Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 19	July 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrows (album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM, article is unsourced and a search only brought up user-generated websites and a couple blogs, no reliable reviews. Suggest a redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Michigan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing out there; there's nothing in here. Fails WP:NALBUM Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:53, 27 July 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. Was already snowballing, but the nominator had already withdrawn their nomination with this diff. Considering there is no support for anything other than keeping the article, there is no reason for this AfD to continue four more days. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 22:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sèvres Syndrome[edit]

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

Created for propaganda purposes, check talk page of the article Aloisnebegn (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article, propaganda or not, it has value here. Within scope of Wikipedia, to cover all view points. No reason for deletion simply because you don't like it. Excellent source found in the Washington Post [1]. Turkish paranoia as it describes in the article. Here is another critical review of the case [2]. Happy to keep the article, I did not know this syndrome existed, 100 yrs later and it still has importance to a nation. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said in talk page. if not deleted it requires serious editing in order to fit to wikipedia. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also about 17 hits in Jstor, proably only about 10 or so are good quality to use here. Again, a very interesting topic, haunting a nation 100 yrs later. I would happily expand the article and perhaps create a French language one, we need to share this knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should change your tone. I assume you did not check the talk page in detail so explaining here again. Trianon syndrome article is a good example on how it should be written. Article is full of accusations, exactly like you just did. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WE do need to share this knowledge, that's the point of wikipedia. No matter how far-fetched an idea, we discuss it in a neutral tone. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OP tried removing a bunch of sourced content. When they got reverted by different users, they launched this AfD with subpar reasoning. Article is well sourced as Oaktree b noted and definitely has a place to stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I only kept parts with a writing language fitting to wikipedia. Instead of tracing my actions and trying to make it personal you could compare the what was said in sources with the way article is written. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive, and not only on this page. Nominating a well sourced article for deletion with subpar reasoning is disruptive. Read the numerous notices on your talk page and other inputs by various wikipedians here and on the article talk [3]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with these bullying attempts. This is not the place. If deletion nomination is incorrect, an admin will close it eventually. I will not respond your messages any further. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is frequently considered by scholars., for example see the hundreds of cites at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q="Sèvres+Syndrome"&btnG= Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing exceeds notability and verification guidelines. Reliable, independent, secondary and significant coverage in New York Times, Journal article Turkish Studies, Article in Virginia Tech Journal here. The list goes on. Not only are these sources good, there are countless scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles, which to me are the gold standard of sourcing because they indicate scholarly interest in the subject, interest which is documented, reviewed, and published in a curated academic source. It is hard to be more sound and rigorous than that. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels a bit like piling in as we're in SNOW territory, but found this quite a well written and well sourced article. No possible rationale for deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The phenomenon is detailed in numerous academic journals and reliable sources. There is no reason to delete this article. Helen(💬📖) 23:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, seems like a bad faith nom. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not bad faith but someone who did not exactly know what deletion should be used for. an admin can remove this nomination. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep plenty of references, well written, nominator's assertion regarding the purpose of the proposed deletion doesn't track with how the article reads. Hard to add anything beyond what's been said here. An admin should step in and SNOW close this already. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG by a mile, there is no basis for deletion that is in any way founded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Alemais[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and New York. Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though this player never made it above AA, I think there is enough coverage of him to justify an article: a profile from during his college career and an article from before he was drafted in The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate, an article in the NY Daily News about his high school career, a profile in the NY Post from before the MLB draft, and an article about his defensive skill in the Charleston Gazette-Mail (which is the only one of these sources currently in the article). Hatman31 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hatman, seems like sufficient sources are available to satisfy the GNG. -71.112.157.133 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable player with only local coverage, besides articles listing draft picks where he's mentioned. That is not "significant coverage". JimKaatFan (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this argument, given that these newspapers are based in three different locations. Besides, WP:SIGCOV doesn't say anything about "local coverage", and neither does WP:NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per Hatman31. Locality of coverage is irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep / nomination withdrawn. Consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 15:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar al-Saffar[edit]

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

I thought about moving this to Disappearance of... to solve the 1E issue, but the more I look the less I'm sure he or his disappearance was notable, despite his rank. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Iraq. Star Mississippi 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning delete based on how I'm not seeing English language coverage beyond the abduction. That said, I have zero visibility to any potential non-English sources due to a language barrier. Is there precedent w/r/t whether an deputy minister meets WP:NPOL? -Ljleppan (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ministers, even deputies, have usually been considered to pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for being a deputy minister, for opposing Saddam H, for being abducted in dramatic circumstances. Sources:

Gordon, M. R., Trainor, B. E. (2013). The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. United States: Vintage Books. (two mentioned discussing his abduction, about a book page in total)
Consider WP:SUSTAINED Still hitting Naharnet news in 2013 https://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/109647
So that's a 2006 event in Iraq being reported on in 2008 in UK and in 2013 in Lebanon...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7348256.stm
Note also he was making news in 2004 before his abduction. And note of course, English language news, despite being Iraq BARNES, J. E. et al. Victims of Circumstance. U.S. News & World Report, [s. l.], v. 137, n. 10, p. 22–28, 2004. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14434673&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2022.
Although brief, 2022 reports talking about his abduction Iraq Country ReviewIraq Country Review. [S. l.: s. n.]. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=157232150&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2022. Consdier WP:LASTING
I got 20 hits on Proquest about his abduction. I think it's safe to assume we searched for his name in Arabic we'd find a lot more.

In summary, I think he's a notable person. CT55555 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Notable as a deputy Minister, notable for his abduction. I'll add Foreign Policy (admittedly a feature by his son but FP wouldn't give a platform to someone like this for nothing) and the NYT just for larks. Take this to Arabic and now you're really going to town - pre-Kidnap on Al Jaz here and then his kidnapping on Sawa, Al Watan, Kuwaiti news agency KUNA - you're basically looking at a SNOW keep. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You inspired me to improve the article, although I could not find that Al Jazeera link above, it did not work. CT55555 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CT55555 here's the original Arabic, and this is da Google translate. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 21 July 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. The two keep arguments are weak, but there is no consensus to delete the article at this time. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kittenpants[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT and I can't find better sources to demonstrate otherwise. The page has had a citations needed banner since 2011 and the page was previously nominated for deletion here with no consensus. The arguments to keep included claims that interviews and primary sources contribute to notability, claims of future notability but no new sources have surfaced since, claims of other stuff having fewer sources and therefore this must be notable, and finally suggesting ignore all rules and I like it when confronted with the fact that the sources presented are trivial mentions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources provided on the last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittenpants) especially by Northamerica1000 who is still editing. killer bee  16:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough sources to merit an article. Even when the book was published years later, it got coverage in reliable sources. So passes GNG. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:04, 23 July 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. The apparently on-point sources identified by Cunard have not been discussed, and the OR issue has also barely been discussed. Sandstein 08:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der neuesten deutschen Philosophie[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, and mostly original research. Likely a student essay uploaded to Wikipedia. I would recommend merging with the page about the writer, but no article on Leo Müffelmann [de; ru] yet exists on English Wikipedia. – Ploni (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Student work from this class, pinging Romaine. Does seem to meet WP:BOOKCRIT per two reviews. Plus there is probably something in German but I don't have the time to search right now. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely meets criteria. —Kusma (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All articles written by the students from my classes are linked from the project page of that class. In this class each of the students choose him/herself a topic to write about and selected a book from the Jesuit Collection of the Special Collections of the University Library. The university acquired over the years sets of old rare books, dating from the 16th century to the 20th century, which played an important role in history in the respective fields or are unique in its kind. The difficulty with these books is that many of the sources about them are only offline available. This is sometimes a challenge for the students, as they usually don't have the time to travel to libraries to look up more sources. All together I am confident that this subject is relevant to have an article in Wikipedia. Looking at the article, I am not so happy with the quality, looking at it by the standards we use in classes nowadays. If this would be the end product now, the student would fail the assignment. However, the suggestion that the article contains original research is incorrect, as well as that the article does not have an essayistic writing style and isn't an essay. Romaine (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the student can't carry out proper research on the subject, it shouldn't be uploaded to Wikipedia, it does not help if they then delete it for a lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a widely-cited book, all I can find are a French paper from 1902 [4] and this English review [5], neither of which is substantive.. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is an extensive review in French: [6]. —Kusma (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the sniffiness academia frequently reserves for WP as a source, I find it ironic this sup-par article should be academically sanctioned. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could create a tag for "This article was created for an academic course but likely received a grade of fail." Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Everett, W. G. (1904). "Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der Neuesten Deutschen Philosophie by Leo Müffelmann". The Philosophical Review. 13 (2): 249–251. doi:10.2307/2176458. hdl:2027/hvd.hnv63e. JSTOR 2176458.
2. Noël, L. (1903). "Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der Neuesten Deutschen Philosophie". Revue néo-scolastique. Vol. 10, no. 39. pp. 329–331. JSTOR 26345652.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der neuesten deutschen Philosophie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:27, 25 July 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. While this individual does have some coverage in reliable sources, the majority of it appears to be trivial coverage, and there is rough consensus here that the currently available sources don't meet the threshold for notability. There is also some concern (well-summarized by User:Liz) that the article doesn't even attempt to make a claim that Walker has done anything notable, besides having somewhat popular social media accounts, having a famous father, and having political views. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Walker (Internet personality)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. – Meena • 22:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Conservatism. – Meena • 22:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A keeper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains little information. It is even close to the usual standards of Wikipedia. It should be either be reworked & expanded (if the subject has sufficient accomplishments to write about) or discarded. 47.155.183.138 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it definitely needs to be expanded, Christian's been covered in Intelligencer, which is considered reliable per WP:RSP. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All RS mentions are passing in relation to his father (for instance the Intelligencer article is about Herschel's campaign and the subject has a single mention in the article overall). Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just FYI, there are two Intelligencer sources currently in the article, and one is very in-depth on Christian. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the past 24 hours he seems to have (again) been publicized all over the internet, this time due to him confronting the singer Kehlani at a Starbucks. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] —VersaceSpace 🌃 05:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NBASIC pass. I'd point to this Intelligencer piece as well as the People, Daily Beast, and Fox Business sources posted by VersaceSpace just above as evidence of the pass. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing for an article to meet notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of long-term notability. If and when he does something worthwhile the article can be restored and improved accordingly. Deb (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where is the notability in this documented unpleasantness? No SIGCOV, online followers do not mean notability. fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is noteworthy. I hate the kid but he always trends on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capriaf (talk • contribs) 21:10, July 22, 2022 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. VersaceSpace has shown lots of articles that indicate that he is notable—Daily Beast, MarketWatch, Intelligencer, Fox Business, etc. Beware WP:NOTNEWS prose. SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak delete from Liz's comment. SWinxy (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The media coverage that he receives is because he is an unusual, colorful personality, not because of any influence or inherent notability he has in U.S. culture. Notability is not established by being unusual or interesting but by the influence or impact one has and I just don't see it with this social media "influencer", either in the article or in the coverage he has received thus far from media sources. Being a contrary voice to your peers isn't enough to establish ones importance as a voice people pay attention to. And as we have seen with reality stars, anyone who does something outrageous can get media coverage these days, it's not sustained and lasting coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I also say that I find it rather odd that some folks here are referring to him by primarily by his first name which is something fans do, it's not a custom among Wikipedia editors in AFD discussions who have no attachment to the article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There exists tons of articles on topics that are notable because they are unusual. We even carry a list on them. Notability is not established by being unusual or interesting, but it is when that peculiarity is supplemented by reliable sources and the coverage about said peculiarity is spread across several years. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in reliable sources is largely trivial, not WP:SIGCOV. Not seeing sustained coverage enough to constitute notability. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Liz and A. Randomdude0000. I did not find evidence of WP:SIGCOV sufficient to meet GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rowles, Dustin (2022-07-14). "Explaining Herschel Walker's Influencer Son, Christian Walker, to Millennials and Gen X'ers". Pajiba. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Daw, Stephen (2022-07-14). "Kehlani Says She Wasn't Going to Let Christian Walker 'Get a Reaction Out of Me' in Viral Confrontation". Billboard. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Sollenberger, Roger (2022-03-03). "Herschel Walker's Son Sells 'All-American' Swag Made in India". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ "Singer Kehlani goes viral for keeping cool during a verbal confrontation with influencer at Starbucks". TODAY.com. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Passy, Charles. "Herschel Walker's son protests high gas prices, but critics say his $1,300 sweatshirt demonstrates he's full of hot air". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Murillo, Paulo (2022-06-14). "Christian Walker Posts Anti-Pride Messages from Matthew Shepard Triangle in WeHo - WeHo Times West Hollywood Daily News, Nightlife and Events". Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Chamlee, Virginia (March 11, 2021). "What to Know About Herschel Walker and His Headline-Grabbing Son as Trump Says He Should Run for Senate". people.com. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
^ Parke, Caleb (2020-10-27). "Herschel Walker's son frustrated Democrats 'worship' BLM movement". Fox Business. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

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 02:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Tae-yang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South Korea. zoglophie 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 21 July 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 02:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Su-min[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 20:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South Korea. zoglophie 20:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 July 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 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hong-sub[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 20:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South Korea. zoglophie 20:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 July 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!} 00:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check (podcast)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. The only sources currently cited in the article that are not blogs is a short interview at Toronto City News by Lindsay Dunn, a YouTube video by Toronto City News presented by Lindsay Dunn, and a Global News article that doesn't even dedicate 100 words to the podcast and is only a trivial mention. The CSI source might be reliable and contains a little bit more about the podcast, but again it's barely more than 100 words and is arguably a trivial mention. I couldn't find any more good sources and the page has been tagged for possible notability issues since 2019. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Science. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like the CSI has been discussed at RSN a few times: here, briefly mentioned here, and briefly discussed her in relation to the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Center for Inquiry has also been discussed here. Skeptical Inquirer (the magazine published by CSI) has been discussed a number of times at RSN: here, here, and here. I also discovered that the author of the CSI piece, D. J. Grothe, has been a guest on the Reality Check podcast multiple times (episode 98 and episode 58). If the CSI piece is considered more than a trivial mention then I think the reliability should be discussed and whether the author is independent should also be discussed. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A considered and thoroughly researched nomination, and even-handed at that. Weighing all of this, together with the content in the article, I believe we fail WP:GNG here. It may be considered borderline by some, but generally I find little coverage, little inherent notability and little impact, influence or consequence attendant on the content presented in the podcast itself. Internet marginalia. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 21 July 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 02:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Concert Band[edit]

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

Local music group fails WP:NBAND. Novemberjazz 18:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 July 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 C31 Melbourne#Other programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level 3 (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. I searched for sources but couldn't find any. Previous AfD came across this SMH source, but it's mostly an interview and generally we would need at least two good sources to demonstrate notability. The name of the show definitely makes it difficult to form a proper search query so I'm open to a speedy keep if someone discovers a bunch of sources I was unaware of. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Entertainment, and Australia. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not established notability. Andrevan@ 00:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C31 Melbourne#Other programs as a suitable alternative to deletion and where I added the above source confirming its existence. That parent list needs some WP:TNT if it can't be sourced—lots of small programs on a community station. czar 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pesamino Victor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Uhrle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natia Natia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks adequate sourcing to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the notability issues already raised. I did some additional searching myself and could not find anything approaching significant coverage in an RS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikky Smedley[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Played the part of one Teletubby but no other obvious claims to notability. Fails WP:NACTOR which requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions " . Neither this article nor searches reveal any other significant roles that would convey notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She wrote two books, one a memoir of her time as a Teletubby and another about early childhood education, neither of which I could find for reviews. There are likely paper-sources, given the age of the show. I can't find anything online. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If 'My time as a Teletubby' gets you past WP:GNG, all is lost. NACTOR applies here if GNG doesn't - and that's a fail: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 21 July 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.

Feel free to create a redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray Kalamış Facilities[edit]

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

Merge to Galatasaray S.K.. Not notable alone. Kadı Message 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi you can either just merge and redirect this yourself, or if you’re less sure, follow WP:MERGE. You don’t need an AfD discussion. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it even merits a merge. Redirect at most. Giant Snowman 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships – Men's artistic individual all-around[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete. Fail GNG and NLIST; plus WP is not a mirror of source material (i.e. results listings). Results listings are not significant coverage; and the JGA are not an independent source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comment, and all the other comments on these Japanese gymnastic fan pages. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of these non notable Japanese events that fails WP:NSPORTS. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly (and not surprisingly) the division/event itself does not appear to meet notability requirements. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

City of Southampton (Albion) Band[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The band is not notable and has no significant coverage. Only one source is used throughout the whole article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage. Probably written by someone in the band. Definitely feels like a self-promotional exercise. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKaatFan it seems like you are correct. The user that created the page and significantly contributed to it looks like he was the chairman of the band at some stage. See [7]. Fats40boy11 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This one seems to be on the edge, and the discussion resulted in no agreement on whether the available sources can be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" for the purpose of establishing notability per WP:GNG, or whether the authors of the reviews could be considered "nationally known critics" as required by WP:NFILM. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Art Machine[edit]

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

Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment reviews: [8] [9] [10] Artw (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think that Indiewire is definitely reliable enough, it's a well-established outlet. The Dissolve, according to WP, was a film review, news, and commentary website which was operated by Pitchfork and based in Chicago, Illinois. The site was focused on reviews, commentary, interviews, and news about contemporary and classic films.[1] Its editor was Scott Tobias, the former editor in chief of The A.V. Club.[1] Editorial director Keith Phipps announced The Dissolve's closure on July 8, 2015.. So it meets the mark for me. I am unsure about the third ref, it's on RT, but what's its editorial policies? There's an about us and staff page, but no editorial policies? Still, two reliable refs counting towards the GNG criteria or the first one of the Notability (film) one are enough for me to go with weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two reviews (not significant coverage, in my opinion - they're just hit-n-run reviews) are the sum total of this film's coverage in secondary sources. One of those, The Dissolve, a short-lived website, is very iffy. Never had a theatrical release. Nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. After checking out the contributions of Matzonyc, I believe that this article was created by the director or someone working on his behalf. Wes sideman (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s absolutely nothing iffy about The Dissolve whatsoever. Artw (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was around for less than 2 years, and the review of this film was written by a Andrew Lapin, who describes himself as "Managing Editor for Local News for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency" - hardly Roger Ebert. Rewording my hasty vote explanation: I'm just saying that relying on that as half of the case for "significant coverage" is really iffy. Wes sideman (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per links above, the argument that The Dissolve hitting funding issues and having to fold renders it non-RS being laughable. Artw (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say The Dissolve is a non-RS. I said that two reviews, on their own, don't constitute significant coverage, and the writer of The Dissolve review isn't a notable film critic. To quote Chris Troutman: "*NFILM requires "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." That's not the case here. It also says "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which hasn't been shown here. NFILM requires more than just two reliable sources." Wes sideman (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if it’s stricter than GNG, or has been twisted to make it stricter than GNG, then it is pointless since GNG supersedes it and I will be ignoring it. Artw (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that two reviews, by non-notable reviewers, constitutes "significant coverage", then you are ignoring GNG as well. Wes sideman (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much not going to be listening to you on the subject of source quality given our prior conversation. My vote remains keep. Artw (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually supporting deletion, but I voted for weak keep as I think two RS are enough. I disagree with that the reviews aren't a "significant" review. I think that to be significant coveage, probably only one very lengthy paragraph is needed, these two reviews are much longer (five and six), so I think it meets it meets GNG (multiple, indepedent, reliable refs), albeit just marginally, but the first criteria of WP:NFILM is contentious: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. On RT, the critic in question has reviewed loads of films and appeared in RS, but he might not be "nationally well-known". Still, it is IMO that if the film meets either the GNG or one of the WP:NFILM criteria would be fine. I don't get that The Dissolve is particularly "iffy", it may not be the best, bt the former editor-in-chief did appear in some other RS per the sources cited in our WP article. Ye, it's now defunct, so it isn't that significant, but at least it's notable enough to have a WP article, and seems to be generally reliable (but not excellent, and far less than other film reviews, such as one from Roger Ebert or the NY Times). But I agree that it meets the GNG guidelines, and I think either achieving that or one of WP:NFILM would be fine. This article wouldn't be mch more than a start class one either way, but i's probably worth keeping for now. VickKiang (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG with three full reviews. WP:NFILM is a guide as to whether a film will pass WP:GNG if it passes one or more of the listed criteria. Also in discussions by the film project nationally known critics means critics writing for national publications not whether the writer is famous or has an article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I believe you are misinterpreting NFILM. It clearly states "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." None of those reviews are by nationally-known critics. In addition, the preface to that section states "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" - even IF those attributes exist, it doesn't automatically qualify a film; it still has to meet GNG. Is that the criteria you are using for a Keep vote? Wes sideman (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by passing WP:GNG. Nationally known critics means being known by having an audience in a national publication, that is the interpretation by WP:WikiProject Film who wrote WP:NFILM. If you disagree then ask them for clarification, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO #1. No significant coverage, and regarding the reviews: the third one doesn't seem reliable, Indiewire is reliable but the site nor Gabe Toro are a "nationally known critic". The Dissolve I think is also reliable, but again, not a "nationally known critic". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that meeting GNG is enough, as the WP:NFILM says: For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. So it's very borderline, and I'm okay with either keep or delete, but I feel that this meets GNG probably. VickKiang (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I'm just curious, how do you believe this meets GNG if the sources are all reviews, most of which don't indicate wide coverage I'd expect for a film to simply meet GNG. Not to say the fact too there no info on the article save for a brief lead and an unsourced cast section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Per GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, I think there's two reliable, independent refs; where does it say that reviews "don't indicate wide coverage"? IMO reviews are much more significant than, say, press releases. The unsourced cast section could probably be rm if needed. VickKiang (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "wide coverage" in that there aren't any other sources present besides the reviews (which again, are being put into question for their reliability and use). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are full reviews meaning significant coverage for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as per additional sources now added. El Dubs (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two (or three, if you count the really weak one, which personally I don't) reviews do not equal notability requirements spelled out by GNG. Merely another indie movie whose article was created by someone connected to it, and I see that the director's article was just deleted as well. There's literally nothing else written about this film in the 10 years since it was made and ignored. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three full reviews is normally enough for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But one has to consider the quality of such reviews, of which this film is lacking any quality ones to even start the GNG conversation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Three full reviews is normally enough for WP:GNG"... You just made that up out of whole cloth. WP:NFILM specfically says "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." None of the reviews for this film are by "nationally known critics". Wes sideman (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the sources cited in the article point out how unnotable this film is-

Art Machine, a flat, insipid coming-of-age drama about a former child painting prodigy... (The Dissolve)
...it’s too bad that a stagnant film like “Art Machine” doesn’t bother to add much to the conversation. (IndieWire and Playlist)

It's not even 3 sources- the IndieWire and The Playlist reviews are the same article by Gabe Toro. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Oregon#Academics. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as closer of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27 § University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, where I found consensus to restore the article and send it to AfD; I am neutral. Article was originally redirected in February 2019 by Drmies with rationale

there is no proof that this school is independently notable--a few references don't make that point. alumni are already at List of University of Oregon alumni, and note that the list here didn't separate faculty and alumni

Three years of back-and-forth BLARing and restoring has ensued, with Drmies, Mccapra, Orangemike, Viewmont Viking, and Spf121188 favoring redirection; and Zdemars, Oregonian20, and Nmkru favoring an article. The Grid also spoke in favor of redirection at the RfD, while Wiseoleman17 felt the school is notable. (The other restore !votes were more procedural in nature.) Arguments for inclusion have included

Notability was substantiated in the talk section, quoted here: "The School of Journalism and Communication is notable. It is over 100 years old and was one of the original 34 schools to be accredited by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. It has thousands of students and has created 15 Pulitzer Prize Winners as well as other notable alumni."

from Oregonian20 and

I’m an alum of the University of Oregon, and the UO School of Journalism and Communication is relevant in the industry. There are far smaller schools represented on this platform, and the school has a 100+-year history. It's also one of the oldest schools of journalism and communication in the nation and one of the first to be accredited.

from Nmkru. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, and Oregon. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as it ever was--a couple of editors with tons of experience editing such articles agree, and two or three editors with no experience and an interest (and possibly a COI) only in one or two specific articles derail it with hollow arguments. "Exists for 100 years" and "graduated thousands of students" and "other articles are like this" are all invalid arguments, which people like Orangemike and Viewmont Viking have probably refuted hundreds of times already--I know I have. No, it takes secondary sourcing, and solid discussion of the topic in a number of those sources, to make something notable, and we simply don't have that here. Delete. (Or redirect, I don't care.) Drmies (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to make a procedural comment of caution: assigning more authority/seniority to editors with more experience in Wikipedia, while belittling those with less experience, I believe it to be contrary to the Wikipedia policies and principles. It may run afoul of our civility and don't bite newcomers policies and guidelines. As you say, deliberations should focus on the substance of the issue. Al83tito (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article completely fails any notability requirements. Out of the 50 refs, 32% are self published with 16 from the school (refs 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, 17-18, 29, 40). I'm tempted to remove those just to clean the refbombing up a little bit, per WP:SELFPUB. What's left? A long list of refs barely mentioning the school (so-and-so was dean, or so-and-so attended, or so-and-so went on to win an award much later in their careers). For example, the Eric W. Allen Jr. ref from the Oregon Encyclopedia literally just mentions him being dean (here). It's not sigcov whatsoever. The Eugene Weekly article is about the coronavirus and namechecks the school once. The only possible sigcov there might be is an AdWeek article, but it's behind a paywall here so I can't read it. One paywalled source for a university's school of journalism falls far beneath the level of coverage WP requires. The relevant info should be folded into the UO article. --Kbabej (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Given the article was basically one large university course catalog, I've removed most of the self-published sources per SELFPUB. I've left the ones for enrollment and the school's magazines/projects. I realize this messes with my percentages and the ref listings up above, but the sentiment remains: this article is not suitable for WP. It's a glorified program description that could have been lifted from a university course catalog. --Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is indeed poorly developed (more akin to a catalog), with a dearth of actual encyclopedic information (i.e: the history section). The question is whether it can be kept and improved, or deleted. The WP:BEFORE policy states: "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability", and "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." A google search of "University of Oregon School of Journalism" yields about 30,000 general search results, and 1,800 news results, at first sight mostly from local media. I have searched but I haven't found yet Wikipedia guidelines or policies about how to weigh local media as sources to establish notability. Can anyone point to the right policy page on this? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Al83tito! To be fair, the nominator @Tamzin has been editing since 2012 and has over 36,000 edits. I'm sure they are very aware of BEFORE, but I have no doubt your comment was meant in good faith. I believe it that the search yields a large amount of hits, but it's the sigcov of the RS articles that matters. I think the local media sourcing you're talking about would likely be under the notability for organizations and companies (WP:ORG), in the audience subsection (WP:AUD). Please ping me if you have any questions. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbabej thank you for your helpful response regarding WP:AUD. There it says: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.". If I have time i'll look again at the google search and see whether there are news sources that at least are regional. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Just to be clear, I am only the nominator for procedural reasons here—a little quirk in the deletion process that arises when someone takes a redirect to RfD that used to be an article. I have not expressed an opinion for or against deletion, and did not myself conduct a BEFORE because I assume that previous BLAR-ers, all pinged, have done so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, @Tamzin! --Kbabej (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Drmies, you note that several "keep" arguments are invalid. There is one of them that gives me pause, however; and that is the fact that this is a 100+ years old institution. I am not definitively saying that that argument alone wins the day, however, looking at other parts of Wikipedia policies (about small towns inter alia), I find this: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history". I honestly do not mean to be facetious or frivolous, I understand that those policies are about geographic places, and not about institutions. What I draw from it is the logic underpinning that argument: that the age of something can lead to the presumption of notability. At least in part it can help. I honestly ask the question if the argument of age of an institution does warrant some consideration. The article claims that that school is one of the oldest schools of journalism in the U.S. My logic tells me that that is a strong indication of notability. Further, for old institutions-and especially those that their heyday is in the past- may be better covered with print/offline sources than more rent online ones. I am also pinging @Kbabej since they offered to answer additional questions I may have. Thank you both and anybody else who wishes to chime in. Al83tito (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to offer a perspective, @Al83tito. I offer it only as a perspective, as I am not the arbiter of all things WP. I can definitely see your position and don't think you're being facetious or frivolous. As for my thoughts, I think more historical a topic, the more is leans toward notability (or, as you say, can at least help). Will an educational institution chartered a century ago be more notable than one founded in 2021? Likely yes. Even with a presumption of notability based on the historical aspect of a topic, WP should not have an article about a subject if it does not meet the general notability criteria (WP:GNG), which states (in part), that a topic needs significant coverage in RS. GNG also states:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

I think the lack of in-depth, reliable, significant sources means this page should not have a standalone article. There seems to be very little in the way of the school's history (two small paragraphs), and the rest is just course listings and other items that would appear in a school catalogue when advertising the college. The history part of the article could easily be made a section/subsection on the parent article, and the lists of notable students and faculty can be folded into the list of University of Oregon alumni and list of University of Oregon faculty and staff articles respectively. None of the important information will be lost, as the history and notable people will be covered in their respective articles. The only thing WP would be "losing" would be the course listings, which aren't encyclopedic anyway.
- Just my two cents, but feel free to chuck those pennies away if you want to! Again, feel free to respond and ask me any questions you have. --Kbabej (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kbabej, thank you very much; I appreciate your kindness and thoughtful analysis. I'll keep those two cents :-P. While my intuition tells me that somewhere, maybe in print, there would be sources to formally establish notability, and to flesh out the article. As of now the article is in poor condition and additional sources are not easily findable (I did look for them a tad more without success). So, I think that what you propose of salvaging what can be by incorporating into other parts of Wikipedia, is a sensible approach. If someone is really committed to creating a real Wikipedia article on that school that meets the WP requirements, they are welcome to do so.
    - So for all the above (and below), I support Delete, while repurposing any bits that are reusable elsewhere. Al83tito (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Al83tito, geographical locations above a certain magnitude/size are considered automatically notable. Age helps in establishing whether something "is" an actual geographical location/inhabited place. That does not apply here. A company can be five hundred years old, a department can be a hundred years old, but if secondary sources don't prove that it matters one way or another, that's really the end of the story. If the school is one of the oldest, then that is an interesting thing to note--but if they only sources who comment on that fact are local papers and the school's website, then it doesn't add notability. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies on the notability point, thank you for your perspective, which is different from mine and something for me to ponder about. On the other hand, I think both you and I agree that beyond notability considerations, sources are needed for verifiability, and the article is lacking thus far. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not really giving you a perspective--I'm giving you a practice. Locations etc. are found to be notable. University departments are never found to be inherently notable; they are only notable if secondary sources make them so. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to University of Oregon, per longstanding practice on how we handle subsidiary colleges of Universities. There isn't any indication this school meets GNG seperate from the university; notable alumni do not speak to the notability of the school per INHERIT, age is a red herring argument as there are older subsidiary colleges at virtually every state institution East of the Mississippi and the NGEO argument is not valid on its surface. 174.212.228.90 (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hi @TigerShark! I was wondering if you have time to help me understand the relisting of this discussion. After the nomination for review, there were two delete !votes before the AfD was relisted on 7/12. At this point, there have been three delete !votes and one redirect !vote before being just relisted by you today (7/20). There have not been any !votes to keep the article throughout the entirety of the discussion. Is there a reason this has been relisted twice with the participants who have !voted coming to a unanimous decision the article should not exist? Also, if this is the wrong venue and it needs to be brought up on a noticeboard, happy to do so. Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although there is clearly information about the institution is does not independently or reliably establish notability per WP:NSCHOOL >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps this article is not notable and none of the college and school articles relating to this institution are notable and should also be redirected?--24.85.249.74 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion is for the specific school. If you feel other schools within the organization are not notable, you are welcome to make suggestions on their respective talk pages, or register for an account and start a deletion discussion. —-Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I started looking at the other colleges for the uni. The Robert D. Clark Honors College article is arguably even worse notability and coverage-wise than this one. I've nominated it for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the redirect vote was mine, and I made it as an ATD, one that's commonly done in this situation. You can disregard it if that's all that's keeping this open,TigerShark. Also note there isn't really anything preventing someone from creating a redirect post deletion. 174.212.229.93 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Onai Chingawo. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onai Chingawo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Zimbabwe. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (to not say keep) – Found sources → [11][12][13] – Nominator, seeing the current appearance of the article is not enough to nominate. Please, search for sources before doing this type of nominations.--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by MF. Giant Snowman 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding the sources from MonFrontieres: the first has zero independent secondary coverage of her, as it merely repeats quotes from her and her coach from a press release. The second I can't access -- does it have SIGCOV? The third is pure tabloid trash, and also is almost entirely quotes from her and her husband, with only a single sentence from the interviewer that is about her. So right now, even if the second source has SIGCOV, the subject fails GNG as multiple sources are needed. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source [14] should be enough to push her over the GNG line. EternalNomad (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's one source. GNG needs multiple. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there multiple IRS?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The Newsday article is promising, but is only one IRS and comprises just 7 brief sentences. No one has described what the Herald article contains so I can't justify keeping yet. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources found by MonFrontieres and @EternalNomad:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz Since you've apparently read all the sources, can you tell us what's in the Herald article? JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:GNG requires multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV; we only have one. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article isn't okay for mainspace currently but I feel MonFrontieres can work on this whilst in draft. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings by amount of territory conquered[edit]

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

Incredibly short article that lists a total of two kings, with absolutely no other information. Any attempt to rewrite or improve would require a total re-do of the entire article. CoconutOctopus talk 19:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It previously had nine entries. [15] Dream Focus 20:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced since 2015. Essentially original research and unverifiable since the exact square kilometrage of ancient conquests cannot be verified. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9, 2, doesn’t matter; it’s unsourced and there’s no evidence this is a notable concept. Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. We have a list of largest empires, but nobody of note has, as far as I can tell, ranked them by conqueror. There is this one list, which shows its lack of "eptitude" by putting George W. Bush at no. 10! (Nitpick: Ghenghis Khan was not a mere king.)Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one list offered above shows how arbitary this is. It puts on the list Adolf Hitler, who at the end of his life essentially controlled no where. There are too many things that need to be defined. I would argue that the most logical measure would be comparing the territory ruled by a person when they came to hold office as opposed to when they left office. However defining this is incredibly hard. That is the other thing with that linked above list. It includes Francisco Pizarro, who was not a head of state. However much of this assumes that it is much easier to define what a country rules and conquesrs than it is. How much of India was under British rule at any given time. How much territory was conquered by FDR? How much was conquered by Stalin? Do we count only direct anexations? how about places that were protectorates? How do we treat "conquests" under George II and George III? The Battle of Abraham Plains happens when George II is still king, but the formal agreement on exactly what was transfered where was later? At the same time there are multiple places where the Brtish take control in the 7 years war (some Caribbean islands, I believe even Cuban, and clearly part of the Phillipines) that they hand back over to the French and Spanish at the end of the war. Does the Louisiana purchase count as a "conquest" by Jefferson? It is technically a voluntary sale by France. On the other hand, when Jefferson left office in 1809, in much of the claimed limits of the Louisian Purchase American power was not really recognized by the residents. Nor were the exact boundaries between American and Spanish authority defined until about 10 years after that, in in many ways those boundaries ignored the fact that in large areas it was really the Comanches who possessed real power. I have not even gotten into the equally perplexing question of if it is land or land + controlled water we are measuring. There is no easy way to define this, which is probably why very few people have ever tried to define it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John Pack Lambert makes a very good case. Dream Focus 08:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North End A.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of existence, let alone notability, of a football team under this name in Boston. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was not able to even verify that a football team in Boston with this name existed! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the rationale. Unsourced since 2012, and all coverage is of the similarly-named team that played the Packers. A quick search turned up just mentions in lists (and even then I'm not sure if the reference is to the alleged Boston team. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, especially if Beanie can't find anything on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm wondering if this was a hoax, and needing a G3 instead. Take a look at the original 1915 North End A.C. Season, prior to its redirect, the only other Wikipedia contributions from the article creator. NONE of those teams or locations sound like anything in and around Boston, and there's never been a 47th Street in Boston to have a "47th Street Field" ON. We should add the redirect to any deletion. Good work to the nom in finding this; bad business that it took a bloody decade for anyone to do so. Ravenswing 19:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: There does appear to have been a "North End A.C." team which played that schedule, except they were based in North Wheeling, WV, not Boston (see here and here). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Completely unsourced and fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of things above me explain why this should go bye-bye. Sportsfangnome (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it turns out to be true and offline sources are found and presented, we can always put it back. But I have to go on what I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination of deletion withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Reed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously ranked in Sherdog's top 10 rankings, and her highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 31st in her division, short of the top 10 requirement. Also appears to fail WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant or in depth coverage beyond routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Age[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. Fails GNG ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Australia. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources I found refer to a historical period called Indus Age and not this publication. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Ruzin[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable footballer. Had a short career and attracted little media coverage. The article is currently sourced only to a database.

A PROD was previously declined because the player is mentioned in some news sources, but I can't find anything substantial. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, South America, Brazil, and Chile. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is at the wrong title, it should be "Lucas Pivatto". The Chile play in the B division wouldn't have qualified for the old NFOOTY, not fully professional. In Brazil, if we believe soccerway, he played 120 minutes in two games which would've been scraping by. Other sites don't list that. I searched for sources, using the wrong and the right name as well as the full triform, and came up with little. For this period and location we'd expect online sources, and they aren't here, so does not have significant coverage as far as I can tell.--Mvqr (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. On the name, he seems to be "Lucas Pivatto" in Brazil and "Lucas Ruzin" in Chile. Hack (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Searching Portuguese-language sources for Lucas Pivatto, it appears he did play regularly in the second tier of the 2014 Santa Catarina State championship (with Blumenau EC), but that's a low level of competition and I can't find anything other than match reports. He barely played for any of his other clubs. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international tournaments won by Indian football clubs[edit]

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

Not a notable lists, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. The tournaments listed are mostly small, minor tournaments, that are either cup competitions for other countries where Indian teams were invited, or other minor invitational tournaments. No evidence that a list of these winners is notable enough. As an aside, the section on runners-up makes no sense in an article about winners, so should be ignored for the purposes of determining whether a winner's list is notable or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, this is a non-notable list of winners (and, for some reason, runners-up) of relatively minor tournaments. Fails One of these days, I may remember to craft Wikipedia:Not everything needs a list. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Giant Snowman 16:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- if we have this, then we need another 150-odd articles like this for consistency. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and per WP:NOT KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vocotruyen World cup[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. Sources provided are from the organizing body so there's no claim for notability; claiming to be the world cup does of something does not make it notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Vietnam. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Unless someone finds sources, article should be deleted. Fats40boy11 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the previous comments. My search found no indication of significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk)
Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management & Information Science, Bhubaneswar[edit]

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

Promotional article. No citations. fails GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Odisha. Akevsharma (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete : As the nominator said, no citation found. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP.That Mallu Guy (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Education, and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 20 July 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.

Khun Pan[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; I should've done a better BEFORE search. (non-admin closure) Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM and GNG. The citations provided all look like PR. This was the same for almost everything I could find in Thai like Thai Post (not included here) doesn't inspire me with confidence. Most of my search results were PR for the third movie in this franchise. Sadly, the Thai-language wiki article is pretty bad, too, demonstrating the ill-influence of fans upon our knowledge work. We can delete this and wait another 10 years for real sources to be written examining the film. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Thailand. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. English-language coverage in the Bangkok Post[16] and its learner's supplement Student Weekly.[17][18] Also The Nation.[19] Pre-release coverage in ScreenAnarchy.[20][21] Was the "Secret Screening" event at the 2018 New York Asian Film Festival. Review on Cinapse.co.[22] (Film critic Simon Abrams wrote a short review on his Letterboxd page, but doesn't appear to have published a full review.[23]) Winner of the 2016 Suphannahong Awards ("Thailand's Oscars") in four categories.[24] Comparative analysis of its character depiction spanning five pages in this PhD thesis.[25] --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 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!} 06:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Esogbue[edit]

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

I do not see how the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. He's not published in reliable and independent sources, no significant work. Article was also created by Emekaesogbue which is a clear conflict of interest and heavily edited by Overcomers Child. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: marginal case, I found some mentions in generally reliable Nigerian media, but nothing I would consider really significant coverage. Falls just short of meeting WP:GNG. Given the possible COI, however, I would say that WP:TNT applies and the article should be deleted, with no prejudice against recreation if the coverage in reliable sources improves. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Dubey[edit]

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

No indication of notability under the criteria of WP:GNG. No significant roles or awards for WP:NACTOR. Zehnasheen (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Zehnasheen (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - glance at her IMDB shows it to be pretty weak, maybe there is more info from indian sources which could be found and added? But as it stands now, I can't support keeping the article. Mathmo ^Talk 15:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:32, 27 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sah D’Simone[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Amon Stutzman (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a look at the page and the references seems to me that they just manage to pass the bar for notability. Mathmo ^Talk 15:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Ben Nasser Al-Ismaily[edit]

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

Weak notability - not much in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep - might be notable it seems. Mathmo ^Talk 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 20 July 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— 20:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tremaine Emory[edit]

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

The tag says it all: "reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage." - There is no notability on display here and having 'done work' with a range of fashion brands does not - press release coverage and interviews notwithstanding - notability impart. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not come close to meeting inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not supposed to restate press releases, we need reliable indepdent sourcing, not press releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in GQ and British GQ, along with many sources. First one on the list in GNews is British GQ. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was covered by the NYTimes, how more legit mainstream coverage can you receive as a designer? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainstream coverage in publications like GQ and NYT. Article needs work, but I belive that the subject passes GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakarya Bilgi Kültür Merkezi[edit]

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

The sources provided in the article are insufficient for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Kadı Message 13:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Popular culture, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 13:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not only not present in the article, they're not present in the big, bad world, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 21 July 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 List of people from Montana and/or History of Montana. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Montana history[edit]

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

Far too broad to make a manageable list. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Montana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom makes a vague case: Too broad to make a manageable list. What is Manageable? This list has been managed as a WP article since its creation in 2010 - 12 years. Too broad: The list has clear inclusion criteria and as far as I can tell is clearly consistent with WP:LISTPEOPLE. If such vague rationale is accepted for deletion, then just about every other list in the category: Lists of people by association would seem to be too broad and unmanageable. Specifically, I’d like to see nom state rationale that demonstrates this list does not meet the standard outlined in WP:LISTPEOPLE Mike Cline (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". 150+ years of history equates to a ton of people involved in a hazily defined way ("significant roles"). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Cline If you're !voting to keep the article, I would advise you to change your vote to "Keep" as the bot doesn't recognize "Oppose". Regardless of the final outcome, thanks for your hard work on the list and happy to help if needed in fixing the List page (probably best to use the Talk page for that). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too be at all accurate this list would need to be much larger. There is no good explanation for why it is so small, and no clear criteria limiting it to such a small size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague and without inclusion criteria, duplicative to List of people from Montana and its links like List of governors of Montana. Serves no further purpose. Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably intended to be the list equivalent of WP:OCASSOC, i.e. a "list of people associated with the history of Montana". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For the purposes of historical research, I personally rely on list pages like this, but I understand this is AfD and WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are not enough of a reason to keep it. The list does need clearer inclusion criteria, so I would propose something like:

Notable individuals in Montana history who are discussed *beyond passing mentions* in Montana: A History of Two Centuries by Malone and Roeder (any edition), or
Notable individuals listed on the Montana Biographies page of the Montana Historical Society, or

* Any individual with two sources verifying that they had a notable role in Montana history who also have Wikipedia pages

The reason it is different from List of people from Montana is that it's a chronological list rather than divided up by profession (which can be useful for some things but not when you're trying to quickly cross-reference people by time period). Looking more closely at the page, I do think it requires citations justifying each entry, and some of the copy that is there reads like OR or editorial commentary rather than Wikipedia/encyclopedia voice, but perhaps that could be fixed in due course. I would also strongly advise getting rid of the "come one and all" invitation at the top making it look like anyone is welcome to add anyone to the list; I get the feeling that was fashionable some years ago in Wikipedia, but nowadays people look at it and interpret it to mean that you're trying to build a directory, hence the skepticism. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark figures: Let's say there are 100 notable Montanans per year (fewer earlier on, more later). That means the list would have to have 15,000+ entries. See the problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't need to be that kind of list. It's just a curated list of notable people from Montana history (with citations) who have Wikipedia pages, and anyone else who gets added later with a Wikipedia page, who also meets the criteria. It doesn't have to be comprehensive. Also, it's supposed to be a list of "historical figures", so quite frankly, we don't even need anyone from the 21st century. We could even say that the final section only includes people born in the 20th century, who did notable things in the 20th century, even if they died in the 21st century. To be honest, it doesn't seem like the list would be that huge...for Montana. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't have to be comprehensive"? So now you're adding vague conditions. Who gets to decide?

Anyone who did anything notable in the 21st century isn't a "historical figure"? History is the study of the past. Aren't the years 2001-2021 (and part of 2022) part of the past?

Also, politicians from just the Democratic (252) and Republican (333) parties alone make a huge list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've struck criterion 3. So, according to the revised criteria, the people who get to decide are Malone and Roeder (because they wrote one of the definitive reference books on Montana history), and the Montana Historical Society biographies page. (The beauty of using Malone and Roeder is that they've updated the book across multiple editions.) It does mean Evel Knievel would be struck off the current page for now, but at a glance it seems likely that everyone else would stay on the list. It's a finite list of candidates for inclusion, and we could also further manage/restrict the list by saying that anyone included on the list should already have a Wikipedia page. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons outlined above. This doesn't have to be an exhaustive list. "Notable people from Montana" are obviously going to be discussed in any history of Montana, and will be listed in the index. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't see any policy-based arguments for deletion. Just vague claims of "too broad" or "not useful". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad is specified in SALAT, as I have noted. And the criteria are all over the place ("significant roles in the exploration and settlement of the region as well as the cultural, economic, military, political, and social development of Montana"), which means, as I have also noted, far, far, far too many people qualify. Also, what is the definition of a "significant" role? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad to be of much use, history of what? Native Americans? Aviation? Science? Sports? Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Changing !vote as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD, especially since page creator is still an active user and a participant in this discussion (which is pretty rare in my experience). List page needs to be reframed and brought in line with more recent Wikipedia standards; otherwise, it will keep popping up at AfD. That said, I don't think it will necessarily require that much more work. (I would start fixing it myself now but would rather discuss with the creator first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a useful way to introduce a history class of secondary school students to do historical research--it helps kide find nearby topics and does not duplicate any other article. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lists of people from Montana. "In history" is so vague/unclear that it's hard to imagine it as a reasonable spin-off of the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up the main article, History of Montana, as it definitely needs to be taken into consideration with regard to the fate of this List page. I actually thought you were going to suggest "Merge" with History of Montana, as I could see an argument for that as well. Sometimes it happens that the "spinoff" or supporting List page starts to balloon both in prose and in scope, because the main Article page is not doing its job, and you can see how that could have been the case here as well, as the History of Montana page is also in need of some cleanup. I think this is an opportunity to fix both the Article page (as primary) and the List page (whatever its final form), but in the meantime it would be nice to have the List page in Draft space, while we work out how best to fix this (also because it will help in fixing the main Article page whether or not it's technically a "merge"). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have to agree with Rhododendrites rationale. The topic is far too broad and what is the criteria for inclusion of historical figure? Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where though? I was nearly coming around to merging with List of people from Montana. But the problem with that page is that it's a list of people who happened to have lived in Montana at some point in their lives; they haven't necessarily done anything significant in Montana pre-/territorial/state history. Also, while many of the people from this page are already there, others don't appear to be, and that is a major problem given the lack of inline citations for most of this list page. It's not a straightforward merge.
~~:My inclination now is to merge most of the content from the list back into the History of Montana page, but doing so properly will take time, as the main History page itself needs more work.~~
I am willing to work on performing the merge with the History page and the other List page, and fixing the main History page, but for this reason I am asking to have this page draftified as an alternative to deletion, with the understanding that it will likely end up being deleted after 6 months. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Montana Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of people from Montana. I realized I'm uncomfortable !voting "merge" when it's slightly complicated, but I accept now that this is probably the simplest and most logical path for the information that lives within this List. Let me know if you need help in merging the list pages. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people from Montana. Unnecessary spinoff list with a vague scope. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Cielquiparle. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas Sharma[edit]

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

the person is not passing WP:GNG Jimandjam (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jimandjam (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, I find no sources supporting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i found many sources supporting notability Vsheoran (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so provide examples please, or this will likely get deleted. I couldn't find any when I looked. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be helpful if Vsheoran could condescend to link to, perhaps, three of those 'many' sources? There are, indeed, many Tejas Sharmas - many of whom are also not notable - but none I could find readily was this one, who presents no notability whatsoever and is destined for deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vsheoran (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 27 July 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 Hoover Dam. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Hoover Dam explosion[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A routine event, with no real consequences. Fram (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Non-notable event in my view, it should just be a part of the history section of Hoover Dam. – Concord iad 11:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A glaring drain of electricity in cyberspace and editor neurons. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete This information belongs in the Hoover Dam page; it doesn't merit its own article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Two short sentences on the event were removed yesterday from Hoover Dam, and nobody's objected yet, so a merge would likely need to be even shorter: There was a fire in July 2022; nobody was hurt.[111] Storchy (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coming attractions: List of fires at Hoover Dam SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" – DirkJandeGeer щи 21:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem to have been a massive incident, and the title "2022 Hoover Dam Explosion", although accurate, makes it sound like the damn burst or was blown up. Given that it's a really short article, I think best to delete and maybe add a line into the Hoover dam article as suggested by Storchy above. Have a good one everyone! – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps even by explosion. Fram is right - of no consequence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. I tagged this during new page patrol seconds after creation and commented to the page creator this wouldn't likely meet NEVENT. Even the page creator thinks this should be deleted; they prodded it immediately after. I removed their own prod myself (the subject then being mere minutes old), then went off to work. Now that we're certain this is merely routine, I agree with my first impulse. Thanks for the nom. BusterD (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might be worth mentioning in the main article on the Hoover Dam, but it is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event; turned out to be nothing but a news story. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge does not merit own article but could get mention on Hoover Dam page. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEVENT and likely not even worth a mention in the main article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those wanting or encouraging a potential merge, there really is not a natural place this could be briefly mentioned at Hoover Dam. If you don't believe me, look for yourself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge under #Power distribution. Best place I can think of. SWinxy (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hoover Dam article. The end of #Power plant and water demands seems the most natural place to me seeing as the fire was from one of the transformers which is part of the hydroelectric plant. Gazamp (talk) 02:23, 24 July 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 12:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anantjeet Singh Naruka[edit]

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

Fails GNG, as achievements are minor sports events David notMD (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough significant coverage for a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG based on what I can find. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Research Department (International)[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG, only source is from WikiLeaks, which is unreliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WikiLeaks) Azuru79 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is entirely wrong in asserting that no sources exist beyond Wikileaks. In fact, the Borneo Bulletin itself thunders that "By command of His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Haji Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that His Majesty consented for Haji Asmawee bin Haji Muhammad, Deputy Director of Brunei Research at the Brunei Research Department to be appointed as Director of Brunei Research at the Brunei Research Department, Prime Minister’s Office." And THAT is as far as sources go. Shocked and amazed that nominator didn't find this vitally important coverage in performing a WP:BEFORE, but forgiveness is divine and we still signally fail WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 20 July 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 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company[edit]

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

fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Maharashtra. Akevsharma (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence would pass WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference to prove the notability. Fails WP:NCORP That Mallu Guy (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The editor that created this article did so in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial edits from other editors. Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Night Hockey[edit]

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

So, Thursday night hockey is showing hockey games ... on a Thursday! As opposed to showing hockey games on another day. And this "notable" distinction is supported with sources like this (mentions Thursday once) or this (doesn't even mention Thursday) or this (again, no mention of Thursday), or this (you guessed it). Oh, and this, again not even mentioning Thursday. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it was just a bumper they use to wrap around hockey games, nothing notable. Akin to a "movie of the week" promo. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to NHL on ESPN. Ravenswing 19:39, 20 July 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) Femke (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1934 Bulgarian census[edit]

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

This is problematic and not simple, so here goes. I would have draftified this article except it's way older than 90 days. It's basically sourced to a single source and SELECTIVELY picks from that source, omitting figures for - for instance - Muslims and others from the presented data. The author has a very intense interest in the demographics of European/Near Eastern countries and I worry about that given the selectivity in this article. Do we need a 1934 census of Bulgaria article? Is it notable? Based on one source? Effectively misrepresenting the data presented in that source? My view is not and I'm proposing this be draftified per a consensus reached here or deleted until something better and more representative can be built. Your views, please... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Social science, and Bulgaria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't (so far) see a problem. Similar data from other countries (1930 United States census, 1931 United Kingdom census) are similarly sourced. Clearly the figures reported are a small subset of the census itself but in what way has the selection shown bias? Have Muslims been excluded? Islam is present and, it looks, properly reported. I don't find it odd that someone has an interest in the demographics of European and Near Eastern countries but if the data is being misrepresented that is a serious problem indeed. I suggest editing the article or commenting at its talk page if you think more representative information could be presented. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would have liked to have seen something more by way of commentary. It gives two datasets, by ethnicity and religion. What is wrong with that? If the nom considers that the article is incomplete he is at liberty to add what he considers to be missing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DINC, if there is concern that the article is only partially completed, then just add the missing bits or at least tag it. Topic is notable and encyclopedic. Curbon7 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, once one finds missing in his opinion information just add it. Kazanstyle (talk) 09:00, 22 July 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 Melody (Brazilian singer)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assalto Perigoso[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS, this is not notable. The existence of a cover of a song doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:COVERSONG >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You lost me at "Melody moved the internet", I'm afraid. No evidence of notability, chart placements, SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NMUSIC. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist's article. Unless an editor with a knowledge of reliable Portuguese-language news coverage can find something, I'm not seeing any significant enough to keep an article on this. Ss112 19:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the singer's article. All that can be found are basic announcements about the song's existence and no evidence that it is a viral sensation as the article will have us believe. The title is a possible search term though, so redirecting is appropriate. Also note that someone has proposed merging this article to the indirectly connected Ariana Grande song, but that idea should be dropped. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melody (Brazilian singer)#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawduqo Mansur[edit]

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

Unverifiable article by a blocked sock, references are all text/not cited to any verifiable source. Search for Хьаудыкъо Мансур gets us nothing, the article itself says, 'Not much is recorded about Hawduqo' and it's right. Deletion until someone creates anything verifiable/reliable is the only option, IMHO. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Russia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as weird shit. Not a single Google books ref in Russian or Turkish. Various searches on combinations of name, dates and “Chechen” produce nothing. Our existing fairly detailed articles on the Chechen wars make no mention of him. Possibly made up or garbled, but definitely should not be in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, not sure what's going on with this one. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would be notable if he existed, but I don't think he actually existed. It may be worth looking at this sock chains' other creations, as well. Curbon7 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 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 09:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrees Industrial and Trading Company[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No notability whatsoever attaches to this run of the mill, Riyadh-based construction company. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .The article fails to estabilis WP:GNG of the topic. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 20 July 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. Clearly there is consensus to keep this article. In its current state, this article has no context to identify the signifigance of the subject, so I have added the context tag. Hopefully someone knowledgeable on the subject can add this information. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) StartOkayStop (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bror Friberg[edit]

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

This article doesn't seem to make a claim of significance, although I hesitate to nominate for A7 because of a failed prod from years ago. I do not see how this immigration agent from the 19th century is notable or significant. StartOkayStop (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. StartOkayStop (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he arranged the immigration of three boat loads of settlers, their transport into the bush and then the creation of Norsewood as a populated place. He also features prominently in the ~300 page "Scandinavian Footprints – A History of Scandinavians Settling in New Zealand" by Margit Brew. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be in the article? I mean, literally, this article just says his name, job, birth date and death date, with no real information about his achievements or significance. StartOkayStop (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment I find no sources in English, unsure of the Norwegian? ones. Leaning delete, seems to be a simple low-level employee. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if Oaktree b meant Keep or Delete up there, but I goes Keep based on this here entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography TEARA alone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I've corrected my comment. And I've corrected my correction. Argh.Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people with an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography are considered notable, apart from a small number of representative entries as noted in that article. The DNZB entry has a list of sources, but there are enough sources already in the article to allow significant expansion.-gadfium 19:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has and entry in the DNZB and is not one of a handful of "representative entries" that are instead listed at Dictionary of New Zealand Biography#Representative entries. Schwede 66 22:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under the WP:G7 criterion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivayogi Sivakumar[edit]

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

Notability has not been demonstrated - see discussion on talk page for more information. Created by WP:COI editor who circumvented WP:AFD after Draft:Sivayogi Sivakumar was declined for notability concerns by AntanO. Melcous (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No major work done. Fails WP:GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi panel members,

Thank you for taking your time to review my article. Please go through my talks page (if not done already).
I thought I made my arguments properly. Yet I will present my argument once more.
The reference that I cited points out about various events about a guy named Sivayogi (some of which are reliabe source like Dinamalar, Dinamani)

If some one is into spirituality you could have heard about Sivayogi. Now how do I know this? I watched a lot of testimonial videos from his Youtube channel. It was given by real people. (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link) . As per the notability guidelines, what is generally accepted can be allowed into Wikipedia. This seems to be an accepted article to me based on sample size (number of real human feedback ). I didn't include this in the article because I am not trying to promote Sivayogi (Why give a conflict of interest tag? I met him in person only twice which I consider very important events of my life).

Regarding the arrest, the reviewer pointed out that number of people gets arrested daily. (implied So what is so notable about that?) It was really a devastating blow for me. In India, people don't get arrested that easily for talking against religion. It is a secular nation. His video was 'voluntarily misinterpreted' and a group protested twice. Tamilnadu Congress leader complained and tweeted against him. The cases are under investigation. Hence I removed all the details about the religion but it was included by the reviewer.

He has disciples(Indian and Tamilans) all over the world. How do I know that? I found lot of contents in his social media apart from Youtube. I didn't cite them but it is there (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link). Is it not notable enough?

The original reviewer kept on pointing me at the rules, regulations and policies. I tried making sense to the reviewer by showing that in past the notability test was overruled in certain occasions. I answered all the queries asked to me indirectly in the last reply of the talks page.
Zero by zero (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the nom after having read the extensive notability discussion on the articles talk page. Article hence fails WP:N and WP:V MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi panel members,

Thank you for taking your time to review my article. Please go through my talks page (if not done already).
I thought I made my arguments properly. Yet I will present my argument once more.
The reference that I cited points out about various events about a guy named Sivayogi (some of which are reliabe source like Dinamalar, Dinamani)

If some one is into spirituality you could have heard about Sivayogi. Now how do I know this? I watched a lot of testimonial videos from his Youtube channel. It was given by real people. (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link) . As per the notability guidelines, what is generally accepted can be allowed into Wikipedia. This seems to be an accepted article to me based on sample size (number of real human feedback ). I didn't include this in the article because I am not trying to promote Sivayogi (Why give a conflict of interest tag? I met him in person only twice which I consider very important events of my life).

Regarding the arrest, the reviewer pointed out that number of people gets arrested daily. (implied So what is so notable about that?) It was really a devastating blow for me. In India, people don't get arrested that easily for talking against religion. It is a secular nation. His video was 'voluntarily misinterpreted' and a group protested twice. Tamilnadu Congress leader complained and tweeted against him. The cases are under investigation. Hence I removed all the details about the religion but it was included by the reviewer.

He has disciples(Indian and Tamilans) all over the world. How do I know that? I found lot of contents in his social media apart from Youtube. I didn't cite them but it is there (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link). Is it not notable enough?

The original reviewer kept on pointing me at the rules, regulations and policies. I tried making sense to the reviewer by showing that in past the notability test was overruled in certain occasions. I answered all the queries asked to me indirectly in the last reply of the talks page.
Zero by zero (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only case for notability is being repeatedly arrested for religious defamation. Not enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hi panel members,

Thank you for taking your time to review my article. Please go through my talks page (if not done already).
I thought I made my arguments properly. Yet I will present my argument once more.
The reference that I cited points out about various events about a guy named Sivayogi (some of which are reliabe source like Dinamalar, Dinamani)

If some one is into spirituality you could have heard about Sivayogi. Now how do I know this? I watched a lot of testimonial videos from his Youtube channel. It was given by real people. (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link) . As per the notability guidelines, what is generally accepted can be allowed into Wikipedia. This seems to be an accepted article to me based on sample size (number of real human feedback ). I didn't include this in the article because I am not trying to promote Sivayogi (Why give a conflict of interest tag? I met him in person only twice which I consider very important events of my life).

Regarding the arrest, the reviewer pointed out that number of people gets arrested daily. (implied So what is so notable about that?) It was really a devastating blow for me. In India, people don't get arrested that easily for talking against religion. It is a secular nation. His video was 'voluntarily misinterpreted' and a group protested twice. Tamilnadu Congress leader complained and tweeted against him. The cases are under investigation. Hence I removed all the details about the religion but it was included by the reviewer.

He has disciples(Indian and Tamilans) all over the world. How do I know that? I found lot of contents in his social media apart from Youtube. I didn't cite them but it is there (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link). Is it not notable enough?

The original reviewer kept on pointing me at the rules, regulations and policies. I tried making sense to the reviewer by showing that in past the notability test was overruled in certain occasions. I answered all the queries asked to me indirectly in the last reply of the talks page.
Zero by zero (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet requirements for WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi panel members,

Thank you for taking your time to review my article. Please go through my talks page (if not done already).
I thought I made my arguments properly. Yet I will present my argument once more.
1. The reference that I cited points out about various events about a guy named Sivayogi (some of which are reliabe source like Dinamalar, Dinamani)
2. If some one is into spirituality you could have heard about Sivayogi. Now how do I know this? I watched a lot of testimonial videos from his Youtube channel. It was given by real people. (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link) . As per the notability guidelines, what is generally accepted can be allowed into Wikipedia. This seems to be an accepted article to me based on sample size (number of real human feedback ). I didn't include this in the article because I am not trying to promote Sivayogi (Why give a conflict of interest tag? I met him in person only twice which I consider very important events of my life).
3. Regarding the arrest, the reviewer pointed out that number of people gets arrested daily. (implied So what is so notable about that?) It was really a devastating blow for me. In India, people don't get arrested that easily for talking against religion. It is a secular nation. His video was 'voluntarily misinterpreted' and a group protested twice. Tamilnadu Congress leader complained and tweeted against him. The cases are under investigation. Hence I removed all the details about the religion but it was included by the reviewer.
4. He has disciples(Indian and Tamilans) all over the world. How do I know that? I found lot of contents in his social media apart from Youtube. I didn't cite them but it is there (If the panel wishes to see it, I can share you the link). Is it not notable enough?
5. The original reviewer kept on pointing me at the rules, regulations and policies. I tried making sense to the reviewer by showing that in past the notability test was overruled in certain occasions. I answered all the queries asked to me indirectly in the last reply of the talks page.
Thank you guys Zero by zero (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill cleric, I find nothing to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me or repost the same answer you've done already 4 times above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks notability as others have mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moses (television personality)[edit]

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant; won one season of Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list of reality TV people. Andrevan@ 00:33, 24 July 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 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eriko Tamaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Badminton, and Japan. zoglophie 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a medalist at international team of Japan, or at the relevant Grand Prix or on a national team. Hence does not meet criteria set out in WP:NBADMINTON MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Flood[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD + WP:GNG. zoglophie 05:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Badminton, and Ireland. zoglophie 05:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 20 July 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 Big Brother 15 (American season). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Herren[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show contestant; won one season of Big Brother, and that's it. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Big Brother 15 (American season). Insufficiently notable for a stand alone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, lacks notability for own page The sources are more about BB and him as a contestant. Redirect to Big Brother 15 (American season). Hughesdarren (talk) 09:33, 21 July 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 Procedural close. Nominator is a sockpuppeteer and no other editor has participated in this discussion.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance Media Group[edit]

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

Only produced 2 films so far. No significant coverage. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 20 July 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 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Right Services[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads rather WP:PROMO and I can't find any secondary source information about it from a cursory google search. BrigadierG (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article that cannot be fixed owing to a lack of notability. Routine coverage, passing mentions, and primary sources do not meet standards at WP:CORPDEPTH. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:53, 20 July 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 03:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohibullah Noori[edit]

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

Fails our notability guidelines for people. The article cites only a passing mention, a blog post, and a paper by the subject; my WP:BEFORE search didn't find any independent reliable sources that discuss Noori directly and in detail. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the best source I could find was a mere mention. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:18, 24 July 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 04:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haritha Haridas[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. – robertsky (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. – robertsky (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage conferring notability, does not meet criteria per NACTOR. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails general notability as well. That Mallu Guy (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 = The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series. she appears to be the second listed character on the notable sitcome Chakkappazham and that body of work has attracted lots of news coverage, the article isn't very well sourced, but Google News shows lots of 2021 and 2022 news coverage of it. So it seems to me she may satisfy WP:CREATIVE but I don't want to make bold assertions, what do others think? CT55555 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, second thoughts, I guess WP:ACTOR is the more relevant criteria and that requires two notable roles. Assuming she only had one, perhaps I've answered my own question... CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:50, 24 July 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 Nanni Campus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sardinia is already Tomorrow[edit]

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

First of all, I premise that "Sardinia is already tomorrow" was not a party (original research by the author of the page) but a mere local assembly group. The page has not any utility, and this is evident from its reading: the page merely states that the group (erroneously defined as a party) existed, then it only describes the previous and subsequent political career of its members. In practice, there is not the slightest relevance from reading this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not really matter what a political party is or is not (see note below) or whether a political grouping is active only in a local assembly: also parliamentary-only parties are encyclopedic, indeed. In our case, the subject is notable, is sourced (additional sources might be found) and deserves an article of its own. For fully two years, this grouping was active and played a key role in Sardinian politics. Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers and organises information difficult to find elsewhere. If, regretfully, there is no consensus on keeping this article, I hope it will be possible at least to merge with another article, in order to keep the article's history. Note. It may be disputable what a political party is. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a political party is a "group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power" (like Sardinia is already Tomorrow!). Several political scientists have given different definitions and categorisations of political parties, e.g. cadre, mass, catch-all and cartel ones. Especially, at their origins, a role is also played by parliamentary parties, that, according to our own definition in Wikipedia, are groups "consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council". --Checco (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a political party but a local assembly's group, personal interpretations of the nature of an organization are Original researches. Even its key role in Sardinian politic must be fully demonstrated. Moreover, this page is almost de facto orphan, nor does its members have their own page, so in this case even a merger seems almost impossible to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever its nature, the subject is encyclopedic and the fact that the information included in the article are not present in other articles and that there is no natural article of merger are, in my view, further arguments for keeping the article. I know that Italian politicians and journalists make distinctions between political parties, political "movements", political associations, parliamentary groups, etc., but these have nothing to do with political science and its international scientific standards. --Checco (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it is not the Italian journalists who distinguish between parties and parliamentary groups (which are objectively and juridically different entities), it seems to me that is you who consider any political subject a "party" according to a personal interpretation of a generic definition of political party. Parliamentary groups are distinct from parties in any jurisdiction, there is no hypothetical "international" scientific theory that claims they are the same..--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Nanni Campus, which is one of the relevant leaders of this party. It looks like the only relevant news / books sources talk about this party in relation to the arrest of one of its members for misuse of public funds. Yakme (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) it is not a party, but a regional parliamentary group; 2) as regional parliamentary group, it had local notability only at most; 3) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia --P1221 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The party (or whatever we would like to call it) was represented by up to five regional councillors out of 60 for two years in the Regional Council of Sardinia, an autonomous region in Italy with two million people. There are thus official sources regarding the party's presence in the legislative body. This alone should convince anyone on the party's relevance and the opportunity of continuing to have an article on it in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple regional group (not a party) that gathered independent regional councilors and from other parties: it is a very common thing in Italy, there are many examples of this type, but (almost) none of these have their own page; this group, in particular, does not seem to have undertaken any particular political initiative that could have given it notability.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that in this case a good compromise would be the merger with another page, as proposed by Yakme and mentioned by Checco. However, I would merge this page to Mario Diana (page that I recently created), who was chairman of the group, and not to Nanni Campus, who was a just its member. Could this be an acceptable solution?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: From my point of view there is no consensus to maintain a standalone article for this simple regional group (which has never stood out for any particular reason), so I reaffirm that in my opinion the best compromise to close this Afd would be a merger with another page (and I would propose the page of chairman Mario Diana).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thing the above proposal is acceptable, in order to preserve the information in this article if there is not enough consensus to keep it as a stand-alone article.--Autospark (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SDC, @User:Autospark: Of course, a merger would be better than deletion, but why a "regional group" should not be encyclopedic? In my view, any political party participating in elections and any political party/group/grouping active in an elective assembly is worth of an article, especially when it is backed by some many sources as this. --Checco (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Mario Diana or Nanni Campus as per the suggestion/proposal above. On its own, this topic fails NORG/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 27 July 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. This process has run for four weeks and nobody has presented or inserted sufficient independent sources to bring this minor sports figure towards meeting general notability. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Gogola[edit]

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

Not a notable water polo player. Fails WP:GNG Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search finds this, this and this all about this person. The latter is a lengthy interview which states he was not only a player, but the team captain and manager. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews are not GNG qualifying sources. The person making a statement about themself in an interview is not something we can use to say things, Wikipedia needs to be based on what others have written about someone, not what they say abnout themself, and an itnterview is always the later. We do not have sourcing that actually rises to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's untrue. Please see WP:BASIC. For example, the third link I've provided is from SME - "one of the most widely read mainstream broadsheets in Slovakia". Please can you link to the policy/guidelines that actually say "interviews are not GNG qualifying sources". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because of their nature, interviews are often neither secondary nor independent; so while not explicit, it is a reasonable interpretation that such sources should not count towards a GNG pass (there was a recent discussion at WT:N about this). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the link? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for any significant non-primary commentary by the interviewer, the content in interviews is not considered secondary or independent; this has been the standard for a long time. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources based around this player, such as the ones linked above and other sources such as this, this, and this. And yes, in my findings, it does also say that he is the team captain and manager.

Cheers! --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 16:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WellThisIsTheReaper, you linked to Slovak waterpolo's own website and a bulletin released by his team. Those are not independent sources and therefore cannot contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the 6 sources presented above, 5 are passing mentions in routine coverage, so do not contribute towards GNG. The other (SME) is an interview transcript that contains no independent commentary, so also does not contribute towards GNG. If these are the best sources that can be found, this article should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate list article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water polo at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament as an alternative to deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first two sources provided here are identical routine injury reports; it's not remotely encyclopedic to note every injury an athlete reports, so why would that info be considered SIGCOV? The rest of the sources that I can access are routine coverage and an interview. Fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning towards Keep. When doing my WP:BEFORE I noticed that all of the sources linked here, and on Google News were published after 2010. If this discussion were occurring back in the early 2000's we probably would be able to find more acceptable sources. I have not !voted Keep as I am aware that the burden of proof is on me to find sources. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found this by limiting my search to pages before 2014. Pinging Lugnuts. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally the same source Lugnuts linked above that others have determined is not sufficient for GNG due to the limited independent commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must have shared the wrong source then. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this. It appears that he is on the National Water Polo team of Slovakia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NWP. Pinging Lugnuts a second time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256, that is not a valid keep reason. NWP is not a notability guideline; the relevant guideline is GNG/SPORTCRIT, which requires SIGCOV in multiple IRS regardless of sporting achievement. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know that. I have been out of the loop for some time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do more checking immediately. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comments but not !voted Delete. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion still active.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage of the subject is neither significant, nor independent. Interviews do not establish notability or act as reliable circumstances except in rare instances as already discussed above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient independent coverage to argue for retention. If good sources are identified, please ping me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 21 July 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 04:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haritha Haridas[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. – robertsky (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. – robertsky (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage conferring notability, does not meet criteria per NACTOR. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails general notability as well. That Mallu Guy (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 = The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series. she appears to be the second listed character on the notable sitcome Chakkappazham and that body of work has attracted lots of news coverage, the article isn't very well sourced, but Google News shows lots of 2021 and 2022 news coverage of it. So it seems to me she may satisfy WP:CREATIVE but I don't want to make bold assertions, what do others think? CT55555 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, second thoughts, I guess WP:ACTOR is the more relevant criteria and that requires two notable roles. Assuming she only had one, perhaps I've answered my own question... CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:50, 24 July 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. The only agreement here is that this article is poorly sourced and needs improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shea[edit]

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

Merge I have proposed this page for deletion, so that it may be merged into American Reporter. The article may or may not meet criteria for notability, but it does not meet the standard of WP:V. It is clear that this person has contributed to society and we should preserve their legacy via Wikipedia, but two poorly-sourced pages related to their work does not uphold our standards of Wikipedia. I therefore propose a merge, keeping the best of both pages intact. PickleG13 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination was made in late April, but was improperly formatted, and doesn't seem to have been in the daily logpage. I will now attempt to fix and relist. jp×g 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; just from the lead there are numerous things that seem to clearly indicate notability, and a very large set of references can be found in the article. The fact that most of it's written without inline citations is suboptimal, but AfD is not cleanup, and anyone who wishes to format the page with inlines from the large quantity of refs is able to do so. jp×g 04:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable; passes WP:GNG. 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles can be improved but seems to need more cleanup than is non-notable. Andrevan@ 00:23, 24 July 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. There is no consensus about whether this topic merits treatment beyond what we have in Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO and Enlargement of NATO. People seem to agree, though, that the title is suboptimal and the article needs cleanup. Sandstein 08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion[edit]

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

This article is pretty much an essay, and should probably be condensed and merged with an existing article. It seems like a very specific topic to be a standalone article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and Russia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's books and articles about this topic [26] [27] [28]. It is a common propaganda narrative in Russia that Russia is right in everything because NATO broke an informal verbal declaration promising not to expand beyond East Germany after the German unification in 1990. It was in fact used in one of Putin's speeches before the invasion started. Super Ψ Dro 09:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:STARTOVER. IMO there is enough WP:RS out there, maybe they aren't that common in English. A09090091 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect or merge. We do have page Enlargement of NATO, and the books above are actually on the enlargement subject. I would suggest to redirect to Enlargement of NATO or possibly merge with it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not only about NATO expansion, but about NATO expansion beyond the Iron Curtain and how it has strained NATO's relations with Russia. Russia probably wouldn't have cared a lot if Ireland or Switzerland joined NATO in 1990. That NATO enlargement beyond the Iron Curtain is illegitimate is an actual narrative in the Russian academic world [29]. I remind that Putin himself demanded NATO not to keep expanding and to retreat its troops from the states that joined after 1997 [30]. He talked about how NATO betrayed Russia by expanding five times for months prior to his attack on Ukraine [31]. He also talked about it in the 2007 Munich speech of Vladimir Putin: "What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?". This is a thing that's been going on for a while among the Russian public. Super Ψ Dro 22:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is also an attempt to recreate deleted/redirected page Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations, but just make it bigger. A legitimate subject here is Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, and we have such page. This page, as written, is basically a POV fork of deleted Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations or Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, as it's shown by the good coverage in reliable secondary sources - also authoritative academic sources such as Foreign Affairs, International Security and Journal of Cold War Studies (all quoted in the article). While further refinements through the usual WP:EDITING process are possible, the article is definitely not an WP:OR, and to me it looks largely complaint with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources cover so called "Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations", which would be a more legitimate subject than this page. However, such page was already deleted at an AfD [32], see last version here: [33]. In fact, no promises of non-expansion was made, especially in written. By creating this page someone was making two points: (a) the complaints by Putin and his administration were legitimate, and (b) they were highly notable. None of that is true. Yes, this should be mentioned on a few pages (and it is already mentioned), but this POV fork does not deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a page on Holocaust denial does not imply that it didn't happen. Likewise, having this page doesn't imply Putin is right. And I would argue that such narratives are indeed notable, considering Putin was talking about them in the same speeches in which he was making ultimatums to the world's largest military alliance. Super Ψ Dro 07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Holocaust denial is a notable subject. Not every "controversy in Russia" is notable. That one does deserve to be noticed on a couple of other pages, and it is already noticed there. This page I believe is a POV fork and a recreation of another already deleted page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems specific to the reception in Russia. It can be kept. There is more information available now regarding how Russians view the influence of NATO,[34] and also how Ukrainians view it.[35] This can be also covered on the article. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gitz666; important topic, relatively compliant with NPOV, potentially needs editing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any article that starts by describing something as controversial is presenting a point of view, at odds with WP:NPOV. My !vote is informed by this essay WP:DTTC which speaks to the value of presenting facts, not stating how controversial they are. I think therefore content could be included in other articles (so a redirect could be OK) but I also question if the sources suggest notability? i.e. do they show the notability of "Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion" or just that "the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion" is a debate? I cannot tell, it would take a lot of effort to dissect that, but it seems clear that this is an essay. CT55555 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 has a good point. The word "controversy" is not advised in WP articles. Might I suggest consideration of a rename, due to this factor, to Assurances given to Russia regarding NATO expansion? The assurances are well documented now in the academic literature. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be even more problematic. No any assurances were given to Russia regarding NATO expansion, at least in written, as documented in the literature. What they talked about in person during meetings is an interesting question but hardly worthy a page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete voluminous but low quality fork for Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which already discusses the topic of about whether assurances were given during negotiations or not.--Staberinde (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic is a recurring foreign policy debate in Russia, but as others pointed out, presenting it as a controversy over legitimacy could bias the audience. I'd suggest merging much of its content into Enlargement of NATO in a "Controversy" or "Ex-Soviet responses" section. At the very least it shouldn't be deleted as it fulfills both sufficient conditions for WP:EVENT. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete. This seems to be just a reiteration of the discussion we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker-Gorbachev Pact a few months ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Tang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Very, very early career. Done nothing. Refs are PR. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.🚂LocoMotive207-AMERICA🚂 20:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon. Much of the coverage that is out there is about her boyfriend, not her. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "【十八年後的終極告白2.0】27歲鄧卓殷演中學生零違和　半工讀港大碩士與郭子豪婚期近". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-06-08. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
2. "十八年後2.0｜鄧卓殷表現亮眼獲網民讚演技自然". am730 (in Chinese). 2022-06-22. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
3. Xian, Liyi 冼麗宜 (2021-03-26). "【鄧卓殷專訪】拍喊戲失準獲前輩教路鄧卓殷利用食飯時間拍拖". Mingpao Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
  The article notes: "Twenty-five-year-old Deng Zhuoyin (Amber) was the runner-up and the most photogenic young lady in Hong Kong in 2018. After signing the contract with TVB, she mainly filmed variety shows. The currently broadcast "Stride" is her maiden drama, playing Tiffany, one of the newspaper's members, who is Yao Ziling's Colleagues, because the main force is the company's drama, so there is no need to run. After the selection of Miss Hong Kong, Amber also went to the training class to learn acting skills with Luo Guanlan, but this time the drama was officially filmed, and it turned out that going to class was very different from practice."
4. Liang, Lexin 梁樂欣 (2021-06-14). "【香港小姐】港姐鄧卓殷完成建築碩士課程　港姐Amber：潛能可以逼出來". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
5. "鄧卓殷建築碩士畢業男友郭子豪低調出席畢業禮盤點16位高學歷港姐". Oriental Sunday [zh] (in Chinese). 2021-12-11. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
6. "雙料亞軍鄧卓殷轉數快全場爆笑！盤點歷屆9位索爆港姐亞軍絕對唔比冠軍弱㗎！". SundayMore (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. 2018-08-27. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
7. "港姐亞軍鄧卓殷與男友分隔兩地…圈中女明星告訴你，異地戀也能開花結果！". Cosmopolitan (in Chinese). 2018-08-30. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
8. "「最上鏡港姐」鄧卓殷大走光！薄紗露出底褲…美尻完全現形" (in Chinese). SET News. 2019-06-13. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
9. "「雙料亞軍」鄧卓殷私下造型平易近人夠親民". Marie Claire (in Chinese). 2018-08-30. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
10. "十八年後2｜27歲鄧卓殷扮14歲學生零違和港姐亞軍入行曾被傳「容貌進化」". Weekend Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-06-25. Archived from the original on 2022-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-08.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amber Tang (traditional Chinese: 鄧卓殷; simplified Chinese: 邓卓殷) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Tang received significant coverage in 2018 for competing in Miss Hong Kong 2018, where she was first runner-up. She received significant coverage in 2021 when acted in the TV series The Runner [zh] and received a graduate degree in architecture. She received significant coverage in 2022 when she acted in the TV series Brutally Young 2.0 [zh]. The sustained significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrates Amber Tang meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard has demonstrated notability. CT55555 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARS member. scope_creep^Talk 20:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scope creep, don't use participation in a WikiProject as a personal attack, as if participation meant an editor's opinion should be dismissed. Keep your differences of opinion civil. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Cunard provided sources in Chinese, is telling. Hong Kong, unlike China, has a very strong English media scene. Many of these sources are gossipy and some cover her in relation to her much more famous boyfriend. For example: Oriental Sunday (source 5 in list)'s byline: "Deng Zhuoyin graduated with a master's degree in architecture and her boyfriend Guo Zihao attended the graduation ceremony in a low-key manner...". Pikavoom ^Talk 06:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom: I suspect that most of them are similar. Ref 8 for example describes how she is becoming popular and she was invited to attend the 2019 Miss Hong Kong contest promotion event and was interviewed. Looking at each of the each of the references, they all like early stage PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I linked are all reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. I do not agree that they are "early stage PR" or unreliable sources. The sources show she is a notable actress who has received sustained coverage over multiple years from Hong Kong media. That the sources are all Chinese-language sources does not mean an actress who is acting in primarily (if not completely) Chinese-language dramas and shows is non-notable. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."
I will discuss three of the sources in more detail.
1. The 2022 Hong Kong Economic Times article notes that Amber Tang was a 2018 Miss Hong Kong contestant. In the competition, she received the runner-up award and the most photogenic award. The article notes that in 2013 when she took the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination, she received the 5** score on four subjects. The subject attended the University of Hong Kong, where she studied architecture. She received the "2017 Asian Construction Award" in the student division. Upon graduating in 2017, she joined the industry as an "architectural trainee". The article notes that she received numerous pieces of negative news coverage about dating the actor Arnold Kwok who was her cohost on Entertainment Everyone and who media reports thought had a girlfriend at the time, but both she and Kwok said they were each single at the time. The article notes that she enrolled again at the University of Hong Kong in 2019 and received a master's degree in December 2022. During her studies, she acted in a drama. The article discusses her performance on the TVB drama The Ultimate Confession 2.0 After Eighteen Years in which she plays Shen Xiaotong, Gong Jiaxin's 14-year-old sister.
2. The 2022 am730 article provides biographical background about how she is 27 years old, how she received 5** on four DSE subjects, and how she studied architecture at the University of Hong Kong. The article notes that while being employed as architectural trainee, she competed in the 2018 Miss Hong Kong, where she received the runner-up and photogenic awards. The article notes that she largely performs on variety shows and in 2020 began receiving chances to act on dramas. She acted in the dramas Treading the World II, Benevolent Doctor under the Stars, and The King of Fighters. The article notes that her most recent role is as Shen Xiaotong, the 14-year-old sister of Shen Yue, in the widely watched drama "The Ultimate Confession 2.0 After Eighteen Years". Netizens found that "zero violation of the character's appearance" and were "impressed by her acting skills". The article describes how she was able to successfully depict "the repressed guilt" of her character who had stabbed Queenie using a glass bottle which impressed netizens.
3. The 2021 Mingpao Weekly [zh] article notes that Amber Tang is 25 years old and received the runner-up and photogenic awards at Miss Hong Kong 2018. The article notes that she inked a contract with TVB, where her work largely has been on variety shows. The article notes that her first drama is Stride, where her role is Tiffany, an employee of the newspaper. Once the Miss Hong Kong competition ended, she received acting lessons from the actress and instructor Lo Koon Lan [zh]. When she started acting, she found it difficult to play a scene where she had to shout and cry in front of her boyfriend's family. The article notes that "she played the role of a girl who committed suicide by jumping off a building" and describes the preparations she made for that role. The article said that she was enrolled in the University of Hong Kong's Department of Architecture full-time two-year master's program and would be graduating that year. The article notes that her boyfriend is Guo Zihao who was her cohost on "Entertainment Everyone".
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So she got 5** in her exams and that makes her notable? Is that it? All it is PR. She has nothing to warrant an article. Are you getting paid for this? That is the only reason I can think of that you make such absurd and mediocre statements to save this article. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The information about how she did on the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination is part of the biographical background about her. The rest of the article explains how she became notable: as an actress and as the runner-up in Miss Hong Kong. I do not consider any of this information from reliable sources to be PR.
  I have no conflict of interest with the subject. As Liz (talk · contribs) suggested above, please do not make personal attacks. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Clearly passes WP:GNG and I see personal attack from scope_creep. Pls stop personal attack! If you continue doing it, you will be block from editing. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fitzgerald[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I cannot find any other sources to support any notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and United States of America. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR 4c.
- Fitzgerald's first collection The Late Parade (2013) was reviewed in The New York Times [36], Lambda Literary [37], Publishers Weekly [38], Boston Review [39], The New Criterion [40], The Critical Flame[41], Washington Independent Review of Books[42], and he was interviewed about it by New Books Network [43]. A poem was republished with an annotation in Blunderbuss Magazine[44]. It was mentioned in a poetry column in the Chicago Tribune [45].
- Fitzgerald's second collection George Washington (2016) was reviewed in The New York Times [46], Hyperallergic [47], Boston Review [48], The New Criterion [49], Brooklyn Rail [50], and Hobart [51] and he appeared to discuss it on a KCRW podcast[52], was interviewed about it by Book Forum [53], and Marfa Public Radio [54]. As well as mentions in The Point [55] and Times Literary Supplement [56].
- His poems have appeared in BOMB Magazine [57], American Poetry Review [58], The American Reader[59], Harvard Review [60], The New Yorker [61], Poetry [62], Boston Review, Granta (where he was also interviewed)[63], The New Republic [64], The New York Review of Books [65], OmniVerse (with an interview)[66], in Spanish translation in Buenos Aires Poetry[67], and The American Scholar [68].
- I found these just on Google, without going to the paywalled databases in the WP Library, etc.--Jahaza (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an abundance of reviews and articles covering Fitzgerald's body of work. This shows the article unambiguously meets WP:AUTHOR 4c. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:48, 20 July 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 04:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Yee Chiang[edit]

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

Non notable author. Unsourced since 2006. BEFORE does not come up with any sources (inclusive of local newspaper archive NewspaperSG) Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears that this individual has quite a versatile personality (author + opera) but unfortunately does not meet the requirements for notability Proton Dental (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search on both NewspaperSG and Newslink fails to reveal any significant coverage. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability presented in article, seemingly none available online. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 21 July 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 Lower Garden District, New Orleans. Aren't gardens places where one catches these pokémon, anyway? Rough consensus is to cover this topic, but as part of an existing article about the statue's location. Sandstein 10:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu (sculpture)[edit]

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

Got a brief flurry of coverage in August and February, and nothing of note afterward. Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Louisiana. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy and not applicable here anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pikachu or Pokemon Go. Likely the latter where it could merit a sentence. Star Mississippi 02:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Monument is covered by academic in Monument Culture: International Perspectives on the Future of Monuments in a Changing World. Rowman & Littlefield. 2019. ISBN 9781538114148. OCLC 1083153420. see google preview , seems closer to WP:SUSTAINED than "a brief flurry of coverage in August and February" of 2016–2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This was tricky. Subject is absolutely notable. Sure, the blitz of coverage was quick, but significant and so once notability is established, even temporarily, this is okay per NTEMP. I disagree with the application of SUSTAINED. Overall I would have just adopted a "live and let live" attitude with this article, there is sooooo much stuff to XFD. But seeing as it is here, I take no objection to Star's merge suggestion. Recommend it is included in the main Pikachu article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaxnaCarta, since you wrote this over a dozen good sources have been added. Turns out that the coverage was sustained for years, notability has certainly been established and, since this has now met your criteria above, please consider that Pikachu's turn at bat has proven noteworthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lower Garden District, New Orleans. Per the sourcing, has closer relation to local area events than to the video game or character. It's trivia for the latter two. czar 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for the sake of closer assessing consensus, I'd also be fine with this target or any other that's proposed. Covered in context will be much more helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 15:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Happy for any appropriate merge. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe everyone should read Another Believer's comment below which seems to solidify the article as GNG compliant. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Star Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable statue which had fairly wide press coverage, more media than most works of art have or most works of art will receive, and more public acknowledgement than most individual Pokémon of which 30 different characters have Wikipedia pages. Bri shows some sustainability above. The statue was publicly exhibited for a time, vandalized by ruffians and anti-Pikachu goons and roustabouts (or maybe a neighborhood guy out walking his bat), and still exists in private hands. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm biased as the stub creator, but I'm going to vote to keep as well per GNG. It is simply not accurate to say the statue "got a brief flurry of coverage in August and February, and nothing of note afterward". Did you even try Google? There's coverage ranging from 2016 to 2019, within reputable source specifically focused on the statue including multiple paragraphs in a book about monuments. There's coverage of the work's installation, vandalism, repair, removal, and auction, along with enough descriptions of the monument to flesh out a commentary/reception section. I'd rather see this entry expanded to its fullest potential, not deleted. In the future, consider sharing concerns on the article's Talk page before jumping to AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment should end the talk of a merge and should give the good faith nominator reason to consider a withdrawal of the AfD nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin, I am not really against Keep either. I did state notability was established. I'm honestly happy with a merge or Keep - the subject belongs on Wikipedia. I do not see the harm in merging to Pikachu or Lower Garden District New Orleans, and creating a redirect. Nor do I see the harm in keeping. In hindsight, a merger proposal would have been more appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lower Garden District, New Orleans. Its absolutely a notable search term. Note, the nominator has been reprimanded for being too trigger happy with AFD nominations relating to a different a topic - no shade to Ten Pound H intended. Since there are a couple of obvious merge locals, perhaps a merge discussion should have been opened before going straight to AFD? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than a notable search term, it's a notable topic. The criteria that the nomination lays out have been met and its premise nulled out, so giving weight to a merge on an already defunct AfDeletion request seems a bit unfair to me (why more nominations aren't withdrawn after criteria have been met is one of my head scratchers). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croislla[edit]

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

References are basically all press releases and links to Apple Music or YouTube; I couldn't find enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisify WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER, WP:NARTIST, etc. DanCherek (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians ~~and Portugal~~. DanCherek (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to put this in the Brazil deletion sorting, not Portugal. My mistake. DanCherek (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DanCherek: the structure of tables with musical works is usually used on ptwiki as a form of promotion. This is a tactic to place links to streaming services: Deezer, iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others. However, it appears to be a promotional creation (SPAM). See these two sources. Observatório dos Famosos is a portal that propagates releases of marketing advisors. The author, Luca Moreira, is probably the same one who tried to promote himself dozens of times on ptwiki. The other source would be Tiago Ghidotti, another who tried to use ptwiki for spam. Moreira's evidence = elimination. No hesitation. At least it would be like that on ptwiki. Greetings! Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the insight, that's helpful! Yes, I noticed that the ptwiki version of this article has already been deleted in part due to promotional sources and lack of notability, and this seems like more of the same. DanCherek (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Croisla or Croislla? He or her? Both are presented in the article, which as the nominator has observed, is packed with press release material with the same handout shots. What's not presented is any case for notability per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb It's Croislla, with the double "ll". It's is he, except when he is in drag, and then it is she. Maybe that's what generated the confusion.

My understanding of this case is that she's a rather common kind of drag in Brazil, the "Pablo Vittar clone" kind of drag, and (still?) not relevant in Wikipedia standards by any stretch of imagination. A number of the informations in the article must certainly be lies, as according to it he was already marketing himself as a full-fledged drag at the age of...9. Maybe he was doing drag shows by that age led by that agent - an activity that, looking at the kind of shows and the more than scanty clothing involved, would certainly put his agent in jail, was it here in Portugal - but I understand he (or she, if Croislla) became to be advertised on social networks an so on rather recently, and the Wikipedia article is certainly part of that campaign. Furthermore, if you look at the history of the account that created the article, it's more than probable that it is his agent, Vinicius Henuns. A large number of the editions (almost all), both here and on wiki.pt, are about artists this agent represents. Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, he's being promoted, with the same story, as Vini Lacroix. Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above, not notable and promotional. Andrevan@ 00:05, 24 July 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 11:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Rock (Essex County, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Large rock in a marsh that fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND. No information apart from coordinates, and the article is basically unsourced. BilletsMauves (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rush equipment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list of commercial product endorsements is almost completely unreferenced. Further, it's redundant to the "equipment" sections in the individual musicians' articles. The band as a whole identifies no specific equipment, so there's no added value in combination. Not surprisingly there are contradictions between this articles content and the individual artists.

The previous AfD raised some of these concerns but after 14 years there doesn't seem to be much progress in sourcing these statements.

It seems better to document the equipment endorsements by artist since they also do solo work and side projects outside of the band.

It's easiest to delete this article and leave the content in the artists' pages (where it already exists, and is far better-referenced). Mikeblas (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disclosure - I like Rush. Nonetheless, longstanding convention requires that we have sources to show that this is notable and thus worth keeping in an encyclopedia. Without these sources, this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If there's a related business relationship/equipment endorsement that is reported, that can go in the individual artist's article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can see no evidence that this list, and the article is essentially just a list, passes WP:NLIST. Even if it theoretically did, I can see no reason why this is a necessary split from related articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAN. Good grief - insanely compendious, almost totally unsourced but IMHO wholly totally unnecessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 21 July 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 WP:SNOW. Nomination was by an editor unfamiliar with inclusion criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeko Oishi[edit]

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

Notability not established Uricdivine (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Uricdivine (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. Nominator took this to AfD three minutes after article creation without any discussion, and the nomination statement gives no evidence of having performed WP:BEFORE or even of considering the correct notability criterion (WP:PROF, not WP:GNG). Her citation record gives her a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and her named professorship at the University of New Mexico also gives her a pass of #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have good citations as per the comment above. I also found significant coverage as follows: Roughgarden, J. (2009). The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness. (n.p.): University of California Press. Nomination justification is quite brief, lacking justification to delete. CT55555 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I added a brief description of the work with Roughgarden to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good citation record and other passes of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per CT55555 Kazanstyle (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established according to WP:PROF. Thincat (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Rowles, Dustin (2022-07-14). "Explaining Herschel Walker's Influencer Son, Christian Walker, to Millennials and Gen X'ers". Pajiba. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[2] Daw, Stephen (2022-07-14). "Kehlani Says She Wasn't Going to Let Christian Walker 'Get a Reaction Out of Me' in Viral Confrontation". Billboard. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[3] Sollenberger, Roger (2022-03-03). "Herschel Walker's Son Sells 'All-American' Swag Made in India". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[4] "Singer Kehlani goes viral for keeping cool during a verbal confrontation with influencer at Starbucks". TODAY.com. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[5] Passy, Charles. "Herschel Walker's son protests high gas prices, but critics say his $1,300 sweatshirt demonstrates he's full of hot air". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[6] Murillo, Paulo (2022-06-14). "Christian Walker Posts Anti-Pride Messages from Matthew Shepard Triangle in WeHo - WeHo Times West Hollywood Daily News, Nightlife and Events". Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[7] Chamlee, Virginia (March 11, 2021). "What to Know About Herschel Walker and His Headline-Grabbing Son as Trump Says He Should Run for Senate". people.com. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[8] Parke, Caleb (2020-10-27). "Herschel Walker's son frustrated Democrats 'worship' BLM movement". Fox Business. Retrieved 2022-07-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]