Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 03	August 05 >

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 keep. Given the suggestion of merging individual seasons into one article, a discussion on this could start on the article talk page or an appropriate WikiProject talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1889 Wake Forest Baptists football team[edit]

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

Insignificant WP:PERMASTUB on a minor football team. The season (literally a list of stats) doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major college football team and significant coverage exists as evidenced by added sourcing. Nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually do a BEFORE search, but there was nothing I could even find. I'm honestly not sure how or where you discovered additional ones, but searching for sources is something I absolutely do before nominations.

As for significant coverage, the ones that have been added, the article fails since these sources don't address the topic directly (WP:SIGCOV). Rather, they are pretty routine and trivial "hey this is what is happening this weekend" type or an extreme level of detail that don't have lasting impact (from WP:SBST: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage). SWinxy (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Wake Forest is a notable program, and its history should be appropriately covered. Prior to 1908, the program played irregularly -- a grand total of 17 games from 1888 to 1907, including one-game "seasons" in 1891 (1891 Wake Forest Baptists football team) and 1895 (1895 Wake Forest Baptists football team). Also, the coverage presented so far on the 1889 season is not super deep. It seems to me that the best way of dealing with this early period is to merge the six existing stub articles into a single article that can more cohesively tell the early history of the program (hopefully including some coverage of why the school didn't field teams in 1890, 1894, and for more than a decade starting in 1896). We have recently used a similar approach for other programs in their early/formative years. E.g., Kent State football (1920–1929) and Swarthmore football, 1878–1887. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea--there isn't much to have induvial articles on, but a larger and more comprehensive one might be better. Though, er, side note, Kent State has a bunch of duped content on its page with a bunch of stubs (found in the navbox). SWinxy (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it appears that somebody reversed the redirects for Kent State. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to say this before, but notability is not inherited by the notability of the WFB football team--it's gotta be notable on its own. SWinxy (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Today this team is a major team as they are now in the ACC, a Power 5 conference, and if somebody wants to see what Wake Forest did in the 1800's on football, they can see how they did. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage and sources in the article seem to pass WP:GNG. WP:PERMASTUB is not a reason to delete, stub articles are okay, we should not confuse stub-status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm quite against the existence of permastub-type articles on Wikipedia, but the nominator clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE search as this is a notable topic. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or as ATD Merge a bunch together (many multiple years of the same team) starting here as a solution to a multiple indiscriminate collection of stats. I assume this is the same team as 1891 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1892 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1893 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1895 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1908 Wake Forest Baptists football team, etc..., etc... -- Otr500 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sometimes multiple seasons are merged together as an editing choice and I wouldn't be against that. But the articles are most certainly WP:DISCRIMINATE and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as an NCAA Division I FBS football team season, per all above and the sources currently in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic is notable and passes WP:GNG. I'd be open to a merge, as per Cbl62's suggestion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion was closed by an IP with only one other edit, and using a deceptive signature. Close was a bit premature, and having also undone a similarly suspicious IP AfD close from a different IP (here--compare IP's close here with this diff over there), I reverted the close per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall ^talk 17:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Finngall. That was weird. SWinxy (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 06:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DPIE[edit]

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

This seems to be a bit of jargon that's unlikely to ever expand past a WP:DICTDEF. PianoDan (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. –Ploni (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV, the available sources that cover this term are all attributed to a single author. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced with minimal context. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced article, nothing is here to establish a wiki article. BBSTOP (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and confusing to anyone who reads it. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint Vincent de Paul Food Pantry Stomp[edit]

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

24-line poem with no claim of notability. I've been unable to find any significant, independent coverage beyond mentions on some personal blogs. – Ploni (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Latin America, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Ploni (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No idea about notability for poetry, this GScholar search [1] shows it's been reprinted a few times and is mentioned as a representative work in the last journal listing. Notable? Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be quite widely anthologized and there are at least four critical mentions, the two articles found by Oaktree on Google Scholar plus Partisan Review and Dappled Things.--Jahaza (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEYish overhaul by Jahaza, notability clearly demonstrated now, sorry people couldn't be bothered to check out your work before now. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although there is agreement that this article still needs some work, the consensus is to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Drive[edit]

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

The article appears to fail WP:BAND and is written like a promotional material. I couldn't find much online on the band except for this one article from a reputable source; the other publications that I have found were mostly blogs or local/small online publications with questionable reliability. I'm not sure whether the Brisbane Times source alone would ensure notability. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've add refs, content and provided some paring back of PoV material. More work is needed on the article. However the band is notable for its tours and releases, which are described by independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment a musical band establish notability criteria and having citations from reliable resources. BBSTOP (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They didn't accomplish much but they received some reliable newspaper coverage in their country while still together. The article could use some cleanup and removal of fan trivia, but there is enough coverage for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Brisbane Times, AU Review and others so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Les Studios Tex[edit]

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

Previously deleted by AfD around 6 years ago. Created today with IMDb as the single source. Draftification contested without making any changes.

A BEFORE search shows a few FANDOM links, but nothing else. At least nothing that would make the subject pass WP:NCORP. Also searched the Wikipedia Library because it seemed weird to find no coverage at all, but all I've ended up is a lot of stuff with "Les" in their titles, unrelated to the studio. I don't think this is notable unless someone else can provide sources that pass NCORP. Redirect/merge to DIC Entertainment is possible too. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and France. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a redirect but I haven't checked your target, sorry. The company, given the lack of coverage, should NOT have its own article. They're mentioned on the French wiki also, and it's a bit mysterious, but doesn't appear to be a hoax. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources found in .fr websites. Tex Avery and a movie with a character called Tex. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence shown that this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Nigeria by home state[edit]

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

Unsourced list with no indication of why the home state of Nigerian Presidents is notable. The list does not meet our WP:LISTN guideline. Bruxton (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Bruxton (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the extent that there's any value in comprehensively listing the home states of all Nigerian presidents for comparison's sake, that would be adequately served by adding a birthplace column within the existing List of heads of state of Nigeria rather than needing its own separate standalone list. Whether that's actually warranted or not is a question I leave for other people to decide — but there's certainly no need for it to exist as its own separate article that fails to contextualize or reliably source any reason why a standalone list would be needed. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhere in the land between WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE, is where this lies. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Cuauhtémoc[edit]

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

I can find no significant independent coverage of this institution, having searched DuckDuckGo, Google Scholar, and Proquest. The closest I got was coverage of an apparently-unrelated Universidad Cuahtemoc in Aguascalientes, and some mere-mentions in "lists of global universities" books on Google Books. Does not meet WP:GNG, and I'm skeptical of the article's claims of there being 15 campuses affiliated with the university. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All significant coverage is of the university of the same name in Aguascalientes. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4D11:E6D2:10E8:4859 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist. This article was already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources cannot be found, and I did check the usual search engines. I did also check Newspapers.com and I'm not surprised that I found nothing given that it's overwhelmingly (but not only) English-language newspapers. Unfortunately notability just isn't there. - Aoidh (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lisburn#Communications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisburn telephone exchange code[edit]

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

Too many intricate details for an encyclopaedia – the article details the history of telephone numbering schemes since the 1970s in one local telephone exchange in Northern Ireland. The main content overlaps, to a significant degree, with the existing topics Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom and History of telephone numbers in the United Kingdom where numbering changes in the UK have been described in a fairly good detail, although certainly not on the level of individual villages.

In my view, the article is (1) too detailed for Wikipedia – although, admittedly, the numbering history might be of interest for local press in Lisburn, (2) too poorly sourced – it's essentially OR combined with information taken from Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom, (3) out of place within the broader topic of telephone numbering in the UK – no other UK telephone exchange (and there are hundreds of them) is discussed in a dedicated article; everywhere, telephony is discussed in the main article (if at all).

I propose to delete it or, alternatively, merge and redirect to Lisburn#Communications. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, otherwise, I'm leaning to redirect this page to Lisburn#Communications unless there are objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article being too detailed is not a justification for its deletion. Rillington (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I support a Redirect. We can't have this sort of institutional bias towards Anglosphere trivia. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect The justification for deletion (or redirection) is the total lack of sources, not being too detailed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaïa Jacquet-Matisse[edit]

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

Don’t see how the person in question is notable enough to have their own article, as per wp:BIO. Only notability is being the descendant of other people and having an Instagram presence with Tiffany Trump. Film roles are so minor, don’t even have articles into themselves. Seems like self-promotion. StevenBjerke97 talk 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not much for reliable sources, this [2] and this [3]. Cultured mag looks ok, the Artnet piece is a two-person interview with her mother. Rest are typical celebrity fluff pieces. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra J. William[edit]

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

Don’t believe this article remotely meets the standards relative to wp:BIO. The person in question is mostly known for being Tiffany Trump’s friend and having a minor blogging and Instagram presence. StevenBjerke97 talk 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mentions in the New York Times but they are in passing. Nothing else shows up we can use in a search for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cherukuri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Akevsharma (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As founder and CEO of a notable company, received significant coverage such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8],[9], [10] and Forbes links. Meets WP:GNG. —Natalie RicciNatalie 10:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All are PR puff pieces. In particular, #5 above is a Soundcloud interview and #10 is a Forbes contributor site. The rest look about as useless for sources. I find nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE his being a CEO might be a consideration if the company ThirdEye Gen was a Fortune 500 company, but that is absolutely not the case, so his being a CEO does not suggest notability in any way. As for the references in the article, I went through each of the references and have created a source assessment table at Talk:Nick Cherukuri#Reference assessment. Basically what it boils down to is that there's a lot of trivial coverage and a couple of interviews and the odd press release, but nothing that contributes to WP:GNG in any way. Searching online found more of the same. The sources above by User:NatalieRci are more of the same: an interview, a press release, trivial coverage, trivial coverage, trivial coverage, trivial coverage (and WP:FORBESCON), and another press release. None of those contribute to notability per WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the given sources are really useful. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aoidh's source analysis.-KH-1 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion indicates only one independent, non-primary source, which fails the WP:BASIC requirement for multiple such sources. RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon bar Ezron[edit]

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

Per PROD rationale: this is not notable: it's little more than a stub even in the specialized tertiary source provided. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1: "not notable" is not a deletion rationale. (Nor, of course, is the fact that it's a stub.) We generally keep all articles that have entries in regular encyclopedias. St Anselm (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely trivial mention in a single highly specialized tertiary source that itself solely quotes a single primary source, does not demonstrate WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the source here is just Josephus, a primary source, by proxy - there is currently not even a slither of evidence of secondary source coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we have one good source in The Jewish Encyclopedia, and the first page of Google Scholar suggests there are more. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia: Actually no - that search is just picking up individual parts of the name. Search for the exact name in quote marks and you get absolutely no hits. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "sources" in the article aren't really sources, and I'm unable to find anything through searches so it appears the subject fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no sourcing other than the brief mention in the Encyclopedia. No other scholarly sources found; unlikely to find any new ones, seeing as he died over 2000 yrs ago. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-primary source doesn't contain significant coverage, and GNG/BASIC require multiple such sources. Rebel of secondary importance who hasn't been written about enough to have a standalone page. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the mention in an encyclopedia does not push this across the SIGCOV threshold. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can judge this article by the same standard that you would judge a biography of a reality TV star or an athlete. This article seems like exacctly like the kind of article one would expect to find in a worthwhile encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because the only real source here is Josephus, who is an at best unreliable primary source. The lack of any secondary analysis or writing on this extremely minor historical mention is precisely why there are no mentions of this character in most encyclopedias. If Wikipedia were to profile every minor figure in primary sources, it would be a deluge. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Murtoza[edit]

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

guinness record holders, like limca and the other non-notable awards here, aren't notable. i don't see any in depth coverage of Murtoza either as an athlete or anything else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As he is having Guinness world record from official Guinness world record website. And also he is having good reliable news coverage. Chanakya Netha (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guiness world record is for the number of knee strikes by a group in a minute. All he did was organize an event to have his students break the record. That's definitely not a sign of individual notability, or even WP notability. I'd have to do more research on the notability of the Indian awards he won, but right now I'd say I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After further research I have to say that I see no evidence to change my previous comment. There is a Dadasaheb Phalke Award that might confer notability, but it's for films. There are also multiple awards that carry the Dadasaheb Phalke name that are minor awards. I don't see anything to make me believe he's notable for films, so I'm inclined to say the award he won was relatively minor--and seem to be based on his world record (which isn't even for an individual accomplishment). I find it hard to believe that all of his students that participated in achieving that record are WP notable, so I don't think organizing the event confers WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above. I've done one of these group Guinness World Record things, I'm not notable. I can't find much of anything beyond that event for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of a pass on WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG, unless someone digs up more coverage. It basically shows two minor events: a local award and a team record, so I doubt it. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDON Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. The cited sources are not independent at all, and a WP:BEFORE search found no good sources. (This article was created by a COI editor who restored it to mainspace after it was draftified.) Ovinus (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First I believe the Yale Daily News is completely independent from Yale, as per their Wikipedia article. Moreover The Cut and InsideHook articles are completely independent too, meeting criteria for being Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary.

Moreover, the organisation is notable for the attention garnered from Yale-centric and external sources.

This article meets a similar standard to other clubs, such as the Campus Club at Princeton, an article published using exclusively Daily Princetonian articles. Xx.charli.xcx (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)— Xx.charli.xcx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Xx.charli.xcx: Thank you for your points and analysis. Yale Daily News is a student-run newspaper, which to me implies fairly weak intellectual independence. If student-run newspapers were strong evidence of notability, then the bar for high school and especially college-level organizations would be much lower—any long-running school club would probably even pass. (I'm not aware of any actual guidelines on student-run newspapers, though.) The Cut's article does include a fair amount of commentary, but is written by an EDON member and is an opinion piece to boot. That is weak intellectual independence. Finally, the InsideHook piece is built around an interview with Lin, the author of the Cut article, which is both weak intellectual independence with the other sources and with the EDON Club itself.

Even remaining agnostic on whether Campus Club deserves a stand-alone article, the comparison between the clubs is inaccurate. The EDON Club was (correct me if I'm wrong) formed less than two years ago. The Campus Club, according to the article, is more than 110 years old.

One last point: Please refrain from editing the EDON Club article for now. Our guideline for editors with a conflict of interest strongly discourages [COI editors] from editing affected articles directly, and Wikipedians tend to look down on such activities. Thanks! Ovinus (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I've done some digging into the sources about the club. I have no affiliation to EDON Club. The Yale Daily News has independent funding sources and is journalistically independent of the University.

Sources on Yale's Secret societies also tend to be very sparse due to the (obviously) secretive nature.

EDON Club looks like it is relatively on par with the Harvard Finals clubs and Princeton Eating clubs in terms of campus notablity which should address that issue.

I'd suggest deleting the notable members section (looks like a vanity edit) and adding more history about the building itself. Hanedakuukou (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)— Hanedakuukou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG, small fraternity split off from Sigma Phi Epsilon in 2020. Can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources online; the closest thing to it is the blog post from New York magazine ("The Cut"), and that's insufficient as discussed by nominator above. Unclear why the article is spelling "Edon" in uppercase rather than Edon Club, as the club's own website spells it, but that's irrelevant here. Storchy (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an organization therefore WP:NORG criteria applies. None of the references meet the criteria. The articles either rely *entirely* on information provided by the org or by people affiliated with the org or the information is taken from a PRIMARY source. All of that fails the test for "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Liga Leumit[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, moved to draft but moved back without improvement by its creator. Should be draftified until it is properly sourced. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Definitely not suitable for mainspace in its current state. I'm not actually sure if the individual seasons are notable; all appear to be unsourced or poorly sourced. Ovinus (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify In it’s current state, it shouldn’t be in mainspace. Draftify will allow the user/s to improve and expand the article, and then we can review this again in the future if necessary. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fats40boy11, it's just not how these hundreds of articles roll. They start with little information at the beginning of the season and add information every week as the season advances. This is NOT the type of article that is a candidate for the draft space. gidonb (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gidonb. I understand these points, and I am certain it will be back on mainspace if draftified and then improved. There is no need to rush it to get it to mainspace. However, I see you have started adding references to the article, which is a start.

That being said, there is obviously no argument over notability. Despite this, at the time of my comment, the only source was Soccerway which of course is not enough for an article. As I’ve said, this has started to change but we need sources for articles, no matter how early in the season.

However, I will remove my !vote and will leave a comment down below. I will also hold off on voting for now. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm glad you like the references. This is just not the type of article you would expect to find in the draft space. It's really odd that it got there once, let alone that it will get there twice. All season articles are work in progress for an entire year. gidonb (talk)

Keep. Clearly notable. We should allow other editors to do their work! Surprised that this was nominated. gidonb (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:ATD-I: Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process. IMO, better to draftify and keep it out of mainspace for now than to keep letting these unsourced articles (2021–22 Liga Leumit, etc.) pile up; no one has made an attempt at sourcing them. I would, but I don't speak Hebrew. Once sourced, there is very little friction to move to mainspace—that's the point. Presumably the creator YANIVST1 can explain where they found the information for these articles. Ovinus (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - What we "may" do does not replace thinking or responsibility on anyone's part. Not everything that we may do, is wise to do. We have 100 or so articles like this on Wikipedia at the beginning of each sports season. Why are we singling out an important Israeli league and obstructing the very welcome edits by very welcome contributors while making UNFOUNDED comments about its notability? This AfD is a total waste of time. There is tons of work to do in the article space! gidonb (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough; I’ve struck my !vote. Ovinus (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ovinus! gidonb (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unless it is improved (first thing - sources!). If anybody gives it a go please ping me so I can re-consider. Giant Snowman 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no debate over notability or anything like that. Sources have started to have been added, which is a positive step. However, I think there are more improvements that need to be made, so will hold off my !vote for now and will review the article later today or tomorrow. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a very unreasonable expectation. These season articles take a whole year to develop. Here out of hundreds of articles a major league in which Jews and Arabs play peacefully side by side was singled out in what has the APPEARANCE of Israeli exceptionalism. I say this with sadness. I really tried to find other such leagues that are nominated -- there are hundreds of such articles and all are very much evolving articles at the beginning of a sports season -- and there are litterally ZERO others nominated. gidonb (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This league receives daily coverage in Israeli newspapers, including preparations for the upcoming season.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as sources have been added there’s no longer any need to send this to draft. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Kei[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Sara Kei Vaz Madeira da Fonseca, known as Sara Kei. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
I found this passing mention which may or may not be about the same person as the source does not mention that the Sara Kei in the article is a football player:
Renato, Marques (2018-01-09). "Barber Shops: From Old-Fashioned to Trendy". Macau Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-07. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
The article notes: "The recently opened “The Macau Barbershop” is the region’s latest addition to a worldwide trend of cutting and grooming. What is it about this barbershop that is worth mentioning? To start with, the shop is a new project taken into hands by two young residents; the second is that they are both women – the barber Sara Kei Fonseca and shop co-founder Yasmin Sung. ... When asked about whether she believes the worldwide “beard trend” has reached Macau, Fonseca says, “not as much as in others place, but it has been growing, especially among the guests of the Portuguese community.”"
Cunard (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Olguín[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Never Tire of You[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSONGS. The few citations prove the record existed but I don't think that's enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and History. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Chris troutman:!

Thank you for your helpful advice! I agree it is bare bones, but it does have some respectable notability. It’s a copyrighted work, was turned into a professional recording by one of the biggest names in the business back in the day and I recently found an article about it that touted it as a big deal song in its day. I just received an email yesterday from the son of Cy Walter. He assured me that he was the one responsible for the creation of the song. I also asked him to share any info he might have about his father and the song so I could reference it! I mentioned that I could help him upload a photo or two of his dad as well! I just uploaded the fair use photo this morning. To me, I feel that is a very big addition to the the song alone! I mean, if a song can make it that far into the limelight, I personally think it is a really big accomplishment! If I would’ve randomly picked a song out of the copyright book that was never turned into a recording, I would definitely agree that it should be deleted. Basically, it should never have been created. Well, that’s about all I can say for now. I am currently looking for more improvements for the page and will continue to do so as much as possible. Considering all of the time I’ve so far spent on it and continue to devote to it, I really do hope the consensus “votes” to let it remain! Thank you! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Chris troutman:!

I invite you as well as others to notice the additional info I added since you’re nomination was initiated:

I added a Google Books reference from Library of Congress Copyright Entries, I added a Library of Congress photo of the band who recorded the song, I added more info surrounding the other composers of the song, added a Washington Post reference for it, I added the Broadway World article regarding the song being performed on Cy Walter’s centennial celebration...there might be more, but it’s more, nonetheless. I really appreciate you noticing that it was lacking content, because I might not have searched for anymore. I personally believe all Wikipedia articles should be as comprehensive as possible. Editors like yourself do a great job helping and inspiring others to dig deeper! I may add more before next week’s deadline, just depends if I have the time to do so. Thank you! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Explicit

Two of the three well-known composers of I’ll Never Tire of You have their own Wikipedia page. After doing my Internet research, I am rather surprised that the third composer, James “Jimmy” Dobson, does not yet have one! He has been a part of Broadway and has appeared in many television and movie roles. With that being mentioned, I am thinking of creating a page about his life and career. With the hope of it being approved and published on Wikipedia, that would then make the history and background of this song all the more notability interesting. It may only take me a few weeks to create Dobson’s page, so I thought of attaching a dummy link to his name to show, in a way, that his page is under construction. The red color, though, sort of gives the impression that there is something wrong. Do you think that would be wise to do so now, or just wait until his article is up and running? I personally feel it looks a little tacky, so I probably won’t do it. Anyway, thanks for extending the deletion discussion. That motivated me to search for more content this past week. I’m currently doing some extensive library research on James Dobson and his association with the song at two Tennessee universities. I, so far, have discovered some revealing facts about his remarkable life and career. Thank you! Have a good day! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a well-researched article with enough citations to prove notability. I was expecting at most a few lines of text (as most articles for AfD are), but this is rather extensive. Even if the citations aren't directly about the song itself, they do show how the song was used by performers and trace a history of it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oaktree b for taking the time to read the article and voicing your personal opinion to keep it! I spent a lot of time on it, making sure that it was, in fact, “well-researched!” Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Geo Lightspeed's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @SBKSPP for reading the article and sharing your insight and opinion to keep it! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the NSONGS threshold. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @VersaceSpace for reading it, pointing out that it “passes the NSONGS threshold” and voicing your opinion to “keep” the article! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Enos733 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Pokere-Phillips[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Never been elected. Co-leader of very minor party. Possibly redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, has never won a seat in an election, just seems to go along with the process but never advancing in the polls. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the significant coverage in the following independent and reliable sources:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/428174/maori-party-candidate-among-four-arrested-for-trespassing-in-hamilton (significant coverage of her arrest in Radio New Zealand
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/covid-19-new-maori-party-candidate-accuses-government-of-ethnic-cleansing.html (significant coverage of her statement on Newshub
I got two hits in the NZ Herald, but behind a firewall, so not certain of significance of coverage
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/maori-party-candidate-arrested-in-hamilton-land-protest-council-claims-it-was-a-publicity-stunt/UHMHYLZOGLZ7MVIO46O6JCNJR4/ more significant coverage of her arrest

In summary, if we just look at her political career, she's not made it into office or held power. But if we look wider at her general notability, she's notable for her bold statements, being arrested in addition to the politics, so I think that passes WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with CT55555 that her notability extends beyond political activity and election performance. Her current party operates more as a protest movement than a vote-seeker, so it receives a lot more news coverage than other similarly minor parties. Since her co-leadership of the Outdoors & Freedom Party is a recent development, and since the 2022 Hamilton Mayoral Election campaign is only just beginning, we can expect her to become even more prominent in the next few weeks. Just this morning she's been covered here: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/05-08-2022/tamaki-group-pledges-mass-parliament-clean-out-as-local-elections-targeted. Elguaponz (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those four report refs are the same report, and gets reported regardless as any court reporting paper that has a duty of care to report it. It doesn't indicate notability. Bold statements don't make for notability. The 2nd ref about is a passing mention of the lowest kind. scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is this. It is titled "CORONAVIRUS COVID-19: New Maori Party candidate accuses Government of 'ethnic cleansing'". The candidate in question is the subject of this article. Her comments are quoted and then there is a 7 minute interview between the journalist and a health official where the journalists asks questions about the issues raised by the subject of the article (i.e. she is having influence). Is that the one that you think is a "passing mention of the lowest kind"?

I don't understand "Those four report refs are the same report". Do you mean they are talking about the same thing? Because they are not - they cover her arrest about a pipeline and her accusations of ethnical cleansing - two very separate events. CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Her arrest (October 2020) and her "ethnic cleansing" comments (May 2020) are completely different stories/reports. Arrests are not routinely reported, so you can't choose to ignore or discount that story. Reports are the yardstick by which WP:GNG operates. To put it another way: if a person has done something that triggers a paper's "a duty of care", there's a good chance that we're talking about something notable. Elguaponz (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverag ein multiple, independent sources; passes GNG--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec) She's been given enough media coverage that GNG has been met. There are currently five independent secondary sources with that article that aren't just media releases or passing mentions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There might well be more out there. With regards to CT55555 not getting to NZH content, I've particularly looked on their site only and here's some articles with substance: 2017 video interview as one of five candidates and her representing Brian Te Huia in a legal capacity (plus an article on her 2020 arrest but that topic is already covered by the RNZ source). Overall, there's enough there that confirms notability. I should add that in the unlikely event that this article is not kept, it should be draftified back to its original position rather than deleted. Schwede 66 23:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but does meet WP:GNG due to the combination of sources given above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the GNG threshold clearly. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully agreed with CT55555, passes WP:GNG. BBSTOP (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhaneerthullikal[edit]

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

Non notable film whose production was supposedly completed in 2013 but was subsequently shelved. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 17:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the Nom. Not released yet and not satisfying WP:NFF Onmyway22 talk 11:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Henry Nicholas#Philanthropy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Henry T. Nicholas III Foundation[edit]

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

Either delete or merge into Henry Nicholas. Excessively promotional, and lack of independent notability. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Henry Nicholas#Philanthropy. Per nom., lacks independent notability but relevant to the Henry Nicholas article. Sal2100 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Henry Nicholas#Philanthropy. I am unable to locate references that meet WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon oxytetrafluoride[edit]

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

This article is mostly about its reaction with water, with not much else. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage from several reliable sources already cited by the article. AiGenly (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists, it's referenced, and even the reaction with water isn't given undue weight; having got that far, any chemist with common sense and a regard for the safety of their fingers will happily move to a different field, and anyone sane will prefer to read about it than actually make or use it. More seriously, there is a certain fascination in compounds of the inert gases, amongst readers, so where references are available, these chemicals are encyclopaedia-worthy. Elemimele (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Trivial pass of GNG using the current sourcing, with at least six journal articles spread over a decade discussing synthesis and properties of this compound. Ovinus (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Nichols[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBIO. Poorly sourced BLP, not finding significant coverage in additional sources that would ascertain notability, not sure if the listed publications satisfy the criteria stated at NACADEMIC. ^Complex/_Rational 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and South Carolina. ^Complex/_Rational 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no claim of notability here. Also a very poor article, mostly uncited, that looks like a CV and contains information I would not expect in a WP:BLP such as children's names. CT55555 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: ~~I already did a copyvio check; nothing was flagged.~~ ^Complex/_Rational 21:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting there was any copyright issues. CT55555 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misinterpreted your comment; I assumed CV meant copyvio (since that's where WP:CV points). ^Complex/_Rational 21:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I wondered why you thought that. I had no idea. Sorry. The risks of using acronyms. I meant it looks like a Curriculum vitae. CT55555 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more appropriate WP:LINK in this case is WP:NOTCV. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The badly-sourced material can be trimmed but I don't see the citations needed for WP:PROF#C1, or any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see how it meets WP:NPROF. I'd originally tagged this as like a resume back in April. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I looked at some old newspaper coverage for her and while I see some instances of her giving professional opinions or being quoted as saying something, I could not see any article or instance of WP:SIGCOV that would lead me to believe notability can be asserted. Also agree with above that the article state resembles a Curriculum vitae. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Sneak Preview[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It WP:EXISTs but doesn't appear notable from what I can find. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Derek1022 just moved the article to Sunday Sneak Preview. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Television shows are not handed an automatic notability pass just because they exist or existed; the notability derives from the quality and depth of the coverage that can or cannot be shown in reliable sources to establish its significance. But this is completely unsourced, and claims absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. However, this should not stop others from AFDing this article in future. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaban al-Kurdi[edit]

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

There is clearly a lack of a reliable source on this person's existence. The first time I checked, most sources were in Turkish and from news sites. (I have went into detail in the unreliability of these "news site" sources on this page's talk page.) Al-Isabah fi tamyiz al Sahabah was listed as a source but not properly cited (without page numbers), which makes me assume that it was added on the basis of another modern day article claiming that this person was listed in this publication. But there is another problem: According to this book's own Wikipedia page, Al-Isabah fi tamyiz al Sahabah was created in the 15th century but only got published in the 19th century. So, none of the sources are enough on whether this person really existed. Since 2008, several users casted doubt on this man's existence on the talk page and questioned the reliability of the sources, while many sources were also removed due to unreliability. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Just as I nominated this article, new sources were added by @SalamAlayka:, and as per the discussion on this page, the new sources are much more credible, so I believe this page can be improved instead of getting deleted.Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Islam. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There's not much about this figure, let alone whether he actually existed. Semsûrî (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He is mentioned in the works of Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Ibn Nuqtah. For more information see this website. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to add verifiable references instead of mentioning the works. Semsûrî (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: I added the exact sections of the book in which this information can be found. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:cite book should be used and paging should be cleaned up for verification. It is not helpful for the reader when the pages are given as "540/1" and so on. If its volume 540, page 1, that should be mentioned in the template. Semsûrî (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is it. Just as I nominated the article, coincidentally, SalamAlayka added these sources. If we can better cite these sources and integrate them to the page, this article would be much more fleshed out, let alone requiring deletion. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayıntaplı: Yes, I am quite familiar with Jaban al-Kurdi being a genuine companion, but since Islamic history is not a topic which I am experienced with and my Arabic is not the best, I haven't really been contributing to making the article better. Perhaps, an editor that is familiar with this topic can help improve the page? SalamAlayka (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable http://www.nudempress.com/haber/ilk-kurt-sahabi-caban-el-kurdi-726.html Check out https://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caban%C3%AA_Kurd%C3%AE CT55555 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I changed my mind on this matter, sources such as the link you provided and the sources found in the article's Kurdish version were the main problem, because most were not reliable and from news sources, and those from classical works weren't properly cited, so I had doubts on whether this person was really mentioned, but SalamAlayka cleared the confusion. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the two classical sources, and both list him as Jaban Abu Maymun, which is the name he is listed under on the Arabic Wikipedia. They also make no mention of him being Kurdish. The article is certainly a keep, but it seems it my be more appropriate to remove the Kurdish tag and change the name to Jaban Abu Maymun and replace the "al Kurdi" suffix with Abu Maymun, unless the ethnicity and name can be proven by a reliable source. Chagropango (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Jaban al-Kurdi is purported to be one of the first ethnic Kurds to convert to Islam. However, it is mentioned by @Chagropango that Jaban al-Kurdi possibly isn't of Kurdish ethnicity. If his ethnicity can be confirmed, I suggest a merger with Spread of Islam among Kurds. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, the original nominator has withdrawn their nomination (at the top of the comments, and thus not easily visible). While I have no opinion on the article personally, I thought (still learning the policy) a withdrawal would result in a technical keep? --LordPeterII (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lancashire Parish Register Society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Leslie Ogilvie Holden[edit]

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

A number of terribly impressive looking roles for this gentleman, who achieves notability with none of them, particularly Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester and President of the Lancashire Parish Register Society, whose obituary of him is one of two sources presented here, the other being a PDF of officers of the Chetham Society. Notability not established per WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s a bit borderline but he might squeak in as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Edinburgh. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this context, "Fellow" means "Member". St Anselm (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but in this case it’s highly selective isn’t it? There are only 2500 today. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was why I added the 'stub' to the article because I hoped others might be able to add more details (since I could find only those sources listed and there might be others). Though no individual role qualifies him, I did consider that the unique combination: Chancellor of the Diocese plus President of LPRS and Treasurer of Chetham Society plus Lecturer, barrister, historian, plus FRSA FSAScot. and FCollP plus publications might mean that this did not get deleted. I've seen other biographies of 'notable' people who have achieved less but - if you want to delete it then go ahead. Thanks.Amidtours (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would like to keep this, but I fear that none of this is quite enough to make him notable. Editing two volumes of parish registers and a heraldic visitation does not seem enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes an interesting life but we just don't have coverage which suggests notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, not much for notability, long titles for jobs that aren't that notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lancashire Parish Register Society, as the subject is mentioned there as a former president and so readers looking for him should be directed there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lancashire Parish Register Society – a few basic source searches are only providing directory listings and faint passing mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather McGowan [edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) It's doesn't show any significant coverage to encyclopedia. I can't find independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokorow1122 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It was very easy to find multiple reviews of her books in completely reliable sources. This nomination is one of the most flimsy I have seem at AfD. Both her books get solid reviews. Crystal clear WP:AUTHOR pass. CT55555 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting @Oaktree b's comment below, adding the examples I'm referring to.
Book 1 (schooling)
- https://www.newsweek.com/you-need-some-schooling-153695
- https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780385501385
Book 2 (Duchess of Nothing)
- https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/books/review/poppins-meets-plath.html
- https://ew.com/article/2006/03/29/duchess-nothing/
- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/10/duchess-of-nothing CT55555 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I can't find notice of her book winning "Book of the Year" in the Detroit newspaper, which is a larger city than Hartford, so I assume it would be a larger market/more prestige award. I can only find reviews from Publisher's Weekly; given the age in which she won book of the year (2001-ish), very early in the internet age, we might have to dig.

Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the NYT and New Yorker discussions/reviews above, she's more than notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of her books include Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, The New York Times, and the WP Library notes a 2001 interview with secondary context/commentary in The London Evening Standard ("Boarding school was never so much fun; Heather McGowan (right) has been compared to Joseph Heller and Dave Eggars, but her powerful debut novel, Schooling, is more akin to James Joyce. She talks to Zoe Williams.") (full text available on ProQuest), and a 2001 review in The Observer, a 2001 review in the Los Angeles Times (full text available on ProQuest), a 2001 review in The Times (via Gale), a 2001 review in Harper's Bazaar (via Gale), and a 2006 review in Booklist. ProQuest includes an abstract for a 2001 Providence Journal article about her, "Heather McGowan, Where are you?", a 2001 review in Newsday, a Jul/Aug 2010 article titled "Recent Winners" from Poets and Writers reporting "Poet Jay Hopler of Salt Lake City and fiction writer Heather McGowan of New York City each received a Rome Fellowship in Literature and will spend a year in residence at the American Academy in Rome", and a 2001 profile article about her, "Writers on the verge: Heather McGowan" in the Village Voice. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR due to numerous reviews listed above. Samsmachado (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: clearly notable. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IV of Spades. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badjao de Castro[edit]

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

No claim to notability independent of the band he played in. I think it would be a reasonable redirect to the article about the band (IV of Spades), but one of the several SPAs editing about the band and its members revertes my redirect. bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band's article. Plenty about them, not much on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades for now. I think it is too soon to create an article for him as a notable musician. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades where he's a member of. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. Not notable outside the band. SBKSPP (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades because he has done little that is notable outside the band. Note that all members of IV of Spades have their own articles because they went solo or formed other bands after IV of Spades split, so it might look like there are other events to discuss, but I'm not sure if all of them are viable either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades. Agree with all above comments. Zeddedm (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades as an ATD. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IV of Spades per above as an WP:ATD, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unkindness of Ravens[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines - sources currently on the article don't show notability, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. RTÉ.ie ref just shows one of their tracks was played on the radio in 2015, 'irishmetalarchive' just shows track listing for one of their albums, and 'DGrecords' is their label's website. Two music videos on Youtube aren't reliable sources. Sole coverage is an album review from 'Metalireland' here, which appears to be reliable, but one source doesn't show notability, and it's about the album, not the band itself. Waxworker (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Ireland. Waxworker (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might be overlooking something, but in terms of WP:NBAND, the group doesn't appear to have charted anywhere (certainly not in the Irish charts), has not received any awards to speak of, and doesn't appear to have released "[,ultiple] albums on a major record label". In terms of WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG, all I can find are passing mentions in main stream national news sources (like the Irish Times) and no coverage in music sources (like Hotpress Magazine - which ordinarily covers every album launch, single release or republished piece of PR that even less-notable bands might throw out into the world). I might be overlooking something, but I do not see where or how any of the relevant criteria are met. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have a cool name but after four albums they simply haven't attracted any significant and reliable coverage. They are only visible in the typical industry directories and retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caelike[edit]

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

appearing in an award show doesn't make someone notable, similarly neither do any other claims here and I can find nothing in depth about her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

she is one of the most followed people on YouTube in Latin America according to google. There's thousand of articles about her on the internet. 2600:6C50:27F:A79E:D5DB:1D47:270C:CDAE (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a few of these articles from reliable sources would strengthen your argument to keep this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no article on es.wiki. PamD 07:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepdent reliable secondary sources that give indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, move: no evidence for use of title "Caelike", needs to be at Caeli (YouTuber) or similar. PamD 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some coverage of her in Spanish and I have added some of these sources to the page. If an editor who understands that language could comment on whether it is substantial and if the sources are reliable, it would be much appreciated. Also, seconding PamD's comment about moving to Caeli (YouTuber) or similar. Samsmachado (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sort of sources I'm seeing in the article and through a search ([11][12][13][14]) are media outlets describing YouTube drama or misogynistically drooling over her. The second paragraph of "Career" at present is very dubious under BLP: it accuses a named person of a crime based on media speculation, and accuses a different name person of "flirting with" a person in a monogamous relationship.

There's the MTV Millennial Award and a cover for Penthouse, but I've not found the substantial coverage about her channel or her life to justify a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Bilorv's source analysis and concerns about accusations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with the agreement of everyone initially supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dams in Fukui Prefecture[edit]

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

Violates Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, "Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) as to mentioning the Q-number." This list is nothing but a series of Wikidata links, not meaningfully editable here, and resulting in meaningless refs like "GEOnet Names Server, Wikidata Q1194038". A move to draft to give the article creator the chance to turn it into an acceptable list was reverted. Substituting the individual rows gives no useful results at first sight either. Fram (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. Fram (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:
1. The only links to Wikidata are the small pencil marks which are widely used across Wikipedia and do not violate the suggestion in the linked page (which has no standing in policy anyway).
2. By moving to draft space you have broken the many links from List of dams in Japan.
3. Splitting this article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Dams articles. I have informed participants there.
4. The tabular list is much more useful than the bare list it replaced — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a RfC result has "no standing in policy"? That's rich. "The only links to Wikidata", the article is not editable here as the actual contents are Wikidata links".

Splitting the article is completely irrelevant here, as is the "but the end result is useful". The end does not justify the means, and in this case the means are not allowed per RfC. It should be a list with enwiki-based contents, fully editable here, not some static version of a Listeria list. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the small pencil marks which are widely used across Wikipedia" in infoboxes, where they are allowed, not anywhere else, where they are not allowed. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women linguists/Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Re-examination of ListeriaBot; the fact that the list is generated dynamically through Lua rather than by a bot running a SPARQL query does not improve on the concerns that lead ListeriaBot to be disabled in mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that I've converted the list into a non-Wikidata list. The point made below about this really not being a deletion discussion for an article is valid. I suggest anyone who wishes to pursue the original focus of this discussion further bring Module:Wikidata table up at TfD * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To get an idea of the reasons why these are not allowed: apart from the two AfDs and the RfC linked by Pppery, one can look e.g. at the current state of List of Welsh mathematicians, also turned into a Wikidata list by (or with the help of) the same editor. It has things like died: "18 Jul 1807[3] Edgware Road" (which is, as the name indicates, a road, not an actual village or city), and on the other hand died "1558[27][24] London Borough of Southwark" (the Borough was created in 1965, so rather an anachronistic view here). Same person was born in "1512, 1510". Such lists way too often create a mess, which then has to be solved offwiki, which doesn't appear in the page history and so on... Fram (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone can die on Edgware Road, so not sure the what issue is there. I will check the London Borough of Southwark one. When two dates are listed it is usually because sources disagree. But I think this is a discussion for Talk:List of Welsh mathematicians? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ per above and WP:TNT. A list makes some sense, but this isn't the way to do it. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and thanks to @Pppery: for the rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct some of the misunderstandings above. This has nothing whatsoever to do with User:ListeriaBot so any rationales based on that should be revisisted. This is very much a dynamic list and can be fully edited (both by editing data on Wikidata or overriding columns on Wikipedia). Happy to show you how, if you would like to know — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a reasonable list, and it seems that the main point of contention is solely the Wikidata links (I get that, I personally think Wikidata should be outright banned on Wikipedia but I'm not winning that fight.) However the article can be converted into a non-Wikidata article with reasonable ease, and AfD is not cleanup. The question should be is the topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I think so. Can it be cleaned to be a suitable article? Yes. Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not a big fan of Wikidata, but this seems like a content issue rather than a deletion issue. This a daughter article of List of dams in Japan, so even in the worst case, the names would be merged back there and the title would be redirected. The idea of the list itself seems unproblematic to me. Dekimasuよ! 03:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent article List of dams in Japan is very very long so seems to be a reasonable WP:SIZESPLIT (though noting Japanese wiki splits it based off the 8 regions, but this is discussion for another time). While reposting Wikidata content isn't exactly optimal, its not that consuming timewise that this requires TNT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable list topic which nobody is objecting to, if the use of Wikidata content is that problematic then it can be easily turned into another format. I don't see a problem which requires deletion here. Hut 8.5 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem was the article creator who objected and suggested I took it to AfD instead. Fram (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as the original reason for the dispute is no longer there (assuming the article creator doesn't revert, but even then other means to pursue this may be better) And @Pppery: thank you. Fram (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kunsthall Trondheim[edit]

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

Setting aside the list of exhibitions, this article contains more than close paraphrasing. The prose is a full copyvio, albeit with a few small edits and some order changes. See this report. If I removed those portions and asked for a copyvio revdel then we would not have an article. If I nominated it for speedy deletion then everything goes. It has been flagged as "Close Paraphrasing" of that source article since June 2021 and I doubt we will get a good rewrite any time soon, thus this nomination for deletion. I believe this article deserves discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Geography, and Norway. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I had to remove most of the content, as it was copyvio, added back in 2010. Old revisions prior to that date don't contain any info that would show this gallery is notable. The content I removed was routine coverage copied from their website. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in view of the removal of copyvio magterial I feel it is important to revise my deletiom rationale. As Diannaa has stated, there is nothing available to suggest this passes WP:GNG, thus this should now be the deletion rationale. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. The institution is quite young, but has received critical attention in the art press. As Artform recently wrote about Stefanie Hessler she departed for a post in Switzerland: Norway’s Kunsthall Trondheim, where she was instrumental in creating for the museum an engaging program at the intersections of ecology and society which garnered international recognition. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many news articles on exhibitions at the institution (its main purpose and activity, including in the article), meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Mojahedin Movement of Iran[edit]

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

Bloated article of a small group that never registered, fielded a candidate, or participated in any election. Only claim to notability is interaction with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and an online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the sources already in the article (which lack any form of substantial coverage, some don't even mention the group. More details in the talk page). Fails notability (WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:ORG, take your pick). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Mohan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:ENT as well. Not much has changed from the last AfDs, aside from the fact he's filming a couple new movies, i.e. it is still WP:TOOSOON for him to warrant an article. Not only that, the article was previously deleted, thus the new article must go through AFC process. That Mallu Guy (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. That Mallu Guy (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things have not changed enough to justify any other outcome than deleting this article once again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Earlier when this article was created, he had acted only in a single movie, Sufiyum Sujatayum. But now he completed four movies, out of which two of them whose release is delayed due to Covid pandemic will soon be released. The movie Shakuntalam is a big budget movie. People are eagerly awaiting for this historical movie. He is the lead actor in all the movies he had done. He has a great fan following from the first movie itself. Many sources are also kept for the notability.Sonal Mathew (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of tabloid level articles, (first look at his new movie poster, thanking the actress xyz etc), no reliable sourcing found. Kind of peters out in search results after 3 pages to the same stuff that existed last time this was in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many reliable sourcing were kept in the article. Further I have added more to it. The Times Of India, International Business Times, Deccan Chronicle, India Today, The Indian Express are the reliable sourcing which are there in the article presently. Sonal Mathew (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sourcing provided for notability. El Dubs (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because Panthrand doesn't have an article doesn't mean anything. In this review, his name is mentioned three times ("Dev Mohan, looks good in this action thriller, but doesn’t strike the chord he did in his debut romantic role in Sufiyum Sujathayum", "Dev Mohan does a good job but fails to create that charm of his first movie"). For those who don't know, he played the lead role (Sufi) in Sufiyum Sujathayum opposite Aditi Rao Hydari (Sujatha), despite Jayasurya being first in the end credits. DareshMohan (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note I've blocked the nominator for as a sock account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Enough references are kept about the actor. And I have added more references to the page. Dev Mohan was famous with his initial movie Sufiyum Sujatayum itself. [15], [16] [17] He won the best debutant award in South Indian International Movie Awards for that movie[18]. He completed three movies after that. His Telugu debut film, Shaakuntalam is a film based on the world renowned play Abhijnanashakuntalam written by the Indian poet Kalidasa.[19] He plays the lead role, Dushyanta in the movie.[20]. The movie is a big budget film directed by the national award winning director Gunasekhar. The post production works of the movie are going on and the movie will be released soon. He is famous actor by the movies he had did. The movies which are to be released soon are also big budget movies which will have world wide release[21].All people are eagerly awaiting for its release [22][23]. Sonal Mathew (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The actor has two possible significant roles in two unreleased films that falls under WP:TOO SOON and may notable in the future. Draftifying the content is far better than delete that the author can submit the draft via WP:AFC after the films released. Onmyway22 talk 07:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He has two notable roles in two released films Sufiyum Sujathayum (lead role) and Panthrandu (lead role). Panthrandu has two notable reviews here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing Keep, Delete and Draftify right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, the coverage is in tabloids/gossip sites. Only one major role in one notable film, other is cameo, and third one is yet to be released, thus failing notability criteria for actors as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that you haven't gone through the article well. He had done lead role in two films - Sufiyum Sujatayum and Panthrandu. He had completed working in two films whose post production works are going on of which Shakuntalam is a much awaited movie. There are 20 references kept. Many reliable sourcing were kept in the article. Articles of The Times Of India, Deccan Chronicle, India Today, The Indian Express are the reliable sourcing which are there in the article presently.
  - Comment Panthrandu is notable. DareshMohan (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020s in climate history[edit]

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

Per WP:OR, the author had to do OR or WP:SYNTH to create it Bruxton (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. the article in its current form is simply excerpts from existing relevant articles. so clearly, it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of WP:SYNTH - "...material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I will see what others have to say, and will withdraw if I am alone in my reading of the guidelines.

Examples of articles that have to do with weather not climate - and many are just about fires

BBC reference says nothing about climate history, it is about weather not climate.
Local fire article - not about climate
Another weather article
This is some kind of fire blog
There are many fire articles like this involving weather Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

let me clarify, all of that material was generated because I literally used {{excerpt|2022 United Kingdom heat wave}}, to pull an excerpt from the article 2022 United Kingdom heat wave. for some reason, template:excerpt pulled a section from the middle of the article, rather than the opening section, as I intended. since you are raising that as an issue, I will retain only the opening excerpt for that article. Sm8900 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think this subject is important enough for its own article. It could do with expanding. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on the first part? As in, what make it notable rather than saying you think it should be an article? SWinxy (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The current article largely consists of excerpts from other articles, and as such it's invalid to blame any internal synthesis on this one or its author. Even if this article were to consist of pure OR, the sheer notability and importance of this topic would still make deletion unjustifiable. Glades12 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, as seems likely, it needs to be referenced correctly. As it stands all of the cites for the short form references are missing (e.g. IPCC AR6 WG1 2021 is not a reference, it is a broken link), and there is a completely missing reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually make that delete. The article is missing nearly all of its sourcing due to the use of {{excerpt}} and it's incompatibility with short form refs and even named refs. To fix this the {{excerpt}} would need to be replaced with written text, and {{main}} used instead. By that point though it would be a completely different article, so WP:TNT applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it would not be different at all. all we need to do is to copy and paste the text that is already part of that article. the content would not change in any way, Sm8900 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The referencing is shot, and the scope is far too broad. Normally, summary articles like this cover a decade at most. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

originally it was meant to cover the 2020s, but someone renamed it. Can we please change it back?--Sm8900 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the referencing has been fully updated. Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look into turning on no target errors, all of the cites used by short form refs (e.g. {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}) are still missing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion, there are strong opinions for "Keep" and "Delete". Please do not move article while it is being discussed at AFD, it complicates closing the discussion as well as relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This article, which currently consists of disjointed excerpts from related articles, would need to be completely written to be a coherent article. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that would be very easy to do. the point is to create a solid foundation now, to do so. this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. the point is to provide the foundational article to enable them to have a place to do so. Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering that this is all excerpts from other articles, there's nothing distinguishing about it. It's not coverage of this decade's climate as an overview, perhaps because it is WP:TOOSOON. Either delete or transform into a list pointing to the individual articles. SWinxy (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a manifestly notable topic. Summary style and timeline articles, an established practice, are not synthesis violations. The content of the article can be improved (I'd cut most of the contextual detail about climate change), but fundamentally there is plenty to talk about in terms of the extreme weather events that climate change has caused, the pledges and (in)action of governments and corporations to mitigate climate change, and improved scientific understanding of the mechanism and effect of climate change. — Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrepInsta[edit]

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

Non-notable business, sources cited are all pure churnalism, and a search finds nothing better. Was moved into the main space past AfC. Speedy request was removed without explanation, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Keep : Page only discusses facts like inception year, business model, team, websites and content obtained from PrepInsta's own website and reputed news articles. Given the topic has been well indepth research about the subject. Regarding notability, the product/website as per similarweb is used by millions everymonth. WikiMann123 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I found this article to notable enough to be featured on wikipedia. Please do not make wikipedia an information only about the west (US/Europe). In the context of the company which is based out of India. The company is notable enough and adds value to wikipedia covering information in an unbiased geographical representation of information and keeping wikipedia a source for global information Connan.d (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : I believe that page should be kept. The business is notable and used by millions in India and well covered in articles. About churnalism, I have provided some skeleton information about the company. I believe the page information can be expand further by other collaborators on wikipedia to make it better. However, I completely disagree with DoubleGrazing, who only writes about articles about Finland and its people. Will obviously have very little context about Indian Subcontinent and its businesses. As said by Connan.d wikipedia should be more about global information and representation. This article is a keep. Wishie123 (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obvious SPAs are uncompelling in their arguments. This fails NCORP/NORG by a mile. It's all cruft/press releases and otherwise not in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : Corporation seems notable and the article can be expanded further by more contributors in future. Sebkaushik (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are basically press releases. Article is one big WP:PROMO. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious spam page published by a SPA. press-releases don't make a company notable at all. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article supported by start-up announcement coverage and latterly with text content and interview coverage regarding their subscription proposition. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam published by an SPA HighKing⁺⁺ 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sources are press releases fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

12 years since last AfD, our standards have risen, but this article remains, well, a fan-written plot summary, and rather short at that. Outside of said plot summary, we have an 100% WP:ORish section on etymology, and that's it. WP:BEFORE found a tongue-in-cheek paragraph in this academic source, and a bunch of short plot summaries and mentions in passing. This should certainly redirect somewhere but my BEFORE does not suggest that the topic of super strong materials in fiction is obviously notable. As such, Unobtainium#Similar_terms or Wolverine (character) is probably best. PS. Suprisngly enough (at least for me), vibranium is very much notable (see Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis, which I just added). I'd be very happy if we could save the adamantium article in a similar fashion, as I already noted, my BEFORE didn't help here (unlike for vibranium). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 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} 11:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Time, CinemaBlend, Inverse, Live Science, SyFy, Nerdist, some here, here, here Articles being in bad shape isn't reason for deletion, never has never will be.★Trekker (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not impressed. We have a plot summary (a lot of those, actually, including one in the form of interview with some artist), a bunch of fan speculations, and some reports of companies using this term in marketing. Plus articles where people are mentioning adamantium in passing like [24]. In other words, the usual assortment of google hits. Where is SIGCOV? Where is any significance shown (like what I found for the vibranium)? Go ahead, quote such content. As long as all we have is a plot summary plus few cases of the word being used in marketing, GNG is not met. PS. I do find it amusing that two of these sources discuss whether Wolverine's claws can cut through CA's vibranoum shield, and arrive at different answers. But fan speculations are not encyclopedic materials. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BATHWATER and per Trekker. While it is important to get rid of non-notable fictional elements, Adamantium is the proverbial baby in this situation, being an actually notable fictional material. The article is in bad shape (it may not pass GNG in its current state) but AfD is not cleanup and the effort should have gone into fixing the article instead by adding WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems reasonable to keep. Gusfriend (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can do better than an assertion (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Pinging participants of the 2010 AFD who have been active this year: User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Jclemens, User:Postdlf, User:Rreagan007. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above sources, Evans, David. "Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge." Journal of Interdisciplinary Science, Volume 4 (2015): 90. (reproduced here) is a non-trivial academic (if perhaps whimsical) reference. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens But isn't it more about Wolverine than about the material? My point is that the sources we have for adamantium seem much inferior to what I found for Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what rule requires a source to be primarily addressing the topic? None whatsoever. GNG/SIGCOV addresses this. If you want to propose mergers on talk pages, fine, but if you want to use AfD to enforce a merger then you need to demonstrate that there's no policy-based justification for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material." speaks to the central argument of focus you raised. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This means that a few pages about adamantium in a chapter on let's say Wolverine are fine. But do we have few pages here? Do we even have a few paragraphs? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standard isn't "a few pages" the standard is non-trivial. Look at the example (Bill Clinton being in a band in high school) in the policy for, well, an example. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This paper for the most part verifies the etymology section. So if there is original research, it is by no means 100%. The same source also draws another parallel to real-world materials ("Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge" compares adamantium and osmium), this time to its nature as an alloy. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The etymology section has been present in our article since at least 2015. The paper you link was published in 2018. I'm not saying it's citogenesis, which I'm not sure could even apply to this particular kind of material, but it's something to consider. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Wolverine (character). This is mostly an aspect of that one comics character; the appearances in other works are trivia. Despite third-party coverage, fails WP:NOTPLOT as a whole. Sandstein 19:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dreamscapes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamscapes Revisited[edit]

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

Album re-release doesn't seem to be independently notably from the original album (Dreamscapes). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Definitely doesn't need a separate article. I'd say merge/redirect to "Dreamscapes", but that's just an unsourced track list too. Perhaps both would be best as redirects to the bands discography, until/unless someone decides to actually write an article on either. Right now they're just really transcribed track lists... Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreamscapes, and that article can include a very brief mention about this later alternate version. This one received no reliable notice of its own. The Dreamscapes article is devoid of sources too, but that version of the release is more visible online in a "this thing was released" sense. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreamscapes. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I have merged content to Dreamscapes. Feel free to thin as necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CrazyShow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyShow Excerpts[edit]

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

Promotional sample CD doesn't seem to be independently notably from the related album (CrazyShow). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CrazyShow. This article title is a remotely possible search term, so if someone happens to search for it they can be sent to the parent album. This promo sampler received no notice of its own. By the way, the parent album's article has no sources either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CrazyShow. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(274303) 2008 QW25[edit]

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

Minor planet that does not meet the requirements per WP:NASTRO. Not able to find any secondary sources discussing this planet, and the content of the article mostly consists of a table copied from a database. In addition, this planet is already listed at List of minor planets: 274001–275000. StartOkayStop (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StartOkayStop (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

secondary source added no need for it to be deleted list of minor planets is a another website whether it be Wikipedia related or not it can be here as Wikipedia is more common Nojo walton (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nojo walton: Sorry, but your secondary source about meanings of minor planet names is completely irrelevant to the asteroid, which doesn't even have a name. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably no redirect to List of minor planets: 274001–275000 – Fails WP:NASTCRIT and there is no evidence of significant coverage; as nom states, all the provided sources are databases and I failed to find anything specific, except some trivial mentions in sources about the Astronomical Observatory of Mallorca, which discovered this planet. Redirecting seems to be common practice for minor planets with nontrivial names, but not useful for stuff like this. Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable main-belt asteroid with no dedicated scientific studies. It's unlikely some random main-belt asteroid like this would ever merit enough attention to have its own article, let alone a peer-reviewed scientific study. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quick fail on WP:NASTRO. PianoDan (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

allright everyone delete it lol i was just making my first artical on osmthing minor since it is near the number of the wikipedia asteroid Nojo walton (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable asteroid that doesn't even have an assigned spectral class. Praemonitus (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karibu Travel Magazine[edit]

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

Online travel magazine from Kampala, tagged for notability since March and for good reason - it's not notable. No notable coverage, no reason for notability, not as WP:NCORP, certainly not as WP:WEBCRIT and finally not as WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu International Shopping Mall, Lucknow[edit]

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

fails GNG. all the sources are either promotional material or about the recent Namaz Row which is 1E so doesnt count. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and India. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Haifa. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Center for Law & Technology[edit]

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

Uncited promotional article with no news sources I could find for the subject. The only Google results for this "renowned interdisciplinary research institute" are its Wikipedia article and other pages which clearly scraped it (this one says the exact same thing, from "is a renowned interdisciplinary research institute on"). Even the name in its original language returns "המרכז+למשפט+וטכנולוגיה"&tbm=nws just one result from a news search.

Moreover, I do not see a really compelling claim to notability from what's in the article: it has only five full time faculty members, and doesn't seem to have had any academic output or major accomplishments (or, it it has, nobody has seen fit to mention them anywhere at all). jp×g 06:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'MergeRedirect to University of Haifa, lacking sources. Andre🚐 22:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The vast majority of content in this article is original research and arbitrary. The suggestion of something being "Profane, humorous, and highly charged words" for example, is highly subjective and biased against anything that isn't within a person's own worldview (borderline xenophobic). There are a few things here that provide citations to indicate that the name is notable for its uniqueness, or that signs are stolen due to the name, but that's a different kind of article (something like List of places notable due to their names). This has been up for AFD numerous times, but not in the past 10 years, and I see little effort to improve the article. I think this could be a WP:TNT situation. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At heart any place name is going to seem "usual" to you if you are used to it. I can think of a city that to some people sounds like a refernce to sexual actions, but it is the capital city with millions of people, and to many others it is just plain a normal name. One person's odd name is another person's normal name. There is no global neutral way to cover this topic period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unusual" is far too vague a criterion. Is Poughkeepsie unusual enough? A lot of the place names in Wales would probably look funny to many English-speaking people. Merthyr Tydfil? None of the sources' titles mention "unusual". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Although the article as is may have issues, this is a common topic for newspapers and books to cover and so it can be done in a Wikipedia-appropriate way. It needs work. That's no reason to delete. Thmazing (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I like this wikipedia article. It is cool and it doesn't break the rules. That is called a role model. Silent-Rains (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent-Rains: this reply goes entirely against WP:ILIKEIT, part of an often cited Wikipedia essay. Do you have a policy based reason for voting to keep the article? —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this arbitrary, subjective, POV-ridden article. FYI: Writing keep in all caps does not enhance arguments for keeping. "I like it" does not help. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a fun article but it far from perfect — but it does not warrant a deletion. There are some odd 367 articles that link here and it would be quite irresponsible to wipe it without a comprehensive plan to remove all references. It may be a wiser option to rework this article to resemble the format employed by the Unusual Articles page, move it under the WP namespace or rename this article to "List of Unusually Named Places," much like ZimZalaBim originally suggested as well as purge all speculative & subjective language to offer a simple list with "unusual" names. Ifrenkel (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Delete. Merge entries into Wikipedia:Unusual place names and nuke. This article is very poorly written and a comprehensive list already exists under the WP namespace. Ifrenkel (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC); edited 03:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That already exists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I had no idea. I had originally tried searching for such an article but I ultimately failed to find it on account that Unusual place names redirects to the article in question of deletion, lol. I believe we can merge the valid entries on this article, such as Inaccessible Island onto that one, nuke this article and move all references across WP to Wikipedia:Unusual place names or create a simple redirect. Ifrenkel (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reference to previous nominations for deletion. This subject has multiple reliable sources indicating notability; problems with the state of article just mean the article should be improved, not removed. That said, are there any changes in policy since the last nomination (in 2009!) that would change things? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article contains a great deal of information that is not included in the other page that people are suggesting to keep in place of this one. Information that I believe contextualizes languages and helps bring together the link between language and culture, in its own way. The link on the other page that redirects you back to this one is also clunky in my opinion, and would do better if the two pages were simply merged.Neptune1AX01 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this AFD early to see what any of the Keep or Delete opinions would think about merger to Wikipedia:Unusual place names.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP, and I think the category of "Unusual place names" has the same problems of the biases towards what is "unusual". I think the only way to be NPOV and properly sourced is to have a list/category of places "notable due to their names". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't want to be a complete party-pooper pedant, but Wikipedia isn't our little private joke thing. We can't keep an unsourced list of random names that gave some Wikipedian a rude giggle (Unusual_place_names) and delete an article that attempts to discuss the real social issues of places whose names have actually aroused interest in newspapers (this article). It's absolutely true: there are plenty of places whose names have caused a tourist-industry in signage-theft, caused political debates about the need to change the name, and been written-about in real sources because of their unusual names. These places are an encyclopaedic subject. I'm not claiming the existing article is great, or free of OR; but AfD isn't clean-up. If anyone thinks bits of this article aren't sourced, feel free to zap them. Elemimele (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The places may be notable, and street sign theft may be notable, and place name changes may be notable, but is the vague and subjective concept of having an "unusual" place name a meaningful thing to construct an article around? That is to say, is this a cohesive topic that is best covered at this single article rather than the relevant aspects being covered elsewhere at different articles? I don't think it's self-evident that the place names Inaccessible Island, Batman, Turkey, Fucking, Upper Austria and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch are even the same category of thing—the first is a blunt description, the second happens to share the name with a fictional character, the third is an expletive in a different language, and the fourth is just lengthy. Filing those under the single heading "unusual place names" seems rather dubious to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a vague concept. The definition is concrete, simple, and similar to everything else in Wikipedia: these must be places that have been written-about in significant, reliable sources purely because of their names. It's quite reasonable for one of our readers to be interested in unusual names; why should they be forced to glean the information from many tens of articles that they probably can't find (unless they can remember Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch)? The alternative would be to use categories, but since only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia users actually know about categories, we would be doing our readers a huge disservice to go that way. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't create lists because the entries get significant coverage, but because the overarching topic does. Otherwise, we're engaging in synthesis by combining disparate sources to invent a novel topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Abeng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP previously deleted in 2017. There are a lot of refs here but they are routine corporate announcements, from affiliated sources or about non notable awards. Overall I don’t see that notability is established through in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a resume and insufficiently notable subject to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a prose version of a LinkedIn profile. Very promotional although I think there is a high bar for professionals in marketing and "branding" to warrant an article on Wikipedia since their occupation is based on advertising and promotion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (Doja Cat song)[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own page per WP:NSONGS. Coverage is inherited from the parent album. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: song has independent notability from the album -- four of the sources in the article are about the track primarily and not the album. LivelyRatification (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it has attracted some indie coverage, not enough information to warrant a standalone article per WP:NSONGS. Hasn't charted and the credits information is from the parent album page. Coverage isn't significant. The information could easily (and a lot of it probably already is) contained on the parent album page. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per LivelyRatification's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SBKSPP You are missing the part of WP:NSONG where it says "only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". That condition is not met here and the majority of sources are NOT about the song as an independent work, separate from the album. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: purely policy-based !vote as I think this would be better covered at Planet Her, but it passes the GNG. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Week[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my exact same reasoning last time: This is of dubious notability at best and has been discretely spammed throughout wikipedia for the last two years but I can find no significant coverage and what little coverage is found, is hyper local. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG and is just a minor regional event. Also likely spam sock, yet again. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt It's not a notable event, it's certainly got HUGE COI/UPE issues and it keeps coming back like something from a zombie movie. Local level PR blitz hyping minor local event being used to create a WP article is very interesting, but no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Khatagurov[edit]

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

Nonnotable surgeon Loew Galitz (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails notability. NMasiha (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-nominal letters (Vatican City)[edit]

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

These are not post-nominals of Vatican City. Rather they are initials that indicate membership in religious orders, institutes, or societies. So this article is sort of a species of hoax or nonsense. There's no reason to keep/move this page, as its actual topic is already covered at List of religious institutes. There are theoretically post-nominals for the Holy See, but they're not covered in this article at all, so it would be best to delete this and if that article is desired to start it from scratch. Jahaza (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Christianity. Jahaza (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Nomination without merit. The article Post-nominal letters says in part: ... or is a member of a religious institute or fraternity. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On the other hand, I've just noticed that the article is unreferenced, and hence there is no evidence that these post-noms are specific for Vatican City and not applied all over the Catholic world. Therefore for now my vote is conditional delete.Loew Galitz (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. These are not unique to Vatican City and are used world wide.Dcheney (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: The list is part of a series "List of post-nominal letters", though this unsourced list is inferior to the list of religious institutes. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we cannot merge unsourced information. Also, the confusing title becomes preserved. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I specifically mean cross referencing with the orders list; if orders are missing, then appropriately sourced entries can be added. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Maybe amend the title to something more accurate and tag for sources. Manannan67 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be entirely misplaced and does not belong among the other listed articles. The Holy See bestows post-nominals for quite different reasons than other sovereign nations. Also, this was an unsourced and woefully incomplete list. In other words, per all of the above. Elizium23 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of religious institutes. These are clearly post-nominals relating to Catholic orders, etc, applicable generally, not merely in the Vatican. The present title seems designed to equate the Vatican to a nation state, which it technically is, but it is largely an enclave largely without native citizens. Please do not bite: this is not intended as an insult to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The text does not match the title: it is not only for Vatican. NMasiha (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons set out by nominator. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Memoir[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a short film, not making any notability claim strong enough to pass WP:NFO. The notability claim being attempted here is that it won a minor award at a comics convention, which is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to have reliable source coverage about it in real media -- but while this asserts that the film got a review in Film Threat, it doesn't actually reference that, and it otherwise claims "positive reviews" from non-notable sources like "Moviehole" and "several independent online sources" that aren't WP:GNG-worthy. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to have any real coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is not a great deal in newspaper coverage from around the period, but I did find an article from 2005 mostly about Jim Cliffe here which does detail this film, but not exclusively. It seems he is notable though and this was his first "professional film", albeit not a feature one. Unsure if the above and the award is sufficient though, so can't go keep on that alone. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One article in his own hometown local newspaper wouldn't even really be enough all by itself to establish his notability as a person. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I wasn't doing a notability search on the person but it just happened to be a hit when searching for the film. I posted it for the purposes of showing that it is the best I could find on a newspapers search from that time, but that I am not convinced enough either to move to "keep". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, doesn't meet WP:NFO. Honestly surprised it lasted this long. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upside-Down Girl[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film, not making any notability claim strong enough to pass WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that it won minor awards at small-fry film festivals that aren't highly meganotable enough to pass the "notable because awards" test -- that's for internationally prominent film festivals on the order of TIFF, Berlin, Cannes or Sundance, not just for every single film festival on the planet -- but there's absolutely no sourcing here, and the only "improved" sourcing I can find is a Q&A interview with the filmmaker on a Blogspot blog, which isn't a GNG-making source. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to be considerably better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Winning minor awards at minor film festivals is not enough to pass WP:NFILM, and I am not finding any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources at all. It does not appear that anyone involved in the film were, themselves, notable, so there are no valid redirect targets. Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukumizu[edit]

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

Per talk page discussion and various edit summaries, there are concerns whether this article meets notability requirements, that there is a significant lack of third-party reliable sourcing, and that the subject matter may or may not be too localised. Since this article never had a proper AfD discussion, and has essentially just been a back-and-forth between redirection to the Swimsuit article and subsequent reverts, I'm creating this AfD so that proper non-local consensus can be finalised, lest this back-and-forth continue indefinitely. As nominator, I am neutral and don't feel strongly in either direction: I was the original creator back in 2014 (as a direct word-for-word translation from the original jawiki article), but honestly it's also a very shitty article quality-wise, so I wouldn't miss it either. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it's notable, the sources are in Japanese so I can't comment on them. Huge chunks of text with no citations, so badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delete: As I put forth on the Talk:Sukumizu page, I am not convinced that this is particularly notable, and I agree with previous posters at Talk:Sukumizu that argued for redirecting to the Swimsuit page.

As a side note, the source article itself at ja:スクール水着 (Sukūru mizugi) never uses the term スク水 (sukumizu) anywhere in the body of the article; the string only appears on the page in the titles of referenced documents. If the EN Wikipedia article is about swimsuits as used in schools, any such article should presumably be titled "School swimsuit". I see no good reason for using a slangy Japanese abbreviation in English to describe such a prosaic and general subject.

About the references, User:Ineffablebookkeeper went through and assessed the 19 references included in the 26 footnotes as of 2021-09-21, writing up their findings in the Talk:Sukumizu#Discussion_per_WP:BRD thread. Ineffablebookkeeper found just two that seemed possibly usable: an article from 2016-04-21 from what might be an online fashion magazine, and an article from 2014-07-16 from the Sankei Shimbun. I briefly discussed the content of the Sankei article in the Talk:Sukumizu#Potential_sources_and_translation thread, noting that “the article talks about various schools forgoing specific swimsuit specifications and instead only specifying the color, and leaving it up to parents to pick the design that best suits their children -- effectively doing away with any official "school swimsuit" altogether... which leaves me with even less of a reason to justify having a separate article here at EN Wikipedia.”

The Japanese article in its current state lists nine references, seven of which are included in Ineffablebookkeeper's analysis. The two new ones are this PDF discussing the construction of school pools, with no mention of swimsuits that I can find, and a hard-copy book about how to draw moe-style comics, which I don't have access to and cannot directly evaluate.

The article now at Sukumizu currently has five references, all in Japanese, and none of them apparently from the JA article. All five are from the same website, which looks like a blog, and all five are dead links. I had a look at the most recent version of the first one, スクール水着の歴史 (Sukūru mizugi no rekishi, "School swimsuit history"), in the Wayback Machine's archived page here, and from what I can see, this does not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source.

I am open to the possibility that the page content could be reworked into something that might meet notability requirements -- others have commented that this subject may be more relevant in the contexts of cosplay or fetishism. Even in such a case, this specific subject of Japanese school swimsuits would have to be shown to be notable enough to have its own article, rather than simply adding content about Japanese school swimsuits to pages like Cosplay or Fetish fashion.

In its present state, however, I am in favor of deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: I wouldn't have access to the hard-copy book referenced on Japanese Wikipedia either, but I think we can safely assume it wouldn't be a reliable source; the author would be aiming for "here's how you draw the School Swimsuit trope", not, I'm assuming, "here's an accurate rundown of the history of school swimsuits with sources".--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and delete - as I have previously expressed on the talk page, this is not a notable subject, and has the added WP:TNT element of apparently being a topic of fetishism with WP:CHILDPROTECT considerations, as El C noted when they originally protected the redirected page. My thoughts on inherent notability align perfectly with those given by Eirikr above. Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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