !vote so I'd just like to highlight that the article is improved since the nomination and the only delete vote and therefore since the improvements we've only had a positive and a neutral-ish (I hope that's a fair summary User:Rlink2) comment plus my keep. CT55555 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CT55555. Article seems to be in much better shape since being nominated for deletion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not overwhelming coverage, but enough. Here's another non-trivial New York Times article about her: https://web.archive.org/web/20140105045618/https://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/local-locals-michelle-charlesworth/ --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transarchitecture[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Appears to be Marcos Novak's personal buzzword. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete personal view maybe WP:COI not suits encyclopedia. @@@XyX _talk 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most ghits are Wikipedia mirrors. No apparent coverage of, and very limited usage of, the term anywhere else. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 00:48, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyên Đình[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources comes up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A update tag was placed at 2015 no update made major problem is the title has namesakes. Although my decision is delete but the admin who will close this AFD can stand with draftify. @@@XyX _talk 01:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable diplomat. No sources establishing notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and the perfunctory coverage not really of this person, but of the head of state meeting with them in their office, covered because of what is represented, is not enough. I would say we have lots and lots of articles on non-notable ambassadors and have to do much to clean up this field, but I applaud this nomination as a start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 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.

[1] Welch, Michael (March 1993). "The flag-burning controversy: Protection of a venerated object as social control". American Journal of Criminal Justice. 17 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1007/BF02887626.

[2] Goldstein, Robert Justin (1999). "The Revolutionary Communist Party and Flag Burning During Its Forgotten Years, 1974–1989:". Raven: A Journal of Vexillology. 6: 19–40. doi:10.5840/raven199963.

[3] "5 Arrested After Flags Are Burned Protest: - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Los Angeles Times. 9 July 1990.

[4] Hernandez, Marita (12 June 1990). "Group accuses police of brutality". Los Angeles Times.

[5] Mone, John (27 May 2001). "CHA Residents Unite Behind Group: Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade fighting against redevelopment, police brutality". The Times (Munster, Indiana).

[6] Stroud, Jerri (18 March 1980). "Man jailed for putting up communist poster". St Louis Dispatch.

[7] Gerard, Eric (6 September 1978). "Mao portrait previewed on USF lawn". Tampa Tribune.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]