Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 09 February 11 >

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 redirect to Christina Aguilera. Redirecting to preserve the history in case someone wishes to merge something (which at a glance, I doubt). Consider this a soft redirect due to low participation. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera doll[edit]

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

Limited coverage for a limited release fairly common release for a celebrity. Own page not warranted as does not meet /satisfy conditions of WP:GNG. Could easily be included on the parent artists' page where it is more likely to actually be read. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Shyam[edit]

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

Non notable musical artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks of significant coverage which are independent of the subject. We discourage for self published resources on Wikipedia. DMySon (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP for now: as per some sources like this, this, and this, I am in my opinion to keep the page. Some more will be coming. If we keep deleting, after 1 year or so, the page will be leveled with GNG with un-disputed status. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 12:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The three references you provided above are from same news and it is only a passing mention. Unable to satisfy notability of the topic. DMySon (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mentioned sources are WP:SEC, hence these are coverage. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources presented above are not significant coverage, he is only mentioned in them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olduvai theory[edit]

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

Clearly a fringe theory. The sources shake out as so: 1) things Duncan published himself, 2) unreliable blogs and websites, 3) passing citations of energy consumption in certain countries and unit conversions (which raises WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS questions), 4) the fairly nice IEEE Spectrum article, which mentions Duncan and the Olduvai theory only in passing. Additional links in "Further Reading" are either passing or mention the theory only in combination with the rest of peak oil. I suppose a merge to peak oil might be an option, but this has so many bad smells that I'd rather just delete it. Apocheir (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - so much of the sources reference back to Duncan himself that what is left is wholly inadequate to support notability. A redirect would suffice. As it stands it fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifi Publications[edit]

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

I feel that this company doesn't have sufficient coverage for Wikipedia company guidelines. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article setting out the wares of a division of a firm which has no article in itself. This division appears to solicit authors' manuscripts: " a new venture by of DK Agencies in which we get your fiction novels published for the world to read" [1]. Passing mentions can be found in PR for publishing events, but not the detailed coverage of this firm/imprint itself; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Could only find passing mentions in coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree that it fails WP:CORP. Chelokabob (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brent Ryan Green. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Deer (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant independent coverage from reliable sources BOVINEBOY2008 22:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This one is frustrating. It has definitely gotten more coverage than your typical short film, however this seems to just barely fall short of what I'd need to comfortably argue for a keep. The award seems notable enough to give at least partial notability (ie, not enough to keep on that alone) and there is some coverage of the film's release, but I can't find any reviews for the short. If I had 1-2 I'd be more comfortable saying that it passes, but for right now it just doesn't fall into that area where I think it could stand on its own. Redirecting to the director's page is a possibility, but that article definitely needs some cleaning for tone. I'm going to hold off on making a judgement call on my end as I want to see if anyone else can find sourcing, plus I may clean up the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brent Ryan Green. The director seems to more or less pass notability guidelines and it would make more sense to have an article on the director that contained info about his films than to have a lot of individual ones with dubious to weak notability at best. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brent Ryan Green. It does have a tiny bit of coverage, and an award, but I think falls short of being notable as per SIGCOV.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brent Ryan Green per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Ljósufjöll air crash[edit]

1986 Ljósufjöll air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General aviation crashes are very common and rarely notable unless somebody notable is on board. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Just another routine light aircraft accident, one of thousands that happen globally each year. These are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, just like car accidents are - no notable people (with bios on Wikipedia) were involved and there are no WP:LASTING effects, did not result any changes in maintenance procedures, ATC procedures, Airworthiness Directives or anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: the article author has added additional information to the article after you wrote this describing air industry changes in Iceland resulting from this incident, you may want to take another look. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that and tried to read the refs, but they are all scans of newspapers in Icelandic, which is not my strongest suite. It is possible that they support the claims of changed procedures, or not. It would be helpful if someone could translate the para or two about what changes were instituted and post them here, so we can evaluate the evidence. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used this link and then Google translate to get the gist of it. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That was helpful. I think there is enough evidence in that report that the accident resulted in an increased meteorology budget and changes in dissemination of weather information that this qualifies under WP:LASTING. Accordingly I am happy to change my position to "keep" on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wp:aircrash.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Light aircraft accidents might often be lightly covered around the world, but they often get heavy coverage in Iceland and this is still being covered almost 40 years later. For instance, seven years after the accident, it received a two page coverage in Morgunblaðið, the largest newspaper in Iceland, in 1993[2]. In 2020 the largest television and radio operator in Iceland, RÚV, featuring the accident in a three part radio show (which was previously available here until August 2021 and archived here but MP3 recordings can be accessed here). With multiple significant coverage, including none-news stories, in at least 1986, 1993 and 2020, there is no denying that the article passes the general notability guideline (GNG). Closing admin should also note that wp:aircrash is not an official Wikipedia guideline and thus an invalid argument. He might also note that WP:GNG does not require that anyone involved in the accident has to have been notable. Alvaldi (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage also included this three-page feature from 1987 in Helgarpósturinn, that the nominator had removed from the article (I assume in good faith that he was unaware of its content), that covers the accident and its aftermath thoroughly, amongst it the effects of the accident on the goverments regulations regarding passenger compensations for plane accidents. So now it has significant coverage from at least 1986, 1987, 1993 and 2020. Alvaldi (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:LASTING, the accident resulted in changes made by the Civil Aviation Administration and the goverment in regulations to increase the flow of weather information between pilots and the Icelandic Meteorological Office. It also led to an overhaul of "how air operators' logbooks, brochures and other educational material published by the Civil Aviation Administration are used in pilot training and retraining, e.g. in the aptitude test."[3] Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, and so on. Definitely does not pass WP:GNG as no one involved in the crash even has an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article author has made persuasive arguments above that this article meets WP:GNG due to the amount of ongoing news coverage on a national scale about this incident. In addition, air industry regulations were updated or modified as a result of the incident according to sources added after the initial nomination. This isn't a weekend pilot crashing a small plane one day, this apparently made quite a splash, so meets the applicable notability guidelines. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AIRCRASH, specifically about how this changes national regulations and procedures. No matter how light the aircraft is, if it changes national procedures I think it satisfies the notability requirement. The accident still being discussed in 2022 shows that it is WP:LASTING and therefore notable.SunDawntalk 00:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it caused an regulaton change in national aviation.--Snævar (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements made since nomination, and the demonstrated impact this accident had on aviation safety in Iceland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the changes in aviation safety in Iceland.Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakis Arseniou[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim really being made here is that his music exists, and the only reference being cited is his Last.fm profile, which is not a reliable or notability-making source -- and rather strangely for a musician from Greece, there doesn't seem to be an article about him on the Greek Wikipedia from what I can tell, with the Arabic Wikipedia being the only thing in the interlangs (and that article's in an even worse state than this one, to boot, with no footnotes at all and written entirely in bullet points instead of actual sentences.)
As I can't read Greek, I'm more than happy to withdraw this if somebody who can read Greek can find enough reliable source coverage to salvage the article -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In Greek recentry there is coverage on him because of his partitipation in a TV reality competition, but no more than this; in-depth coverage from proper sources is missing. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ajpolino (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC) After brief discussion at User_talk:Jclemens#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Water_Rats_characters I've restored the deleted page as a redirect to Water Rats (TV series). I still read this discussion as consensus that we shouldn't have a free-standing List of Water Rats characters at this time, but preserving the page as a redirect keeps the substantial page history (including material that was merged from several individual character articles) visible to non-admins. Ajpolino (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Water Rats characters[edit]

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

Effectively a dumping ground for trivia about non-notable characters. Fails WP:LISTPURP as none of the entries are blue links, fails WP:NLIST as no source discusses the entries as a group, and fails WP:NOTPLOT as the article consists entirely of plot trivia. Was deprodded on the promise of a source, but that turned out to be a Wikipedia mirror. Entirely unsourced. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy-based rationale for deletion articulated. Other than cleanup, the only criterion listed is "none of the entries are blue links" which runs afoul of WP:CSC. "No source discusses the entries as a group" is nonsensical for a list article of fictional elements from a notable common source. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the sources in the Water Rats (TV series) article itself, each entry can presumably meet V with a trivial search like this... which the nominator presumably already knows because his PROD of the article for Holloway led to its redirection to this article. This would have been material information to have put into an above-the-board nomination, one would expect. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone can add a basic barebones list with the character names to the main article (which is effectively unsourced too, btw), but this right here is not justifiable as a standalone page, especially since plot information needs to be presented in summary style. Also, WP:CSC literally says, Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. Since the list doesn't justify its existence through NLIST and NOTPLOT, CSC supports deleting rather than keeping. Avilich (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem to me that the policy-based rationale is failing to meet WP:NLIST. You may disagree with the rationale, but it seems much to say it is not articulated. -2pou (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator: not a navigational list, a lot of unsourced plot trivia, and just a lack of sources to justify notability. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:V, and therefore constitutes WP:IINFO (WP:NOTPLOT). The character list is already present in a suitable format in the parent article. Pilaz (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sidenote, I was looking forward to this Jclemens vs Avilich clash - it's like watching Godzilla vs Kong, except it's a radical inclusionist Godzilla versus a radical deletionist Kong. Pilaz (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.No issue with is per se, but it is only linked to one source, which isn't enough. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a 100% plot summary, and WP:FANCRUFT, but we have so many of such lists. I guess some of this could be merged to the plot section of Water Rats (TV series), but I don't see the case of retaining the list as a stand-alone, given that not a single one of these characters seems to be individually notable, nor that there is even a single sentence of non-plot summary analysis for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support a merge here since the plot information is specific to each character, and unlikely to be of use in the broader article of the TV series itself. That a single sentence can be added to each character's entry in the main article is so trivial that a formal merge seems unnecessary. Moreover, it's not an article I would have created to begin with, since, again, it's effectively unsourced. Avilich (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable list topic (individual entries may have gotten a mention), i.e. that the VFA or VFL wooden spoon is a topic that on its own has gotten significant attention from reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Removed. (I copy edited the wrong version.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Fram (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete, although ideally I'd like to hear from Asperix first. Although the article lists a decent number of references, they all seem to merely mention that e.g. Aspley "claimed the wooden spoon" in 2021, without actually discussing the topic of VFA/VFL wooden spoons. The list therefore seems to fail WP:LISTN, and there doesn't seem to be another list purpose the page would fulfil. – Teratix ₵ 09:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN. As nom says, topic does not seem to get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. Minor league AFL content.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nomination makes sense. Users can visit the pages of the template Template:VFA/VFL seasons below instead. Perhaps add a sentence to those pages about the wooden spoon to each page.

Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Herndon (media psychologist)[edit]

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

First PROD'd in 2006 for failing to meet standards of notability and being promotional, I think this "contributing faculty member" (I'm not sure what that means) fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. In a search, I found other James Herndons more notable than him and even searches for "James N. Herndon" turned up more mentions for a dentist by this name than for this media psychologist. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Holt (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Away with the Circus[edit]

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

Non-notable, no potential for expansion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Zero coverage by media, will be better to make a page after a year. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn per user:Goldsztajn. Can be closed as Keep. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of coverage; five minutes of searching reveals a plethora of sourcing in English (I've not looked in the Kannada language media).[1][2][3][4][5][6] Furthermore, leaving aside its status as an essay, WP:TOOSOON does not operate as a blanket ban on articles on future events; NB WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle; given the 70+ year history of regular elections in the state, the available sourcing and the timeframe, these are safe, reasonable grounds for an article on an election due within 15 months.

References

  1. ^ "BJP begins spadework for 2023 Assembly elections in Karnataka". The New Indian Express. 21 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Interview with M.B. Patil: 'Congress will have region-specific strategies for 2023 Assembly elections in Karnataka'". The Hindu. 28 January 2022.
  3. ^ "Karnataka Congress diversifies its turf ahead of assembly polls". Hindustan Times. 3 February 2022.
  4. ^ Menasinakai, Sangamesh (17 January 2022). "BJP: Nk To Witness Political Churn Ahead Of '23 Polls?". The Times of India.
  5. ^ Aiyappa, Manu (14 January 2022). "Water Flows Into Parties' Agenda Ahead Of 2023 Polls | Bengaluru News - Times of India". The Times of India.
  6. ^ Menasinakai, Sangamesh (30 December 2021). "Karnataka: BJP sets mission of winning 150+ seats in 2023 assembly elections". The Times of India.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA). ✗plicit 23:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Common Worship of 1932[edit]

The Book of Common Worship of 1932 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on topic covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Myanmar-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The index in question is a huge block of text unusable to a human reader. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comments in the previous AFDs. Reywas92Talk 17:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Myanmar/Index of Myanmar-related articles. I can see the potential utility of such a list, but not as a mainspace article. If not moved, delete. BD2412 T 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, what potential utility do you see here? – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an easy page from which to click "related changes" and see changes to pages relevant to the project, without having to individually watchlist them. BD2412 T 00:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that. I think that's one of the main reasons some of those lists got created in the early days of Wikipedia, when watchlists and categories didn't exist yet (see Olivier's comment in this AfD). If someone wanted to use such a functionality now, then – given how incomplete the list is – they'll be much better off just generating a new index from the project listing [4]. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions. With almost exactly a thousand links, this represents just 13% of the articles tracked by the Myanmar Wikiproject. I can't see what value it may provide for either readers or editors. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand what benefit Wikipedia users get out of this list. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Myanmar. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never ending poorly organized list. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Myanmar to appropriate pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Albania-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The Albania index in question here is underdeveloped and useless. Would have prodded, but that route was tried already in 2010. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Technology Holdings[edit]

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

They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Daringsmith (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shadows (2001 film)[edit]

In the Shadows (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and one review (needs two or more reviews/RS to be eligible) on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold H. Buls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Low to no citations on his academic work, and no independent coverage found. I'm sure he was a fine professor, but he's just not notable. schetm (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Yinker[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires them to pass one or more achievement-based criteria, and to have media coverage independent of their own self-published marketing bumf. But the referencing here is almost entirely of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify, Apple Music, CD Baby or YouTube" variety, except for one citation to a WordPress blog, with not even one reference to a real, reliable or notability-building media outlet shown at all. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Man & The Angel[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources available apart from the announcement already given in the article[7]. Note that the other two sources in the article don't mention this film. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this short is even remotely notable.--Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing evidence of notability, reads slightly promotional as well. ASUKITE 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barring there being more sourcing that isn't in the article or I couldn't find, this looks to be a non-notable short film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad grammar, not notable, the bare plot synopsis sounds more like a teaser. User:ArdynOfTheAncients, 8:28, 10 February 2022
  • The film is directed by famous directed rupesh paul and the article has enough news sources it would be keep in te article section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiabirras (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nowhere close to meeting WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a low budget film, with a plotline that could be from a porno flick. Poorly written content. It's WPSNOWing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel G. Cefai[edit]

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

BLP with only links to his own publications. Described as "promising". Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power Sword[edit]

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

No coverage of the Power Sword independent of He-Man or the Masters of the Universe. Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article. Delete and redirect, as this is already covered in He-Man and Masters of the Universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. It's worth noting that there is an unexplored commercial angle, as there are numerous versions of the item that can be bought, ranging from cheap plastic children's toys to efforts to make a realistic metal sword. BD2412 T 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This both a fictional item and a toy. Both their histories and some of their impact are described based, at least in part, on secondary sources. There may be a little too much plot-information, but we do have a full article here. So under which critereon is there "Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article"? In addition to the commercial angle pointed out by BD2412, there's also a psychological angle as appears in this academic paper and this PhD thesis, though I cannot see how extensive that is, seeing only previews. This also has a bit more to say on the sword. Daranios (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Uh, I downloaded the paper (through LibGen) and I don't think it even mentions "power sword". The very word sword appears in it three times, the best I see is a single sentence where the "ever-present sword" is listed in passing as one of the "phallic" elements of the show. Likewise, the mention in the PhD thesis is passing, the sword was one of several toys used in some experiment and is not discussed or even introduced. The third paper has a sentence that states (in the context of He-Man never hurting living creatures) that "Throughout all 130 episodes of the original cartoon, He-Man’s The Power Sword was only used for blocking other weapons, blocking laser blasts, and removing obstacles and he never even punched anyone (robots don’t count)". That's it. Now, the book. Page 31 offers a short plot summary: "Another element brought about early on was the Power Sword, though it would evolve over the next two years, as well. It was introduced as a “key” to Castle Grayskull, needed to open the great drawbridge of the skull’s mouth and access the great powers inside. To protect the castle, the Goddess split the Power Sword in two and scattered those pieces across Eternia. Only when they were united could someone gain entrance and become a master of the universal power kept within." and bit about the relevant toy "The multiple versions of the Power Sword are easily explainable by the realities of these first action figures: the swords that most characters were packaged with all looked like that. The tiny swords were made to fit together like in the stories. The thinness of each one’s plastic led them to curve from heat and regular play." There are a few mentions throughout the rest of the text but in the context of passing and trivial plot summaries (ex. p. 61 " The two battle it out, the Power Sword countering every spell the villain summons.", p. 63 "Atop Castle Grayskull, He- Man raises the Power Sword and says...", or p. 163 "He-Man dives after his father, and the two manage to stop their decent by jamming the Power Sword into the rock wall."). Page 94 in the context of this live action adaptation, I think, informs us that "The Power Sword prop was large and unwieldy, nicknamed “The Buick Slayer”" and there are a few sentences about how he actor trained with the mock up broadsword. Page 152 tells us, in the context of some new Mattel-related He-Man, that "The Power Sword went through a redesign to include a green laser blade.". That's it, I checked each and every one of the 90+ mentions of the word sword in this book (I love Z-library...). I am afraid this is very much not enough if these are the best sources we can find (given nobody else has anything, and the article still has zero reception/significance). If someone cares, maybe something from the sources I analyzed above could be merged somewhere, but just as I concluded in the last AfD, this toy is simply not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: For Toying with Identity, and Children an Agressive Toys, that my be it, I can only see the previews. What was the result of the experiment in the latter? The preview of Masters of the Universe: Children's Toys as Reflections on Contemporary Psychoanalytic Theory contains "...conferred upon Prince Adam the capacity to become transformed into He-Man. All he must do is lift his sword high in the air and shout, “By the power of Greyskull.” Prince Adam, now the mighty He-Man...". So it talks about our sword here, even if it does not use the name. An identification of it as a phallic element may be good only for one sentence of analysis, but there it is. We have two sentences about how popular the toy was, a reception of sorts. And if we look at everything currently based on secondary sources in the article, we have several paragraphs of material, including plot-summary, but also history of the toy and publication history of the fictional item. So taking everything together, like for Jclemens, that's enough for me, even if it does not amount to a stellar article. Daranios (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cobble the appearance of WP:SIGCOV from two or three mentions in passing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, if the argument is amount of coverage: We have an article of several paragraphs, and this would remain the case even if we cut out the unreferenced (i.e. based on primary sources) parts. That's what WP:WHYN requires in that regard. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't change the fact that SIGCOV is failed here. If you disagree, please show me which source cited contains more than one-two sentences of analysis (not just plot summary) of this object. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How He-Man Mastered the Universe supports about six sentences beyond plot-summary in the current version of the article. These are a bit of thought behind the sword, but mostly the toy's history. Everything else currently there is shorter. But, as usual, WP:GNG does not say that significant coverage needs to be done with any one specific source. In my opinion, it just has to exist in total. Daranios (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above coverage. The nom's argument to "delete and redirect" is unsupported by policy and arguably would be prohibited by WP:ATD as unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Please see my analysis above for why the sourcing is very much not sufficient. Ping User:Jclemens ("per the above coverage") and User:Toughpigs ("existing sources") who think otherwise. Did any of you actually look at these sources at all? Or are you referring to some other sources, and if so, please tell us what they are. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't, but I see your source analysis and find that's still enough to be non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Sure, more would be nice, but again, we're dealing with a pre-Internet TV show here. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a toy line it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a Wikipedia article. Artw (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Toy lines don't have any bearing on notability if sources haven't troubled to take note of the topic in question, and the sourcing here is very limited. At most there is the coverage of the toy line itself which Daranios mentioned, but that doesn't seem substantive or sustained enough, and, if Piotr's analysis is right (it's the only detailed one as of yet), any real-world coverage this fictional sword has appears to be limited to trivial mentions. A sum of failures of SIGCOV do not make one success of it, so I guess I would support redirecting for now, however unlikely this will happen at this stage. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to He-Man and/or other related articles. Yes, there is coverage, but it is mostly not about the sword as such (as a fictional item or as a toy), but about the He-Man character, his series and the merchandising for it, of which the sword is but one element. An item with the cultural prominence of Excalibur this is certainly not. It should be covered, per WP:DUE, in the context of the show and its characters. Sandstein 10:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has the Sword of Protection actually been included in the WP:BEFORE search? It gives a number of hits. Now I assume that many of them are plot summary, but it would be the duty of the nominator to check that. At the least this paper discusses the symbolism of the sword, especially of its destruction at one point. Daranios (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just more sourcing that doesn't discuss a sword independently of the character. The symbolism of that sword to She-Ra belongs in She-Ra's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: I can partially agree, it's possible to use that to discuss the sword as such and it's symbolism, or to discuss it at She-Ra. However, why are we then discussing deletion here rather than split, merge and redirect? I would be fine with that as an alternative to keeping the article, if relevant information that is not yet in the three target articles were to be preserved, and if the merge would come before the redirect. I don't see simply removing what has been gathered here either by deletion or redirection in the hope that someone will re-research it elsewhere or merge it later as a good way to go. As I am not exactly in the position to set conditions, I'll stay with my keep opinion (and I still see a stand-alone article as an effective solution), because alternatives could be solved in a clean-up afterwards at any time. Daranios (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two relists with zero additional input, and I don't anticipate a third changing that. No prejudice against a renom at a time where you believe there might be more engagement Star Mississippi 02:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titi Kuti[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Hasn't had any significant roles in notable films or television series. Is reliant on primary sources and unreliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple movies or TV series, The actor is predominantly known for their “bit part roles” in both the movie titled “King of Boys” (the movie), and King of Boys (the TV series), of which in both movie and TV series they weren’t the lead role, they weren’t supporting actor, their roles are honestly best described as “bit part” . Furthermore they haven’t been given any prestigious awards for their acting, i am indeed doubtful they have ever received and prestigious award. I’d like to see the input of the article creator who removed the prod on the article, citing that NACTOR is met, I’d love to hear their rationale as how this is so. Celestina007 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, no need to bite or sound so angry. Now, I'm not the author of the article or the one who removed the prod, but glancing at the article and a few of its sources, I can see an argument that WP:GNG may have been met, as surprisingly, there are multiple articles listed expressly about this person in the role you labeled as a bit part. Even if WP:NACTOR is not met, WP:GNG would trump. The question I have though, is whether the sources are RELIABLE sources. I have no idea about the reliability or relevance of any of these sources. Could you (or someone) assess that? Fieari (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, could you please retract your aspersions? I consider aspersions a personal attack, you accused me of BITING when I have been nothing but civil with the editor who created this article, please which part of what I just said above is “Biting” ? I made factual statements which are all corroborated easily. In-fact look at our civil conversation I am very much offended by your aspersions against me, furthermore you stated that I “sounded angry”, which i found strange as “tone” can’t be interpreted over text, i was literally relaxed & laying on my sofa without an iota of anger or frustration when making those comments. I’m offended by this aspersions because I put in very conscious efforts to be polite and simultaneously precise/concise when interacting with my co-editors, Please can you be so gracious as to retract your aspersions or in the very least apologize, for assuming wrongly? Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to your talk page to not clutter here. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — NACTOR also requires significant roles in multiple TV series or other productions. The actor is also a producer. According to "NACTOR", he must have had significant roles in multiple productions, which includes, his production for Africa Magic, reality show "Nigerian Idol", and Africa Magic television series "Hustle", starring Sola Sobowale. A reliable source from Vanguard Nigeria, confirms the statement above. I believe with this, NACTOR is met.--Afí-afeti (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This is to note that the editor above is the article creator. They produced this Vanguard source which is unreliable as the byline is missing “the staff reporter” which invariably means we are dealing with an opinion piece which we do not consider reliable. Generally, when dealing with articles on business people, organizations or entertainers or any topic area which may be prone to less than ethical practices, we want to see reliable sources being optimized. Can this reliable sources be brought here for thorough analysis? In the very least at least three good sources that satisfy WP:RS & are in accordance with WP:GNG I’m afraid, If not, it is my opinion that this is a NACTOR fail. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no prejudice toward the nom as this is a very close call. He appears to have a regular role on a notable show but the debate above is about NACTOR and needing multiple notable roles by that guideline, with the rebuttal that he's been a producer in other things. So I'm left with looking at the broader general notability guidelines and there I find that this article's subject has himself been the non-trivial subject of multiple (in this case exactly 2) reliable secondary sources, the Guardian and Vanguard. So he only barely passes general notability, but a D is indeed a passing grade. -Markeer 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Markeer, Hello MKR, as stated on my TP that I wouldn’t comment here except expressly pinged, I’ve been deeply troubled since I made that statement(I would expatiate on this below) the apple of discord here is for any editor to bring forward sources, please can you be so kind as to show me the sources you found, the truth is, In as much as I try to ignore this AFD or comment any further, I have this huge feeling of guilt that an article that falls short of both NACTOR & GNG would be retained on mainspace due to honest mistakes on the part of editors unfamiliar with Nigerian sources(I am an expert on this) I am troubled because as a Nigerian(well I’ve lived here for 20+ years now) & I know as a matter of fact that the subject we are currently discussing doesn’t satisfy both NACTOR and GNG, MKR, I would be extremely grateful if you can show me the sources you found so I can do a source analysis. This isn’t an attempt to make you change your !vote, no, rather it is an attempt for me to do a source analysis on the sources you found and if you stick with your !vote that is indeed your prerogative and I would speak no more, all I’m begging for at the moment is a chance to do a analysis for you on sources you said you saw and as aforementioned if you stick to your !vote, in the spirit of consensus I would bow out, all I’m asking for from you or any editor to bring all the sources that substantiate their notability & as aforementioned, a chance to do a source analysis for everyone to see, I would draw up a source analysis table and assess each source presented. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, I published the article on mainspace, you moved it to draft in quote, you stated "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." I obliged to that, by making sure it was rewritten, please note: The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject, without the help of these interviews, which are been published by reliable sources. Also, I will love to bring to your attention, the article was submitted through AfC for review as requested by you. As Markeer stated above, I'm also bringing to your attention, the AfD was nominated for failing the requirements of "WP:NACTOR", this is the debate. It all said, it clearly meets this. In WP:Interviews, it states "it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts", this was what I did in the article. Remember the article is a "Stub". WP:Interviews are accepted for WP:GNG, if only it been published by a reliable source.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@“Afí-afeti, First of all this comment by you: “The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject” is not supported by any policy here, and generally isn’t a factual statement, investigative journalism would be in variance with that wrong assertion. Let’s keep that aside, & focus on policy; GNG requires independence from the subject & Interviews are not independent of the subject thus they do not meet GNG, they can be used to verify certain trivial facts just as how WP:VENDOR's work, but it can’t be used to substantiate major notability claims, and this is also stated in Wikipedia:Interviews, please see this information. Lastly, I didn’t state "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." that is auto generated message, although my draftification generated it. As I said in my TP and here also, I do not want to bludgeon, and would only return if I was pinged to do a source analysis, i was pinged & I have done a source analysis. The rest is left for the community to decide, my work here is done. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Check Request - @Celestina007: I don't think there's any need to bow out of commenting on this AfD... we're all here to build an encyclopedia, I think we're all okay now, and I believe your insight would be valuable. I see on your user page that Nigerian sources can be... complicated... with regards to reliability. Could I formally ask you to review the other sources on this page in this light? Specifically:
    • PM News Nigeria - If (and only if) this is a reliable source, this is a strong indicator of WP:GNG as it is an article expressly about the actor in question in far more than a passing mention. It also has a byline, unlike the vanguard source you checked above.
    • The Guardian - This is a similar kind of article as the PM News one, expressly about the subject in detail. It has a byline.
    • Daily Trust (archived) - Another interview article with a byline as above.
    • Bella Naija - I think I can already see just by looking at it that this isn't a reliable source.
I'm not claiming that I think these are reliable sources, I'm asking... are they? How can we tell? Thank you. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, great. you have cited 4 sources and I’d analyze them accordingly, let me start by referencing the first source briefly before we delve into the crux of analysis, now, contrary to what you think, it is indeed a reliable source but that piece is unreliable, let’s begin the analysis, first source is credible but an unreliable piece, because it is literally based on an interview on a different platform, a portion of that piece reads Speaking with Ebuka Obi-Uchendu in a recent interview, the piece literally relied on an interview, and interviews aren’t independent of the subject thus doesn’t count towards notability the second source is is at best now a WP:QS, see one of the reasons here and even worse still, it is an interview thus doesn’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject which is required by WP:GNG. the third archived source is an interview thus can’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject. GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and that piece falls short of the standard requirement. As for the fourth and final source, you are apt. it is a gossip blog which is pretty much self published, lacks editorial oversight and has no reputation for fact checking, a huge fail of RS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are interviews really excluded from establishing notability? There's editorial control over who they interview, after all. The selection of questions, the editing, and the context they provide all seem like things that could establish notability. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of a subject, an interview is not independent of the subject thus is in variance with a core aspect of what constitutes notability as detailed in WP:GNG which requires absolute "independence" Do you get the drift? An interview is not independent in the sense that the editorial is publishing a literal interaction with the subject. Having said, let me expressly state that interviews are not without use, You see, Interviews are treated in the same manner we treat primary sources, that is, they can be used to verify information that is relatively trivial such as age, full name, college attended and things along those lines, they however do not count towards notability but only serve predominantly to satisfy WP:V When it comes to claims of notability we discard primary sources and employ or make use use of WP:IS. Furthermore to comprehend what I’m saying better look at Wikipedia:Interviews. Like I stated, elsewhere I wouldn’t bludgeon the the AFD process, and except I was pinged to do a source analysis I wouldn’t comment anymore. I believe I have just done so, thus my work here is done. I did this analysis not to make you change your mind nor that of anyone else but to show everyone that the sources are very unreliable in this context. If you need me to expatiate please ping me. On a lighter note, Did you ask how I can tell reliable sources from unreliable sources? Barkeep49 was my tutor at NPP academy, I learnt from the best Celestina007 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, looking at Celestina007's link to Wikipedia:Interviews, you'll see it's got an interesting section on Notability. Basically it comes down to this: you need to decide whether the interviewee sought out the interviewer, or vice versa. If the interviewee managed to wangle themselves a TV interview, it means nothing (except they've got a big wallet or a good agent). If the TV station independently, and without encouragement from the subject, decided the interviewee was worth interviewing, this supports their notability. But even so, the interview is a poor source for actual information, so unless there's some other source available, we find ourselves suspecting that someone's notable, but having nothing reliable we can say about them. I'm grateful for input from those who, like @Celestina, know the local sources and their attitudes to paid-for interviews. Don't get me started on paid-for award-nominations! Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excluding interviews and churnalism, which don't count for notability, there is not enough independent coverage to write an article. (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 01:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Ofori[edit]

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

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Contested prod (see article's talk page). But presidential appointees don't satisfy WP:NPOL, which clearly say they must be elected. Not a cabinet level position (see Cabinet of Nana Akufo-Addo). Onel5969 TT me 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:NPOL says that politicians must be elected to qualify. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Justice Ofori is the Commissioner of Insurance in Ghana a very high profile Government of Ghana position which the person is nominated directly by the president to that office. This person meets WP:NPOL since his office is tied to the tenure of the president of the republic of Ghana. This makes the subject meet WP:GNG, I am at a loss why you claim he is not notable with the abundance of third party sources we have provided. The organization he heads is a very reputable Government of Ghana agency which regulates Insurance in Ghana. I shudder to think a head of such institution which is a constitutional body can not be said to meet WP:NPOL. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Many, many hits in Google, not sure which ones are considered reliable sources for Ghana. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.K. Sukumaran[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability, and the second source in the article doesn't seem to mention him, which is a bit alarming. Perhaps others have more luck in finding good sources for doctor Sukumaran, all I could find were sources for a namesake who leads a workers union. Fram (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half Good Killer[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fosston, Minnesota#History. Participants are invited to selectively merge verifiable content to the new location. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cordwood Pete[edit]

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

Fakelore hoax with all sources stemming from a single common web article. Google search gives scant results, seems to be not remotely notable. Toogs (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore or Fakelore by its very definition, is substantially untrue. Make sure you cancel all the characters on this Wikipedia page wile you're at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_tale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray.lowry (talk • contribs) 13:52, February 3, 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete "Folklore" is a story that has been passed down, is told in many cases, and has wide use. The factual reality of the story is not what matters. Some stories are in fact true, but most are fiction. We have articles on fiction. That is not the issue. Our articles on fiction cover things that have recieved coverage in reliable sources. So in the case of folklore, it is a story widely shared in various formats. True, most of the forms folklore is shared are not directly documentable, it is parents telling stories to children, teachers repeating stories, cub scout leaders telling stories, etc. However there are ways to document that the story does exist. We lack the documents here to show that this is a widely told of character who is widely spoken about. So there is no evidence that this is a generally accepted person in the existing folklore. So we should delete the article, unless someone can find sources that shows that this is an existing character in the folklore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I called this out as a hoax because the article confusingly presents itself as genuine folklore. If it were to remain, it would need to be extensively rewritten to clarify that Cordwood Pete is a relatively recent invention with a specific source. Regardless, I'm not advocating the article be deleted by virtue of fakelore, but rather (as above) general notability. Toogs (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary Keep or Merge to, I guess, Tall tale#United States. About notability: The story (Invented by that homepage? Can we judge from anything besides circumstantial evidence?) is taken up in detail in the travel guides by Eric Dregni [8]/[9]. There is a short description of the house in Minnesota Open House, and more about the figure himself in Minnesota Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities. Unfortunately I don't get a proper preview, but Google shows me the start of the story, so it does not seem insignificant. This scholarly source (published in the Russian journal "Philological Class") does not give any details, but it does call Cordwood Pete a "folklore character". Is there a reason why the fact that the figure made it into the travel guides (no matter his origin) should not count towards notability? Daranios (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points about notability, but I would caution against including Cordwood Pete in any list that implies genuine folklore. The obituary of Fosston mayor Arvid Clementson says:

    In his tireless effort to promote Fosston, he created the "Cordwood Pete" legend, which has generated a statewide interest for tourism ... Proceeds from his Cordwood Pete activities were designed to support local tourism activities including Fosston's Annual Heritage Days.

    This, the dubious claim of a "time capsule" found in 2001, and the fact that no older references exist leads me to believe that Cordwood Pete is purely an invention of the 21st century. I'm concerned these secondary sources (some of which seem rather tongue-in-cheek) are, knowingly or not, perpetuating a hoax. It feels wrong for Wikipedia to do the same. I think if the article remains, its first lines should reflect the information in the above blockquote. Toogs (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toogs: Now that obituary is a good find! Even if editorial control of that site is not clear to me, it is a source that makes clear that the character is a recent invention, without us as Wikipedia editors having to put that together somehow. So I would still like to keep the article based on the secondary sources found, even if they are not very auspicious, about this "legend, which has generated a statewide interest for tourism". But I wholeheartedly agree to a rephrasing of the introductory part along the lines you've suggested. Daranios (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Daranios. This needs careful rewrite as it may be a hoax that generated secondary coverage sufficient to become notable. Looking at the sources, Midwest Marvels is a 2006 touristy book, but published by a reliable institution (University of Minnesota Press) and the author is an academic (Eric Dregni). It talks about the time capsule and such. Was Dregni duped? It's not like his article adheres to high academic standards, but it is not for us to say he was duped or not, I think. I have trouble accessing other sources (snippet view/copyright), but Dregni's treatment suggests some notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay folks, I am the culprit who created this page. If you read the 2010 version [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cordwood_Pete&diff=374808000&oldid=374761266 ] it has five citations, including the obituary referenced above (although the site it connected to is now a paid-search site). It began with the sentence "Cordwood Pete is a tall-tale character.." and currently reads "Cordwood Pete is a fictional character..." I also inserted the generic pictures of lumberjacks. This all began when I visited Fosston and stopped to use the bathroom at the museum/gift shop the locals claim was Cordwood Pete's home. I looked up the name on my phone (literally while sitting on the toilet), was amused by the several references I found, and created the page when I returned home. Excuse the heck out of me for perpetuating the myth created by residents of some small town in Minnesota. It was not my intent to create a hoax. If you google "Cordwood Pete" several dozen sites pop up, about half of which obtained their info directly from the Wikipedia page. That says something about the reach of Wikipedia. But Pete is also mentioned in several travel books, to include one in German, and one academic tract in Russian about modern mythology. My feelings will not be hurt if you delete the page. I would rewrite it, and make it acceptable to all of you, but though once very active in Wikipedia page creation, I not longer know how to really do it. As you can see, I no longer even know who to even sign off correctly. Have a good day. And thank you for your participation in Wikipedia, which as a world-wide treasure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ray.lowry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray.lowry (talk • contribs) 19:12, February 5, 2022 (UTC)

Ray.lowry, You can refresh yourself on how to sign at WP:SIGN :) Can you join the discussion at Talk:Cordwood Pete? I am concerned about the accuracy of captions. In particular, how can we have a photo of the subject if he is a character from fiction? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Fosston, Minnesota#History, where he is already mentioned, and perhaps expand on that a bit, making clear that he's a legend invented for touristic purposes. The sources mentioned above don't really support an article, but they can be used to flesh out this town's local history a bit. Sandstein 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fosston, Minnesota#History per Sandstein. While that section could be expanded a bit with information from the sources listed above, I would not recommend an actual merger, as the only true secondary source being used in the current article is being used to cite the information on the time capsule, which, based on the evidence above regarding Cordwood Pete being a relatively recent invention, is highly dubious. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting bit of local lore, could it be merged into the article about the town instead? Not sure it warrants an article on its own, but it could surely be noted as a paragraph in the town's article? Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ó Fathaigh[edit]

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

This seems to be either a hoax or a bunch of very hard to verify WP:OR with a few reliable bits thrown in to make it look believable. For example, the forefather "Fathadh mac Aonghus", is not to be found in Google Books and doesn't seem to appear in reliable sources in Google otherwise[10]. "Cormac Ó Fathaigh" is said to be the first with the surname, but again all traces of such a person are missing[11][12]. The episode with "Uilic de Burgo": equally unverifiable.

The sources used in the article either don't support the article, or are copies of Wikipedia.

Note that the name O Fathaigh obviously exists, and some information about it can be found from reliable sources, e.g. here. But that doesn't excuse the existence of an article which seems 90% made up around these few facts.

If this is indeed largely a hoax or unverifiable, then a number of other articles will need to be looked at as well (e.g. Fathadh mac Aonghus and Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh exist here since 2009, but are completely unverifiable). Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. As long as there are Wikipedia articles with people of this name, this can exist as a namelist, at a minimum, per MOS:DABNAME and WP:APOS. Remove WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not cleanup, but at some point WP:TNT comes into play. If the vast majority of an article is this dubious, there is little reason to use this as the start of something acceptable instead of simply deleting it, and recreating from scratch if wanted. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. I see that you boldly removed the suspected OR, reducing it to a name list, but it was reverted. Seem like a content dispute that WP:APO could have been consulted, but this is a quirk of namelists vs regular articles. No worries.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries from me either, your keep is a valid opinion but I just wanted to explain why I saw it differently this time. Fram (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing in the guidelines stopping the deletion of this as a name list. We've got articles about two people with the name. A dab page will be needed here only if both of them are commonly known under their surname, which I take not to be the case. This leaves it as a surname list, and a surname list of two people is allowed as a navigational aid by WP:APONOTE. However, that is not a guideline, but an essay without community consensus, and there are very good reasons to do the opposite of what it recommends for such very short lists. First, the list is not an improvement on the search engine: the two articles about the people will appear at the very top of the search results [13], which will incidentally also reveal all other relevant content on Wikipedia (like the various articles about related names that mention "Ó Fathaigh", or the other non-notable people with the name mentioned here and there). Second, unlike the search results, the list doesn't automatically stay up to date (and there are no processes that I'm aware of that help here), so if a third article gets created about another person with the name, then the list would immediately become an obstruction rather than an aid to navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is useful as a namelist if nothing else.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Special:Permalink/976014502 was a sensible little disambiguation page. But the fact that there's quite a lot of stuff here that just is not in the sources cited when adding it, is definitely a problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I tried something similar before this AfD at this version, but no luck. Deleting the page and restoring just the first three revisions may be a solution. Fram (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, valid page, keep and fix - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUPDeathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim. The heart of this article is a valid {{surname}} page. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Arlo[edit]

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

This series was not reviewed by a single major critic. It fails WP:GNG and the guidelines set at MOS:TV. I redirected the article to Arlo the Alligator Boy but that action was reverted by an editor advising deletion. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in hope of getting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ze'ev Smason[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BISHOPS or be notable outside of a child molestation case by a volunteer at the congregation. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-cult movement[edit]

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

This page is a list of largely unsubstantiated attempts to characterize anti-cult activists as themselves leading a cult-like movement. In my opinion there could be a good article on this topic but the present article has made no progress toward being a helpful encyclopedia article. Ungulates (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 23:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources, which appear to substantiate the page. Could be improved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Cop (2000 Kant Leung film)[edit]

Violent Cop (2000 Kant Leung film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. I couldn't find anything in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "DePRODed. A number (if not most) of PRODed HK films have survived an AfD. A proper AfD would allow the community to comment and possibly to substantially improve and reference this article."

So, maybe there are sources out there that others can find? DonaldD23 talk to me 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Lipton[edit]

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

See no nonability, neither a musician nor as researcher Loew Galitz (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The article definitely needs expansion to establish notability, but there are some sources available that may allow it to better demonstrate his notability. For example [14], an interview with India-based Observer Research Foundation, which appears reliable and also provides a short preamble that describes his work as a researcher who helped develop Amazon's deep learning as well as some of his published works. Dfadden (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHB Cable TV[edit]

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

Only two dead primary reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Cannon-Alfred[edit]

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

I am unable to identify any publications besides the coauthorship of her book for patients. The item in Ebony appears to be an advertisement for the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for reasons given above. Effectively unsourced, even thought it is small micro article. scope_creepTalk 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added a second item in Ebony that is a story about a Los Angeles City Council resolution and ceremony honoring her and her husband in 1971. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you linked to the correct source, that's the same advertorial as the one that was already provided. --Kinu t/c 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my error. I deleted the duplicate. I also added in her PhD information and a 1961 Science journal article by her on the same topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entry in Blacks in science and medicine lists the subject's place and date of birth, education and career progression very summarily without commenting on her notability, and cites one co-authored publication. Is that substantial enough coverage? I've seen similarly minor coverage dismissed in other AfDs. Ficaia (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so from my view, in combination with other independent and reliable sources, yes, her inclusion in Blacks in science and medicine provides some support for notability due to its synthesis of her biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with book sources provided by Beccaynr. Article needs an update as it reads as if she is alive. NemesisAT (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two valid book entries means there much more there. scope_creepTalk 04:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the RS provided by Beccaynr - nice work!!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Black Women Scientists in the United States lists American Men and Women of Science as a reference. If someone can verify that she is in the latter, then that would both help support the notability case as well as potentially source biographical details. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Localisation (humanitarian practice). Sandstein 10:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation[edit]

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

I don't see any indication of this 2021 report passing WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi, I wrote the article, so as you might expect, I think it should stay on Wikipedia. My reasons are that it meets GNG, it's a notable publication that is widely cited in authoritative academic literature. Every sentence of the synopsis is cited secondary high quality academic sources, and I've quoted various high quality, independent, secondary sources that cite it:
  1. This paper from La Trobe University
  2. This paper from Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility
  3. It's cited dozens of times on this report from Tufts University to the point where it was probably the main source and influence for the whole publication
  4. This publication is from the same publisher, but different authors, so you could maybe argue it either way.
  5. This report from N.E.S.T.A.
  6. Since the AfD started, I added another citation from the Centre for Humanitarian Leadership I had missed it first as they spell localisation with a "z".
I wouldn't just say it's notable, it's a meta analysis of every paper that's been published on Localisation (humanitarian practice), probably the most important publication on the topic. I recognize that humanitarian topics are not well covered in wikipedia, but this is a very important document in the decolonisation of humanitarian aid and it absolutely deserves to be on Wikipedia, in my humble opinion.
I see very little activity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_Development sadly, and yet they are the group who I think would most likely see it like me, I hate how humanitarian and international development stuff is so absent here, if anyone can do the thing where we fairly let people know without trying to bias the result, they should be aware that this is up for deletion, I think. But as I note the last time a AfD was discussed there it was me who proposed deletion and nobody replied or acted, so <throws up hands in despair> lol CT55555 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add them in, because I'm not sure if it counted or not, but some extra websites that spoke of the publication are:
Save The Children here
The Red Cross here
Google Scholar tells me it's quoted in Hugo Slim's 2022 book, but I don't know how much, so didn't add: Slim, Hugo. Solferino 21: Warfare, Civilians and Humanitarians in the Twenty-First Century. Hurst Publishers, 2022.
Google scholar suggests it's quoted here, but again I don't have access https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E2%80%98As-local-as-possible%2C-as-international-as-Wilkinson/82b4a174675c7f23ccb8caf1fd421a607e771e7c
And the paper itself is academically published here DOI:10.1080/01436597.2021.1890994 CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I checked in here today, I thought a decision would be made by now and ended up reading the policies...I found myself here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(published_works), specifically the General Criteria for published works and also the criteria for academic works, both which seem somewhat relevant. The more I read them, the more it seems very clear to me that this publication is very specifically meeting the criteria. It is the subject of multiple, non trivial publications that are independent of the source, it is influential within its area of influence. I hope the final decision on this will follow the guidance on notability for published works. CT55555 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think I added this comment at exactly the same time that Extraordinary Writ relisted it. Sorry for any confusion. CT55555 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a section of Overseas Development Institute. It's very rare for an individual paper/report to have a stand-alone article, and rarer still when there's an obvious home for material about the report (like an article about the entity that produced it). For a stand-alone article, we need more than just citations, which is largely what these sources are. We need in depth coverage of the report itself, and preferably published in peer reviewed publications. The bar is relatively high, in other words. Think, like, Two Dogmas of Empiricism level of significance. Otherwise a good report is, well, a good source to cite on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhododendrites I delayed replying, hope more people would comment. Naturally, I'd prefer a merge than a delete. But here's an attempt to persuade you: I recognise the point you are making, but this is more than just citations. Indeed most of the sources here are just a citations, but if you consider the Tuff's report, it's a major influence for the whole paper. OK, so it's not formally peer reviewed, but it's published by a university, so it probably literally is peer reviewed. The quality of the other thinking that this has influenced is really quite high. So I think nobody could argue that it's rare for a report to have a stand alone article, but I say this report is that rare exception, it's a meta analysis of all of the thinking on the topic, it's important.
And if I didn't persuade you against the merge, I would say that the ODI page is indeed a suitable home for this, but I don't think people go to the ODI page to learn about localisation, so maybe (and maybe not, this is a suggestion) Localisation_(humanitarian_practice) would be the more logical merge to? CT55555 (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not strike me as enough coverage of the subject to overcome a merge, but I'd be curious what others think, too. As for where it should be merged, there are actually two questions built in: where should the content go, and where should this article title redirect a reader. It sounds like it makes sense to add some content about it to the localisation article in addition to the ODI article, but as for where the report title points to (where it redirects), I'm still inclined to point to the entity that produced the report, which in turn could link to the localisation article. If this report were the basis of the whole concept of localisation, such that it were inextricable from that subject, then that might work as a redirect, but it would be unusual. Some of these questions are a matter of style/consistency. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the specific point of the redirect, I agree on the style/consistency point. I think if merge is the consensus (I don't support that consensus) then the ODI page could do with a paragraph on this and the localisation page could do with a section on this report, or something of that quantity. Relisted for the second time, but alas Wikipedia seems to have low interest for humanitarian stuff, which ironically is why created this article. lol CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Localisation (humanitarian organizations). There's nothing in the routine citations above to suggest that the report is notable, but the rather that the underlying practice being discussed is. On the other hand, the content here is relevant to a meaningful and high-profile practice within multiple humanitarian organizations, which meets GNG.--Carwil (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of others, I'm sure you mean Localisation (humanitarian practice) CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, didn't realize that was blue link. Thanks! Carwil (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if more input helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I had hoped someone would do that, I don't know how to do it, and the only WikiProject I know if that may be interested is International Development which seems very stagnant, I once raised an AfD there and got nothing and nobody ever raised one since. I'll think if there are any other places I could seek input from, of course would only do that neutrally. CT55555 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Localisation (humanitarian practice). One needs to differentiate between the issues the report covers and the report itself. I do not see WP:NBOOK being met here. To take the Save the Children source, this is an archive listing, it is not a discussion or analysis of the report. The report is being cited by others for its examination of an issue, which is different than being cited for the report's effect. A concrete way to illustrate this difference would be the Beveridge Report; that report is famously notable for its policy and legal effects; indicating that a report is cited by others within the same academic sphere is not enough to indicate the policy and/or legal effects of the report (which would be appropriate criteria in this case). FWIW, as far as I can see, we don't even have a stand-alone article for Einstein's paper on mass-energy equivalence (although we do have one on his proof of the existence of atoms). No doubt this report is useful in establishing the notability of the topic it examines, but there is no clear sourcing that the report itself is notable. I hope the distinction I'm making is clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The content of the report should be discussed in the context of its subject, but the report isn't notable on its own. It's great that it's been cited, but that's not about the report itself. Its findings can be discussed in Localisation (humanitarian practice). Reywas92Talk 01:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice) and possibly a little at Overseas Development Institute.Gusfriend (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice). It's a great source, and our readers would benefit from its insights. No evidence it's notable on it own. Femke (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that we don't want an article with the scope described by the title. A different question is whether to have an article about Amazon.com's services in Israel; anybody is free to create that and if needed to request undeletion of this content for this purpose. Sandstein 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping to Israel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Disguised brochure article. More of information note. Unsuitable for wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 11:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:NOTNEWS, written by spammer and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT is at the core of WP:NCORP, making this into a moving target and even a bit desperate or at the very least unclear and unsure. As if when throwing at this many things then maybe something would stick. It reinforces my previous observation: This AFD is crumbling under its total lack of merit. gidonb (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anybody else have any reviews on this poor news article? scope_creepTalk 12:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine whether a merge or rename is the best outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete misleading title and the opening sentence talks about Amazon. Not sure what this is....Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that nominator has submitted this article for speedy deletion and, after this request was declined, moved it to a weird name, then AfDd it the next minute? gidonb (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under these circumstances a procedural keep is in order. Then see what can be made of the article, following the rules. Then it can still be discussed. If you do work by the rules you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic for our discussion. gidonb (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: If you keep making false allegations like that against me, which is a form of personal attack, it is up to AN with you. You seem to be foaming at the mouth to keep this crap article, which is bit of a puzzlement since it is no more than an information note, two bits of news glued together and non-encyclopedic failing WP:NOTNEWS, and specific to one country. You also seem to trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole argument, driving away other editors, instead of letting it flow freely, which is another reason to go to AN. scope_creepTalk 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I said is true. People can look this up themselves, as others did before me. I only just found out. Regarding more contributions by other editors: I'm in favor. This should not be about you or me. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purely speaking on timing, not merit as I have not evaluated the content thororoughly: @Gidonb your facts are out of order here. @Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. There's no issue with doing so at all Star Mississippi 14:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. Right. That's EXACTLY what I said! I did not say that moving is forbidden. I said that a non-contributor (any) to an article moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. Next respondents are going to check the contents versus the title, as happened above. Any initiator of an AfD should give success and failure of an AfD a fair chance. AfDs are about letting the community decide on optimal solutions for the article in a collaborative spirit. Please do not make this more personal than the nominator already did. My comments are purely about the principle. I stand 100% behind my conclusion that, given the circumstances around this AfD, it is best to close in a procedural keep. Let people improve the text and title. Then nominate if still relevant. I do not decide on all that. Others do. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also said you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic which @Scope creep did not do. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure which of you is right, or wrong content wise, but accusing one another of doing something you didn't doesn't help a discussion. Star Mississippi 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of me, you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic, refers to what we should not do AFTER the AfD has started. I stand 100% behind this statement and have proudly repeated it here moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. I did not accuse anyone of anything. This is behavior that was assigned to me by someone else and clearly does not apply to me. I noted that this AfD has a problem baked in because of the sequence of events around the nomination: change into a weird title THEN nomination. I analyzed the problem and suggested a constructive solution. No single person can do better than that! gidonb (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now while I did not accuse anyone of anything, there were several false accusations against me here that are VERY annoying. I'll leave it that for now. gidonb (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I raised my eyebrows at the last-minute change of name, as it might be interpreted as an attempt to compromise the article before a deletion nomination. I asked Scope creep to explain this change but they do not appear to have done so. However, this wrinkle is insufficient reason for a procedural keep, and we should assess the article in the normal way. 'Amazon shipping to Israel' is too narrow a topic for a useful article. We might usefully have an article on Amazon's shipping operations worldwide, or possibly on Amazon's activities in Israel (although we don't have corresponding articles on Amazon's larger markets), but this article is too far from either of these to form a useful starting point. The current text cannot easily be merged into Amazon (company), which does not have geographical sections. None of the other articles in Template:Amazon appear to be a viable merge target, soo I favour delete, as the only remaining outcome. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is an Amazon service, shipping to Israel, so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all entirely based on company announcements with no "Independent Content". I agree with Oaktree's summary too - article is confusing as hell and TNT applies. HighKing++ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Strange title and RS doesn't support notabilit as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a complete disjoint between the title and the content. The original title was a bit clearer (and I don't think it should have been renamed prior to nomination!) although that title just makes the non-notability of the topic more obvious. The content seems... weird. Taken at face value it is a scattered set of facts that do not add up to a coherent or notable subject. It seems like we are being invited to join the dots but to what end? Even if I am right about that, I can't see exactly what narrative is being sketched here but I assume it falls foul of WP:SYNTH. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the name drama, which could be solved editorially, there is still no content that adds up to an encyclopedia article here. Without that, no amount of fixing will address the issue. There were shipping issues to Israel. Maybe this could be covered within BDS Sanctions, but that doesn't even appear to be a fit nor is it a significant enough issue. Star Mississippi 22:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta (1960 film)[edit]

Seeta (1960 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Was deleted via PROD in 2020, but was undeleted in 2021. No additions have been made to the article since that time to help establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dsp13, seems to be notable film of the period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to find a better source for highest grossing Malayam film, current one is blogspot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irreligion in Australia. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Atheist Convention[edit]

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

Not notable. Only good reference is an article about a lack of interest in the convention, causing it to be cancelled. All other mentions seem to be brief. L32007 (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It was not the third attempt at any conference that was cancelled. It was the third conference that was cancelled. The first two conferences occured. Aoziwe (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable and notable source on the article is one talking about the conference being cancelled. I was not able to find any significant coverage to improve the references on the page.L32007 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look through the results to the searches I have included above. There are sources with significant content about the conferences from very reliable independent organisations such as the ABC News, The Guardian, The Age, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see discussion of independent sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The two conferences that were held had presentations from many important people, who have wikipedia articles. Give it time to be given more sources, or at least redirect as proposed above. --Bduke (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Irreligion in Australia - there is little RS here to establish the notability of this event. Some references quoted are not independent of the event, and the one RS of note, from the Sydney Morning Herald, mentions the event got cancelled... hardly reassuring!!! Happy to change my vote if more RS is found, but at the moment, no. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. And I have no faith that the meeting will be resurrected any time soon.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable fictional wrestling federation. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that MOS:REALWORLD applies mostly to writing style and is not, in itself something that can be used as a deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marvelcruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't establish notability. Avilich (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Longstanding fixture of the Marvel universe that has spanned across multiple prominent storylines, particularly in Mark Gruenwald's Capatin America run, and elements of which have been touched on by the MCU (in particular the The Falcon and the Winter Soldier series). Would agree the in universe cites could do with bolstering/swapping out with cites from other sources, which I have made a start on. Artw (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article after the minor changes described above is still effectively the same: some of the refs have been replaced, with no actual change in the actual or potential content that complies with MOS:REALWORLD, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out. Avilich (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. At any rate the argument that the UCWF isn't covered anywhere outside of the comics, which is a big part of the deletion rationale, is pretty busted. Artw (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that idea? I said there is "no significant coverage" and not "there is no coverage anywhere outside of the comics". SL93 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duntocher Hibernian F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT - even fails the non-binding WP:FOOTBALL convention about playing in the national Cup, having never done so Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have added a few refs which hopefully boost the case for WP:GNG pass. As well as playing in the Junior Cup final (covered in The Herald as per ref and probably elsewhere), the club won the Central Junior Football League twice in the 1950s so were among the top non-league clubs of that period. Yes they never played in the senior Scottish Cup, but that wasn't a possibility for any Junior clubs until the 21st century, instead it was a parallel 'little brother' organisation. The more recent refs I added were related to the ground - these confirm that the current team with the name is a very low-level amateur outfit, but there is still sufficient interest in a club that faded out 40 years ago to wish to restart it with the same name, and for the local newspaper to want to report on that. To call that SIGCOV would be pushing it, but COV certainly. I also linked to the Players category for the club which has 25 entries including a few internationals, so they had a decent record of producing professionals as well as bumbling along in the junior bubble. Would be a disappointing precedent for pre-Internet clubs if this were deleted, given their small but clear part in the history of Scottish football. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it was pre-internet doesn't mean it is not notable. I think coverage is sufficient enough, and as said above, the club itself was a clear part of Scottish football. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is pre-internet but it was a significant junior side back in the day.--Mvqr (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a club can not fail WP:NSPORT per WP:NTEAM. Geschichte (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - other than the nomination being flawed in saying the club fails NSPORT (which does not even apply, as it refers to biographies only - shows the amount of care the nominator has put in!) GNG is met per Crowsus. GiantSnowman 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is flawed, as it doesn't fail NSPORTS. Also, I'm finding over 300 hits in the British Newspaper Archive between 1894 and 1966. Perhaps someone with access could find some GNG references. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per comments above by others, this club meets WP:NSPORTS. Caphadouk (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep- Junior football was historically of strong interest in Scotland (many junior teams had bigger support than some of the smaller senior teams) and attracted substantial coverage. Duntocher Hibernian were at one time a major junior club. I would also concur that it is significant that club produced players that went on to make an impact in the senior game. Crowsus work has also improved the article and I would concur with the other points raised in favour of keep. Dunarc (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Green (academic)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These two books are extremely frequently cited and would both easily pass notability guidelines for books, but they're both co-authored (by notable academics we have articles on), so they don't make as solid a WP:NAUTHOR pass as a pair of monographs would. I might be inclined to argue for a keep if he were still in academia, but he left the field ten years ago: so what we're looking at right now is already basically the fullest possible version of this article, and it's almost entirely sentences about the books - sentences that already exist on his co-authors' wikipedia articles. We'd be better off having articles on the two books. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom--and Asilvering. Subject doesn't meet GNG in his own right. Cabrils (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not seem to be notable in own right. While the subject is involved in two books which seem to be notable in their own rights, N is not inherited. AtD would be to redirect to one of the books is it had an article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flimsy RS here. As noted, the books which form a large part of the RS are co-authored. Not really featured in the articles, and other references are not RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_10&oldid=1072508834"