Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

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 speedy keep per criterion 2. Between the evidence presented by the keep !votes and the actions of the nominator, the obvious conclusion is that the nomination was to advance an agenda, not based on Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Turks[edit]

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

It is not an actual term used by anyone. Whole article is a propaganda for political agendas. Aloisnebegn (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question - I see two sources at least that indicate this is a notable topic. Does the nominator dispute that? i.e notability is the driver here, not anecdotes about the commonality of the term. CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced to a peer-reviewed journal and the New York Times; propaganda or not, it passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep having seen the warnings on the talk page of the nominator after they blanked this page, I think WP:CSK criteria 2 is relevant. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, the nominator seems to want to hide information contrary to what appears to be a pro-nationalist Turkish ideal they have. Right or wrong, their ideal is only one side of the story if you will and should also be presented without limiting others from presenting their views. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to make personal assumptions? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a discussion forum to present differing views. Only information with consensus belong to here. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely RS supporting this concept and discussing it. Usable sources in Google Scholar. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:35, 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 Procedural close. Already handled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Appeal to Reason (band). (non-admin closure) jp×g 23:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Reason (band)[edit]

Appeal to Reason (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this page by mistake : it is a band album, not a band. This page should be deleted. --Varlin (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Orphaned AfD that was never added to any logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:48, 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) 22:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesca Wilfredy[edit]

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

Subject fails ANYBIO; The few sources provided don't look like enough for GNG. The result of the prior deletion discussion was draftify which was subsequently G13'd. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, sources not currently in the article (the quality of which I am not endorsing) include:
  1. https://www.mwananchi.co.tz/mw/habari/kitaifa/mitandao-ya-kijamii-yamtoa-kimaisha-3416192 (possibly promotional)
  2. https://www.pulselive.co.ke/entertainment/celebrities/ex-harmonize-manager-mr-puaz-unveils-new-business-venture-talks-artiste-management/40vnkfc (Tabloid? Passing mention) CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reference above and in the article are routine coverage, PR and interviews. No single secondary has been presented to indicate WP:SIGCOV nor pass WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 07:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom and scope_creep. None of the sources count towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Merely for explaining how this previously deleted article came to be re-created, Jesca Wilfredy was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/220. The editor has told me, they thought this conferred notability if the name was on a list of "missing articles", so they did their best to find sources and write something. It has been suggested to me that these lists are created from records at Wikidata without any regard for notability guidelines. That said, I personally do not find Jesca Wilfredy to meet notability guidelines. --SVTCobra 17:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of WiR, I can confirm that this explanation sounds credible. I have in fact today been making a list for a future event and it is not realistic for me to verify notability for all suggestions. Editors who create the articles should do that, but I am not certain if the advice is provided or clear. In summary: this is a very credible explanation, in my opinion, for what that is worth. I think therefore, as always, we should assume good faith. CT55555 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I have no doubt about the good faith of the WIR project. Perhaps a note about notability for the people who join the project? In this case, the editor who recreated the Jesca Wilfredy article was accused of COI and some suggested it was paid editing. I think it stressed them out. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will reflect on this and feed this back to the project. CT55555 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC
    Per the WiR discussion on this [1], all WiR redlists have exactly the suggested note at the top of the page: “This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify". Users generally, newbies particularly, face a wall of words when trying to understand WP. It's understandable that some will miss the note, or miss the importance of the note. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Humphrey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Tanzawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:34, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majma-ul-Uloom Al-Islamia[edit]

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

Educational board of absolutely no notability whatsoever. Lacks coverage, lacks relevance, lacks content of any note. Fails WP:GNG; WP:SCHOOL; WP:NORG and, just for good measure, WP:NRELORG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep  – qualifies WP:NONPROFIT, as identified in the mentioned sources, scope of organization will be national (Madrassas in Pakistan can give hint to how large will be it's scope). As even small madarsa offer degrees equivalent to M.A (in Pakistan), so will be this board. Thus bringing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES into action here as well. Thanks. AHatd (talk) 03:30, 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. The discussion has ran out of steam, and has started to descend into classic arguments to avoid. (No prejudice against nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Metaphysics[edit]

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

Article's references do not discuss the subject of the article, degree is only offered by unremarkable institutions, appropriate coverage of the subject in independent reliable published sources seems to be lacking. A loose necktie (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bruxton (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator describes a cleanup not deletion. The degree is notable even if it might be a pseudo-science. It is very easy to find references. Chicago Examiner 1913, Associated Press, Casper Star tribune, Fort Worth Star Telegram if this is not kept a redirect is more appropriate than deletion, and a target is Metaphysics. Bruxton (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a fake degree churned out by diploma mills. The sources present in the article do not establish notability. Three of them are from organisations offering this degree, and therefore don't meet GNG's "independent of the subject" criteria; one, the University of Georgia source, doesn't refer to the article topic at all; and the Windsor Star source is a passing mention. The sources provided by Bruxton are also passing mentions, along the lines of "person X claims to be Doctor of Metaphysics" or "institution Y offers Doctorate in Metaphysics", which doesn't give us any useful information about the subject. It would not be appropriate to redirect this to Metaphysics, because that article is about a legitimate branch of philosophy, which is not what is studied by these so-called "Doctors". Dan of La Mancha (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I hadn't even considered that. A loose necktie (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We include articles on Wikipedia when there is WP:RS to WP:V and we have that. We also evaluate a topic based on WP:NEXIST - and there is an abundance of references on this topic which are not in the article. Notability is not diminished when a segment of the population does not believe in something. We have articles for all manner of absurdities in relation to religion, spirituality and Pseudoscience. And let me define Metaphysics - this so called "legitimate" branch of philosophy: it involves "abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space." Finally, people have claimed to be a Doctor of Metaphysics for centuries. I believe that we would do a disservice to our readers with a deletion. Bruxton (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education (see discussion below): lack of significant coverage - sources provided above only give trivial mentions. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although there is some coverage, not convinced the independant coverage meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:29, 3 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! 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and preferably shred and burn. Aside from the failure to meet GNG with reliable sourcing, Dan of La Mancha is correct that this is a fake degree offered by diploma mills, and this article serves to promote such illegitimate degree. The University of Georgia definition is fine, but it has no bearing on the "doctorate" described in the article, which is available for cash amounts from the University of Metaphysics ($990 if you prepay in full), or from the Esoteric Theological Seminary ($890, a bargain!). Wikipedia should not be in the business of providing advertising for diploma mills. See the George Gollin article for a respected academic's experience taking on one of the larger diploma mills, or check our St. Regis University, which he helped to close. Now I need to take a shower. Gah. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: this article serves to promote such illegitimate degree yikes. We create articles for all subjects. Definitely not promoting. People have claimed to be a Doctor of Metaphysics in 1843 - long before diploma mills existed. I imagine some snake oil salesmen also claimed the title. I thought a redirect might help our readers who come across articles with the title, as I did when writing the Helen Hadsell article. Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: The first problem is that of the five sources currently in the article, only the University of Georgia source is reliable, presenting a definition of metaphysics of traditional philosophy. However, it does not even mention a doctorate in metaphysics. The second problem is that the four remaining sources in the article amount to sales pitches or passing mention such as in the Helen Hadsell piece. Three of these sources describe "doctorates" without the benefit of a curriculum or dissertation, presenting only a price list for various documents printed on parchment. Referring to these sources in Wikipedia's voice is the very definition of WP:PROMO, in the section on Advertising, marketing or public relations. I suggest if we need a redirect, appropriate targets might be to Charlatan or Diploma mill, or even to your example above, Snake oil salesman. In my view, though, deletion has more integrity. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is an Unaccredited degree? Insufficient sourcing is a reason to delete, but if some rewording is needed to clarify it's a fake degree and remove promo that's more like clean-up and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham: Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I would welcome any effort you can make to assist in a cleanup. It is difficult to see how people began taking on this title, but perhaps it has always been hucksters. At present it is a unaccredited degree because I have not found a university who offers this as accredited. Bruxton (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kj cheetham and Bruxton, sourcing is the central problem in this article. Two of the sources (metaphysics.com and universityofmetaphysics.com) are part of the International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM), so essentially count as a single source that is an unaccredited religious organization. None of the other sources provide significant coverage of the topic.
IMM actually offers advice about using their degrees legally: "Your own legal right to teach, counsel, or heal in the contemporary field of Metaphysics today is determined by having an ordained ministerial status, not upon a doctoral degree in Metaphysics. The primary purpose of the doctoral degree is to establish a highly professional image..."
I have found no reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG — the article is not a good candidate for clean-up. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone is going to convince you. You already needed a shower after your first visit here. I am going to stub this so that these offensive references are removed since you keep referring to them as problematic. Bruxton (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one description we can use Other references exist as well but for now I will add this one to the stub. Bruxton (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book is self-published - Lulu.com is a self-publishing book company. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alduin2000: yes - it was noted in the edit summary. This subject is much like religion. It is not science, there is no proof of God or miracles either. The author of that book refers to the organizations which award the degree as "so-called" institutions of higher learning. Bruxton (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was pointing out that this source doesn't contribute to notability because only reliable sources contribute to notability and self-published sources are generally not considered reliable. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alduin2000:See also counterfeit degrees 1938 book US Department of the Interior Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source seems ok but this is another trivial mention. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
What Is Metaphysics? No Part of International Metaphysical Ministry No source affiliated with 2 diploma mills No Passing mention of Doctoral degree ✘ No
Metaphysics, University of Georgia Yes Yes No No mention of Doctor of Metaphysics ✘ No
Metaphysics Facts and Fallacies ? No Self-published, not secondary or tertiary source ~ 2 paragraphs, p.17 ✘ No
Counterfeit Degrees Yes Yes No Passing mention on p. 245 ✘ No
Mail-order training in psychotherapy Full text version via Wikipedia Library

1960 survey and analysis of 24 institutions, including nine described as institutes of metaphysics offering doctorates by mai including Doctorate of Metaphysics, Doctor of Philosophy in Metaphysics, and Doctor of Divinity in Metaphysics.

Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Predatory Doctoral Programs, Warnings for Social Workers Yes Yes No passing mentions of 3 Metaphysics degrees ✘ No
"$100 Doctors": The Facts on Today's Degree Mill Racket, available from JSTOR, Wikipedia Library Yes Yes No Four schools reviewed, two with passing mention of Doctor of Metaphysics. ✘ No
review of article, "Beware the Mind-Meddler" by Morris Fishbein, in Woman's Home Companion, December 1948 Passing mention from 2018 review of 1948 article: "Most charlatans have no scientific training. An M.D. or Ph.D. degree, the only ones valid in psychiatry and psychology, is not held by one quack in a hundred. Usually they are the owners of "doctor of psychology" or "doctor of metaphysics" degrees which have been sold to them by unaccredited "colleges" or other "institutions of learning." Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
The Outlook for Patients Admitted to a Mental Hospital after the Age of Sixty Yes Yes No No mention of Doctor of Metaphysics ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

To clarify, none only one of the sources added contributes to WP:GNG, which specifies significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Feel free to add your comments to the source assessment table above. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per source analysis by Dan of La Mancha and Grand'mere Eugene. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Hi, a makeover is in progress. I just added Predatory Doctoral Programs: Warnings for Social Workers from the Journal of Social Work Education. I hope you will check back. Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Selective merge Referenced text can be incorporated at Diploma mill, however I agree with the concerns below about having a standalone article for this fake degree. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "delete", which I now think is also an appropriate action here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a real thing. A meaningless degree you can order online cheap. I think it'd be more useful to have an article about all unaccredited useless degrees, if news coverage about these could be found. Dream Focus 12:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an article for Metaphysics. Do any accredited colleges teach it by a different name or include it with another class? We have an article for Diploma mill. This article could be redirected there if significant coverage can not be found. Dream Focus 12:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thing. But the "degree" is of little or no value. See, e.g., Quora. We do have articles on Ponzi schemes and Trump University; that one does not like it doesn't make it disappear, and may not be a reason to delete it. Available sources seem to be thin. User:Bruxton did a good job with the newspaper archives, and I think they should be added to the article. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I updated the source assessment table to reflect the current sourcing. One source, Mail-order training in psychotherapy Full text version via Wikipedia Library is a 1960 survey and analysis of 24 institutions, including nine described as institutes of metaphysics offering doctorates by mai including Doctorate of Metaphysics, Doctor of Philosophy in Metaphysics, and Doctor of Divinity in Metaphysics. So it's a 60-year-old reflection of the state of mail-order hack degrees available then. I've also looked at sourcing on newspapers.com, which shows 1000+ hits on the search term "Doctor of Metaphysics", all so far mentions in obituaries or wedding announcements. Still no current sources with significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added other sources, which are available through Google Scholar. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and redirect to Diploma mill, I think. I think by keeping the article we risk giving credit to fakery. The article is without much worth keeping, so I think the best thing to do is to redirect it to make it clear it is a fake degree. I'm open to being persuaded if anyone can persuade me that there is an ethically better path. CT55555 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • That almost sounds a more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. WP:GNG is what should be considered. If there was a WP:PROMO issue (it's better than it previously was to be fair), then WP:DINC applies. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand why you say that, but in the context of this initially appearing vague about if this was a real thing or not, I hope you understand my initial motivations. If the homeopathy articles suggested it cured diseases, I would also vote to delete that. Anyway, I only just saw your comment as I searched for mine, in the context of the WP:HEY comment below, so sorry for delay. CT55555 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Preserves the content and the work. WP:Preserve. Addresses the ethical concerns, and avoids WP:UNDUE. A win/win. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    7&6=thirteen, MrsSnoozyTurtle and CT55555, perhaps I lack the imagination to understand how a merge would work. I think a !delete and !redirect would be better... Would you redirect to a new section to Diploma mills under sub-section Accreditation_and_authenticity, perhaps a sub-sub subsection like "Dubious degree titles"? or "Sure-fire fake degrees"? Or, more seriously, "Degree titles offered by diploma mills"? If so, the article, "Mail-order training in psychotherapy" from 1960 has a start in the article's abstract and a table in the full version with titles typically used in fake social sciences programs, which is a bit dated, but it's a start. In other words, would a merge include more than just the "Doctor of Metaphysics" degree title? Or did you have a different idea? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Grand'mere Eugene, that's a good question. The choice of which text is retained (and where it gets located in the target article) is typically a decision made through normal editing processes in the target article, which occurs after the merger decision has been made. So we'd be getting a bit sidetracked here if trying to work out those details before the outcome of the AfD is known.
    The benefit of a merger is that the edit history of Doctor of Metaphysics would be retained, so any editor in future can extract any useful content from the pre-merged version. I hope this explanation helps a bit. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have WP:BARE and it is over the course of many years. I had never heard of it and this was a primer for me. It should not be deleted, a redirect to either Metaphysics or diploma mill will preserve the history. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I contemplated moving most of the text and references to a section in one of the articles. But I have limited experience doing that, so I would defer to my learned colleagues. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to emphasize again, since a couple of people have mentioned it, that the Wikipedia article on Metaphysics describes a different topic from that which is studied by a "Doctor of Metaphysics". See Wiktionary metaphysics: the subject under discussion here is not definition 1 ("The branch of philosophy which studies fundamental principles" etc.), but definition 5 ("The study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world"). The Metaphysics.com source links the two together to give more legitimacy to the latter, and the article follows this in conflating the two subjects. I think this is causing confusion.
For the record, I stand by my delete !vote, or at least I don't agree with a merge or redirect to diploma mill as that article currently stands. I don't see how any of the text from Doctor of Metaphysics could be incorporated into diploma mill, or why this one degree should be discussed at length in that article when so many other fake degrees exist; and I don't think a redirect is appropriate while the target article doesn't include the phrase "Doctor of Metaphysics". That said, if someone plans to expand diploma mill to include a discussion of various types of fake degrees, I'm okay with redirecting to that article for the time being, to preserve the edit history. Dan of La Mancha (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, even though I acknowledge that the Doctor of Metaphysics article is less a WP:PROMO problem now. The list of suspect degree titles from the 1960 study is not comprehensive, as it is derived from the social sciences area by distance learning only, and besides, it is 60+ years out of date. In the intervening years, online diploma mills have invented plenty more fancy-sounding diplomas, so for regulatory agencies it is a continuing problem of whack-a-mole. Listing all known fake degrees would be 1) WP:OR and 2) overwhelming the content of the current Diploma mill article. Here's the list of known fake degree titles offered by 24 diploma mills from the 1960 "Mail-order training in psychotherapy" article:
TABLE 1
DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS OFFERED
  • Doctor of Philosophy
  • Doctor of Psychology
  • Doctor of Metaphysics
  • Doctor of Science
  • Doctor of Psychotherapy
  • Doctor of Bio-Psychology (BPD)
  • Doctor of Philosophy in Metaphysics (PhDM)
  • Doctor of Divinity in Metaphysics (DDM)
  • Doctor of Divinity
  • Doctor of Naturatics (NaD)
  • Master of Psychology and Scientific Truth (ScTM)
  • Master of Psychic Science (MPsSc)
  • Licentiate in Hypnotherapy (LHy)
  • Psychic Reader
  • Metaphysical Counselor
  • Master Metaphysician
  • Ordination
The above list only includes degree titles for the social sciences circa 1960! In the intervening years, diploma mills have continued to invent fake degrees in the sciences, engineering, medicine, religion, and other professions that pay decent wages to credentialed professionals. In the U.S., only about half of the states have laws prohibiting the use of these fake degrees to gain employment in a profession (just think about that the next time you need a nurse, engineer, or architect), and two agencies have historically maintained lists of the thousands of diploma mills selling phony parchment degrees: the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and the U.S. Department of Education. I thus oppose merging phony degree titles to the existing diploma mills article as an impractical solution to resolving this AfD. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reading over the arguments, it still doesn't seem those advocating a redirect or merger outweigh opinions that this article should be straight out deleted and maybe redirected later.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— The tally so far:

Keep:

Delete:

Merge:

Comment only:

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:!VOTE. It is the (unenviable) job of the closing admin to consider the relative strengths of the arguments presented, rather than simply counting the votes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, seems they missed a relevant part of the tally because it is within the ivote.
  1. Bruxton Redirect
  2. Dream Focus Redirect is mentioned
  3. 7&6=13 redirect
  4. Lightburst Redirect
  5. CT55555 redirect
  6. MrsSnoozyTurtle merge and...
(I am assuming a redirect so people can find the topic in the merged material) see WP:MERGE A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page. Bruxton (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, thanks for the corrections. I understand the rationale of preserving the edit history if there is valuable content that could potentially be used for other articles, but I'd still like to understand what content should be merged from the existing article, assuming the target article for the proposed redirect would be Diploma mills? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, diploma mill is not the correct redirect (even if the degree, as granted, seems to always come from a diploma mill). The correct redirect is almost certainly metaphysics, even though the meaning of the degree is rather far from the actual subject-- so that anyone typing in "Doctor of metaphysics" will be taken to a related topic. Much as I'd rather see the topic deleted altogether. But so be it. If a redirect, then the correct redirect, please. (Since I am a Doctor of Naturatics, I should know.) Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I truthfully don't see problems with the article as it is, rather than trying to merge it into other articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Unfortunately, only one of the sources for this article presents significant coverage of the subject. There are multiple passing mentions and sources that are either unreliable and/or self-published. Added together they still fail WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do appreciate the WP:HEY efforts of editors who have improved this article since its nomination — It is no longer promotional and has more clearly identified the link with diploma mills. The sourcing remains the problem, as individual bogus degrees are seldom discussed at all, let alone in significant depth, in articles about diploma mills. So it occurs to me Wikipedia may need an article similar to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, perhaps by draftifying this article as "Draft:Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education" and developing it with sources that discuss the labels that unaccredited institutions offer as degrees? In other words, this subject is not notable enough to have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, but there are enough good sources that list various other degrees promoted by diploma mills and/or legit religious organizations that are unaccredited. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support this as an alternative to deletion; I don't think the other suggested redirect/merge locations would work as well as this considering that it would probably give the degree undue weight to give it space in any of them (e.g. diploma mill should be about diploma mills in general, metaphysics definitely shouldn't mention it and might even give the degree an image of legitimacy to anyone clicking through the link if it redirects there). On the other hand, something like List of degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education would naturally mention it alongside a short description. Plus, there seems to be adequate sourcing to suggest that NLIST for this grouping is satisfied even if Doctor of Metaphysics doesn't pass GNG. And this would also address BusterD's concern below that information on this degree would be useful to readers. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although relisted twice before, there is ongoing active discussion with alternatives being actively discussed, so another go around may be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even without additional sources I think this squeaks by. I'm going to go slightly WP:FORUM here and I apologize up front. Sometimes Wikipedia helps society by providing information about a subject which is obviously dubious. By deleting this, I think we give readers less information about the dubiousness of the subject, as sold to modern buyers. I'd prefer keeping it. I have a suspicion this article might eventually gain support from classic sources from a pre-enlightenment era in which this degree was better regarded and sometimes granted by notable institutions. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went WP:Bold and created an article that I believe is the right place for a redirect, so Deleted and Redirect to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've changed my vote to support this option. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has adequate sourcing and asserts notability. riffic (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, riffic, asserting notability is not enough for WP:GNG. We actually require multiple sources with significant coverage, not just passing mentions of the subject. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is this conceptually really greatly different from any degree purporting a study of matters from the nonscientific magisteria? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, yes, this is conceptually different from legitimate nonscientific degrees because it is offered exclusively by unaccredited Diploma mills, and is a fake or bogus degree. Diploma mills have no scholastic requirements, only the payment of a fee for the parchment. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (optionally also delete) to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education. No clear indication of notability, and the new article covers the topic more usefully than many articles on the various individual fake degrees would. Sandstein 12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep accurately describes the subject as quackery/has appropriate criticism and has appropriate references. No one reading any segment of this article is going to think it's a legit degree, so it isn't misleading. I see no problem. Buffs (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has good secondary sources that clearly and directly discuss its illegitimacy, giving it notability for being illegitimate. Pinguinn 🐧 11:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent RS, then it passes WP:GNG. It's quite clear that it does and, while it might be offered by quacky institutions, that the article subject is itself a degree that's kinda odd is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. There are whole dissertations that have covered diploma mills and treat this topic significantly, and this sort of degree has been discussed since the 1960s and continued in discussions through modern times. I think that there's enough to meet GNG, and that the article can be improved is not a reason for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense. The sources have too little to do with the subject matter. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doggy Style Records[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. It is a viable search term, so could be redirected to Snoop Dogg >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect. Keep. Why not just redirect it instead of nominating it for deletion?Jahaza (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the very worst merge; there's no reason for us to prefer a redlink at this location, so this is the wrong venue to bring up concerns. Doggy Style got routine coverage in 1990s hip hop magazines, and could be fleshed out better with archival sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating my !vote to keep. There's also extensive material available in Billboard magazine available via Google Books, e.g.[2] Jahaza (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG, gets coverage in [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], there's enough to create a factual page beyond a dictionary definition per WP:NOT, WP:NOPAGE and WP:WHYN. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 78.26 passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by 78.26, meets WP:GNG.Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:22, 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! 19:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Takano[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 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 blocked as sock, discussion is ongoing at RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social unit[edit]

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

On Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 5#Social unit it was decided that this venue is better suited for this kind of discussion. I propose delete because I wasn't able to find any reliable sources analyzing the usage of the term. BlackBony (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be even better. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:41, 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. The consensus is that there are sufficient sources available to support notability PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Naghiyev[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Both this article and its az.wiki counterpart cite quite a few articles by Ilham Naghiyev, but there appears to be virtually nothing written about Naghiyev, having searched Google, Google Scholar, and Proquest for both the latinized and Azerbaijani forms of the subject's name. The sole example of potentially-independent coverage is [9], which has no byline and is of unclear reliability, but even if we accept it as fully reliable we still need more examples of independent coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are independent and reliable sources written about the person, showing this article meets WP:GNG. For example, you can check this coverage about the person.[10]میرعلی 797 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an unbylined puff piece and would hesitate to call it reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 23:55, 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! 22:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill You hardly ever can seen bylined articles in Azerbaijani media outlets. So, it does not make the source invalid and unreliable. To prove that I recommend you investigate the case.میرعلی 797 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't been my experience reading Azerbaijani news. At any rate, even if we set aside the byline issue, it still reads like a PR puff piece. I don't see how anyone could take Ilham Naghiyev strives to merge business with the IT field, to identify innovations and future trends and continues his activities in these fields. His belief in the “specialization in specific fields can be a factor to strengthen the role of Azerbaijan in the world IT market” is a messenger of the forthcoming success of IT sector of Azerbaijan. as serious, independent coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 23:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood, but bylined articles are not a must and criteria in Azerbaijani media outlets. As the article tries to cover the whole biography and activities of the person, I do not find the sentence mentioned as a PR puff piece. It seems that once the person has some activities in the aforementioned segments of business, author's tried to give brief information to their readers about it. میرعلی 797 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist a third time but I'm interested in seeing a 3rd or 4th opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Baku United FC, sports management being one content route I can foresee by which the subject gains notability. I see no reason to delete this page before such merge or redirect. I can't see the future, but I suspect this fellow will eventually meet GNG. BusterD (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without redirect: After the author adding more sources I can see that the person is notable. It has major coverage on Azerbaijani media and his activities are of high importance. --leilahuseynova (talk) 11:34, 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! 19:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Dunn (Northern Mariana Island footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:27, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Capayas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bucayo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fruit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hark Galarion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 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. Everyone seems to be doing the right thing here. Nominator asserts an inability to find ready sources; !voters in this process seem to think sufficient sourcing is already applied and significance is asserted. Page creator has shown themselves willing to discuss and has made significant efforts to remove overly detailed material, per talk page discussions (and in response to this procedure). BusterD (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Schoeneich[edit]

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

Overly-detailed article by WP:SPA. I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG—I've been unable to find much on Google Scholar, the Wikipedia Library, or newspapers.com. See discussions at Talk:Heinrich Schoeneich and on the author's talk page. –Ploni (talk) 18:02, 30 June 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, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ploni. Thank you for your review of my article. It will probably be difficult for me to revise it to meet the criteria of the English-language Wikipedia (which it seems to have somehow managed to do in its yesterday's form for three years (?), but since I agree with you that it contained too much detail in relation to its overall length, I have thinned it out as a first step. That doesn't make it stylistically better, but at least less detailed. Perhaps this is a starting point where someone with more wiki experience and an innate linguistic competence would like to jump to my side, I would be very grateful for that. Otherwise, I see little chance for me to "defend" the article, as I can do little about the other points of your critique: Neither can I change the fact that no other articles refer to it, nor can I prove that, as already confirmed, there is no conflict of interest (how does one prove that one is or is not a Buddhist), nor can I give the subject a more prominent position on the international medical stage. The reason I suggested the article was not so much the surgeon's medical achievements, but his (officially and publicly recognised) work as a humanitarian activist in his area of expertise. Perhaps placing him in a category other than medicine would somewhat mitigate the contestability of his encyclopaedic significance. Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 11:39, 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! 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, quite a lot of reports of his humanitarian work in many German newspapers, notable enough. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 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! 21:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several mentions of his work in Burma, and I also saw a few studies that he was involved with. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:30, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun (Coldplay song)[edit]

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

The song fails to present independent notability from the parent album, meaning its details can be discussed in said article. Chart information and certifications are covered on Coldplay discography as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the song charted on 5 national charts and went gold in Italy. That sort of global performance is going to create at least a few sources needed to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 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 redirect to A Head Full of Dreams. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birds (Coldplay song)[edit]

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

The song fails to present independent notability from the parent album, meaning its details can be discussed in said article. Chart information and certifications are covered on Coldplay discography as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major Minus[edit]

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

The song fails to present independent notability from the parent album, meaning its details can be discussed in said article. Chart information and certifications are covered on Coldplay discography as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Education Center[edit]

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

Continuing the discussion started at the talk page: the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and there is no Intermediate District 287 article that would serve as an adequate target per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Virtually all the coverage cited is trivial with respect to the school, as it is routine news coverage of criminal incidents that occurred near the school (a shooting in February 2022, and an unrelated gun incident in September 2021). The sole exception (not counting sources affiliated with the school itself) is this citation to a trade publication which I am unable to access, but which would be insufficient for establishing GNG in the absence of other sources. Searching online and on ProQuest, I was only able to find more routine coverage of the gun-incidents, but nothing substantial about the school itself. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — this school, as reported by CNN, has won a national Grand Prize awarded by the United States Department of Agriculture; a school winning a state, provincial (Canada) or county (UK), or higher-level sporting or academic event ought to count towards establishing notability. In addition, there is WP:INDEPTH coverage by the trade journal Finance and Commerce (ISSN 8750-6149) (WP:PAYWALL is never a valid argument for deletion) and furthermore both Patch[1] and Fox[2] feature articles which are exclusively dedicated to arts and arts education at this school, and are therefore WP:SIGCOV. The nom cites "shooting incidents," but the article does not mention any shooting incidents —the entire article is utterly devoid of any crime, shooting or anything related, as this is an article about an educational institution.
    Now, it just so happens that the school has also been covered by sources such as Minnesota Public Radio, The New York Times, and the Star Tribune (among many others), and that these sources tell us important facts about the school, including that the school and its district have made important investments in training for staff, that it serves high-need students, that it "currently serves 200 students," for example. Now, anyone thinking that the student count is irrelevant is welcome to edit the article and delete the reference to The New York Times if they deem the Times an inappropriate source.
    Another consideration for the closer is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. In this regard, observers ought to notice the dates of the WP:RS currently in the article:
    • 2006 (Finance & Commerce),
    • 2012 (Patch),
    • 2016 (CNN),
    • 2020 (KMSP Fox),
    • 2021 (Star Tribune),
    • 2022 (KSTP-ABC),(WCCO-CBS), etc. XavierItzm (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the above comment misrepresents the arguments I have put forward here and prior at the talk page, and fails to provide links to the coverage in question that would demonstrate that the coverage, despite being in major publications over the course of a decade, is of very minimal depth and significance with respect to the school itself. The coverage of the award, for instance, can be found here, and reads in its entirety Studies show kids like to eat food with fun names but this grand prize winner is as nutritious as it is tasty and fun to say. The recipe for Porcupine Sliders was dreamed up by Chef Todd Bolton and students, community members and school professionals from the South Education Center Alternative School in Richfield Minnesota. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if the nom would have done even a basic WP:BEFORE before nominating. Here is a full article dedicated exclusively to how the South Education Center Alternative (SECA) won the national prize. I will not copy/paste the whole article, but I will note it is, again, yet another article with WP:SIGCOV of the school, and that it runs 755 words to narrate how the school wanted to participate in then-First Lady Michelle Obama's Healthy Kids Contest, how it assembled a team, how they came up and debugged their recipe, and how they participated in the finals in Texas, with the White House Chef, and won.[3][4] This new source is from 2011, so now the article features datelines from 2006, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2021, and 2022. With regard to the other SIGCOV material from WP:RS, the links are already provided above and in particular in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source linked in this comment says at the top This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own. I don't think that counts as a reliable source. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to dispute reliability is here. It is now more evident than ever that no WP:BEFORE was done; consider for example this additional source, Food Safety News restating (in much abbreviated form) how South Education Center won the grand prize, the narrative of which is questioned above: Porcupine Sliders, turkey burgers jazzed up with brown rice, spinach, celery, garlic spices and dried cranberries, captured the grand prize in First Lady Michelle Obama’s Recipes for Healthy Kids competition. The Porcupine Sliders were served up by the team from Intermediate District 287, South Education Center Alternative in Richfield, Minn. at the national cook-off held during the American Culinary Federation National Convention earlier this week. White House chef Sam Kass acted as master of ceremonies for the cook-off.[5]
But beyond that: we have WP:SIGCOV from at least four sources which dedicated WP:INDEPTH coverage exclusively to the South Education Center: Finance and Commerce (2006); Patch (2011); Patch (2012) and Fox (2020), plus, of course the 15 other additional WP:RS cited in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take offense to the repeated assertion that I did not conduct a WP:BEFORE search, as I in fact detailed one in my opening statement. With the exception of a single source that I am unable to access and cannot comment on, I respectfully disagree with your definition of what constitutes significant coverage of a subject and maintain that we don't meet that bar here. One does not judge a school primarily by the quality of their porcupine sliders. If the coverage about the recipe contest included several paragraphs about the staff and kitchen at SEC, that would be significant in my view, but so long as it is focused almost entirely on a single recipe served at the school, I don't think we should count it. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No ofense intended: the nom's original argument was that the WP:INDEPTH coverage of the school was insufficient despite its inclusion of the 2006 article Function and flexibility governs the design of South Education Center in Richfield from Finance and Commerce; ignored went by the 2012 articles Richfield SEC Students Turn Into Artists from Patch and 2020 Students, teachers create George Floyd tribute on Richfield fence from KMSP Fox, which provide further WP:INDEPTH exclusive and non-incidental coverage of the school's applied arts and therapeutic approaches to educating the "highest needs" students in the State of MN.
The argument was then raised that the USDA's national award to the school, as reported by CNN in 2016, was only incidental coverage; which might have been a fair objection... until a quick search yielded yet another WP:INDEPTH article about the school's educational approach and partnership with the community and how it won the national award: that's the 2011 article Richfield SECA's Journey to the Top of Healthy Kids Recipe Competition from Patch. This article, however, was questioned... so another quick search yielded yet another article, 2011's 'Porcupine Sliders' Win School Lunch Contest from Food Safety News, which corroborates 100% the article that had been questioned.
In conclusion, the process in this conversation has been: question -> net search yields response -> question -> net search yields response, etc., which, perhaps, could have been avoided at the outset.
One does take offence at the mischaracterisation of the school as if it were all about a sandwich: One does not judge a school primarily by the quality of their porcupine sliders. The referenced national award articles and other SIGCOV describe the schools's community- and partnership-based approaches to getting its marginalised student body to win a White House-directed competition (2011), as well as to inspire the students with the arts (2012) and with arts-based involvement in current affairs (2020), and it all in a highly engineered-for-purpose and advanced physical environment (2006). XavierItzm (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://patch.com/minnesota/richfield/richfield-students-turned-artists
  2. ^ https://www.fox9.com/news/students-teachers-create-george-floyd-tribute-on-richfield-fence
  3. ^ Marsha Trainer (29 July 2011). "Richfield SECA's Journey to the Top of Healthy Kids Recipe Competition". Patch. Retrieved 16 July 2022. at the reception that evening,Guthrie, a Richfield South Education Center Alternative (SECA) teacher, along with Parasole corporate chef Todd Bolton, student Dolores Popescu and Bloomington Public Health Nurse Mary Lair, made and presented a recipe, which are mini turkey burgers, that her life skills class had helped to create and refine [...] the SECA group won top honors
  4. ^ Carina Storrs (4 January 2016). "Rules to make school lunches healthier are working, study finds". CNN. 3 of 13. p. 3. Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2022. GRAND PRIZE WINNER [...] dreamed up by Chef Todd Bolton and students, community members and school professionals from the South Education Center Alternative School in Richfield, Minnesota{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/porcupine-sliders-win-school-lunch-contest/

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

  • Comment - there is nothing unique about this school. Alternative high schools are quite common. 174.212.212.9 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the comment. Agreed that there is little unique about this school, except the winning of national awards sponsored by the White House, and the incredibly broad coverage it has received from WP:RS across three decades, and which includes CNN (2016), The New York Times (2022), Finance and Commerce (2006), Food Safety News (2011), Patch (2011, 2012), KSMP Fox (2020), and a solid dozen other WP:RS, each single one of which is utterly and completely independent from the subject (and which include, for example, the Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio, etc.) Hey, any other plain, run-of-the-mill institutions which have this sort of deep and frequent nationwide coverage might also have their own Wiki entry, don't you think? XavierItzm (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was speedily moved. BD2412 T 01:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Azarova[edit]

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

Proposed delete in order to make way for page move, or encourage article creation - currently, Valentina Azarova (athlete) is the only individual by this name to have an article on the English Wikipedia. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for AfD. Please G6/G7 as cleanup from prior deletion (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Fresh[edit]

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Edwardx (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A stub-level stub. Completely unsourced. He works for Bleacher Report apparently, but zero sources found that help prove notability, other than interviews he's done, and a gossip-column type thing about him wearing a nice hat in the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unsourced article with no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:55, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Boahemaa[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No reviews found either. Edwardx (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the one source includes this person in a list of writers who are said to be in the bibliography of another writer. That mention is not enough to show any meeting of any notability standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mean, I found confirmation of a book she wrote in the African Ephemera Collection at the University of Indiana [13], so I assume there is more about her, somewhere. I can't find much of anything online, GNews has a hit on her name about the Queen's Birthday celebration. To be noticed and held in the collection of an American university would suggest notability on some level... Can anyone find sources? Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found her in a bibliography of Ghanaian popular lit, and in Worldcat - copies held in a few places around world. Also longer form of her name. PamD 08:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, can't really justify a keep: Seems only to have written the one book, about which we can find that it exists. I wanted to suggest redirecting her to something, but Ghanaian literature doesn't exist (unlike the others at Literature by country), and she can't be included in List of Ghanaian writers or List of Ghanaian women writers unless she has an article. I've found Berrian's bibliography online at the Intenet Archive (ISBN 0894102265), and it only lists the one novel, and doesn't include any annotations or further info. Sad, but. PamD 08:49, 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 keep. A consensus has transpired herein that the subject is notable and qualifies for a standalone biographical article. North America1000 08:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rittenhouse[edit]

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

BLP1E fork of Kenosha Unrest Shooting article Springee (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, all notability comes from the one event, and the coverage around the person after the acquittal from the trial of that one event. All of which is already summarized in the main article. In two sentences. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment After further consideration, I want to make a comment. This is a biography. This article gives SIGNIFICANT weight to one event, and the events that happened after, in relation to that one event. The article gives significant weight to that one event, and the events that happened after in relation to that one event, because that is all this subject is notable for.
    Let's go through the article after the shooting part bit by bit
    • Tucker Carlson Projects- Statement about the documentary Carlson shot, during the trial, and the interview after the acquittal, in which they discussed the shooting, and the trial. I'll wrap "Meeting with Trump" in with this, since it was also immediately after the trial, in relation to the acquittal, and happened the same day the interview aired.
    • Turning Point- The largest part of that section is about a discussion that took place shortly after the acquittal, about the trial.
    BOTH OF THE ABOVE are summed up here in the main shooting article.
    • Podcasts- Talks about the shooting in those podcasts, except for one, where he was talking about his non-notable opinions on Biden, on a conservative podcast.
    • Internships and Namesake bills - I've said it before, getting offered political internships that aren't accepted, and having bills named after you, don't confer notability.
    • Use of Image- Some of this is relevant, but some of it is also already in the main shooting article, and it was all based around the shooting and trial. The gun shop putting up his picture was literally a celebration of his acquittal, thus, making it all tie into the 1E.
    • Potential Book- I would like to point out that publishing a book does not inherently mean someone is notable, per WP:CREATIVE, so POSSIBLY publishing a book certainly doesn't.
    • Media Accountability Suing media for their coverage in relation to the trial
    • Career - What career? He applied to a couple of colleges and it doesn't appear he's actually started attending any.
    • Social Media Use I bold this one because I take particular onus with this part, and am going to use it as an example of the clear problems with this article. The section uses one source which is fine, but it also contains the sentence 'and Rittenhouse rejoined and has continued to be active on social media on his unverified accounts". That sentences does not appear in the NPR article at all, AND IN FACT, the article mentions "As of Wednesday afternoon, he had not rejoined either platform." So, I ask, where did the line "rejoined and continued to be active" come from, if not from a reliable source?
    OR? Synth? Who knows, but I know its not in any source listed around that part. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge The Rittenhouse page is effectively a fork of the Kenosha Unrest Shooting article. Rittenhouse was not NOTEABLE prior to the shooting and related events. Content in this article beyond what is in the KUS article is largely more detail about his actions in the aftermath of the trial. I'm concerned that this article may turn into a POVFORK (description of Rittenhouse as a conservative celebrity) and that most of the content in this article is just additional details that, if trimmed could be incorporated into an aftermath section in the original article. This feeling was noted by a number of editors in a NPOVN discussion here [14]. Springee (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the nominator, it's usual to put your comments in the nomination and not as a !vote. Andrevan@ 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't do these often and assumed the opening comments should be limited (similar to a RfC question). Springee (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure !voting in your own nomination is against policy, not just unusual. @Springee, I suggest striking your bolded !vote/merge above, but keeping the reasoning text. For next time, your reasoning is typically included at the beginning of the article within the nomination rather than as a comment down below. Then the reason you've nominated is super accessible to all editors who can review it and discuss accordingly. I offer this suggestion in a friendly manner; though we disagree on the subject's notability, that's not a reason for me to not be cordial! --Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm honestly not trying to be condescending/etc when I say you can find the strikethrough text here, which helps render words to look like this: example. Also, my past comment was a suggestion, not a demand; I'm not the owner of AfD. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets notability guidelines. I don't agree with much of anything Rittenhouse has said or done, and I wish he wasn't notable, but he does seem to be. He has continued making independent media appearances even after his original event occurred. Andrevan@ 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on the shooting. Rittenhouse is not notable outside of the context of the shooting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, not even anything to merge. There's already a section about his continued media appearances. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep argh. big argh. He's still getting coverage in WaPo unrelated to the shooting, this year [15], and a critical review of the "junk news" around his time in the media [16], from Oxford University. GNG is met. Argh, this guy really grinds my gears. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has gotten plenty of coverage long after the shooting and the trial, and still appears in conservative media today. Bill Williams 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject obviously initially became notable because of the shooting and subsequent trial. No one is disputing that. After the trial, however, the subject has continued to receive coverage separate from the trial (over a half year ago now) and has been lionized the the Right (source for that verbiage from Politico here, a green-level source on WP:RSP) and that has quickly become a media sensation. He started a media tour and appeared on many television shows, podcasts, and conventions. His appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight was the second-most watched episode in the show's history (source here, again green-level). Besides just simple interviews, he also appeared at multiple conventions as a featured speaker, including two hosted by Turning Point USA: AmericaFest in December 2021; and the Young Women's Leadership Summit in June 2022. He's also been offered multiple internships and been the namesake for proposed laws. His image has been commercialized, including being the subject of a video game created by William Hahne. He went on to found the Media Accountability Project, and is releasing a video game himself, both of which have received RS coverage. He's also covered thoroughly in Anne Bremner's book Justice in the Age of Judgment: From Amanda Knox to Kyle Rittenhouse and the Battle for Due Process in the Digital Age (book listing here), as well as multiple dozen other books.
I do appreciate other editor's thoughts and respectful dialogue. Feel free to respond/challenge my points above and tag me if you would like me to respond. I would like to point out the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay, which is a reminder for editors (including me!) that although we may find a subject offensive, it still deserves coverage regardless of how we feel about it. In creating this article, I knew there would be pushback and concern surrounding it, but I created it in good faith fully believing the subject to pass GNG in my mind. If consensus is reached he is not notable, I will respect it. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He MIGHT make a book. He's been OFFERED internships (It is worth pointing out that one of the congressmen who offered him an internship lost their primary, so that offer is surely off the table). He MAY sue some big name people. He MIGHT go to college. He MIGHT be making a video game. He MIGHT have a law named after him. This article MIGHT not be worth our time, regardless of whether or not we like it. The article doesn't indicate notability beyond the shooting and the public profile he got because of that shooting. He has done absolutely nothing except speak at TPUSA events, appear on Tucker Carlson a couple of times in close time frame to the acquittal, and appear on some podcasts, in which he talked about the shooting and the trial. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FrederalBacon. I understand your position, but do not agree. You've stressed a lot of the things that "might" happen. The fact of the matter is some things have already happened, and he continues to get sustained coverage. The offers of internships have happened. The namesake bills have been proposed. The nomination for the Congressional Gold Medal has been made. The Acquittal video game has been released. The Global Network on Extremism and Ideology has released an analysis of meme use surrounding his image. His likeness has been used in a number of projects, including gun sales, clothing, and YouTube monetization. While some things "might" happen, there's still in-depth coverage in RS over a period of time for what has already transpired. The article is a BLP, not a list of potential future projects. --Kbabej (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In how many of those sources is he talking about the shooting and/or the trial? Or is the focus of the source on him as the person involved in the shooting? All of those are already summed up in this section of the article this one is a fork of, and if this is all just sources covering him as the person involved in the shooting, then it actually fails BLP1E. Maybe some expansion about his media accountability project there, but the rest of it isn't notable. It's not notable to apply to a college. It's not notable to have a potential book deal. It's all just fluff. None of it is encyclopedic, and his notability doesn't extend beyond the shooting, the trial, and him talking about said shooting and trial after the conclusion of the latter. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s your opinion, and you’ve made that very clear. I do not agree, and I’ve stated why above. Applying to a college isn’t the fact his notability hangs on, as I believe is quite clear in the article. Perhaps you’ll convince other editors, but I think there’s a wide enough breadth of continued coverage in reliable sources to support this BLP. You are of course welcome to reply, but I’ve made my position clear and will likely not be replying to your queries further. Cheers! —-Kbabej (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented....
It uses the example of John Hinckley Jr. and why he should have a separate article. Rittenhouse's situation is similar. His actions got so much attention that he has and will continue to be covered for decades to come, for whatever he does, whether related to his actions that night in Kenosha or not.Jacona (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot like WP:CRYSTAL to me. It's also entirely possible that in 5 years, people will forget his name. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t what CRYSTAL means, and notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP. —Kbabej (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was that the example of John Hinckley Jr, that Rittenhouse, like Hinckley, will be "covered for decades to come, for whatever he does". That may have been true about Hinckley because he shot the President of the United States, but that is absolutely an attempt to see into the future to go "He's notable because people will be talking about him for decades to come" when it comes to Rittenhouse. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrederalBacon, isn't that exactly the argument you're making as well? You're predicting its "entirely possible that in 5 years, people will forget his name." You're criticizing someone for an argument they made by making the same argument. We get you just don't like it. --Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I couldn't care less, and actually have a view of the subject that would lead me more to keep the article than delete, but thanks for assuming this is personal. He's notable for one event. That's it. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale above. Jacona (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is clearly met here, and I don't feel that WP:BLP1E applies since he has received a large amount of press coverage. The article has currently has references from January, February, March, May, and June of this year, and dozens of references from 2021 and 2020. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's been substantive and massive amounts of coverage about him since the shooting. And since being found not guilty, there's been a ton more coverage, like television appearances and other news-related coverage about him. The reason for the nomination concerns something that can easily be fixed outside of AFD and that is what should be done or discussed before going to AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His appearances discuss the shooting and trial, and his opinions about them. All of that is already summed up in two sentences on the main article. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is about Freedom of Speech, if Jacobe Blake article can exist, why not Kyle Rittenhouse's if deleted wikipedia will loose it's freedom of Speech..—Derabhishek (talk • Special:Contributions/Derabhishek) 15:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the clear GNG adherence and sigcov as demonstrated by Kbabej. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the presumably goodfaith nomination here, the subject easily passes WP:GNG as a topic independent to the shooting article at this point. Bemusement or disdain may very well be understandable reactions to that state of affairs, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of the sourcing. SnowRise let's rap 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable outside of the shooting due to his conservative activism. And his notability has been lasting post-shooting and trial. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:09, 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 speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of America's Funniest Home Videos episodes[edit]

List of America's Funniest Home Videos episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:LISTN, not an encyclopedic list topic. No significant coverage of every individual episode of this series, which could be used to write meaningful content, seems to exist. ComplexRational (talk) 18:57, 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! 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessence (Finnish band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV (google search for sources). WP:GNG too. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doomsdayer520: There seems to be some serious coverage, like this concert review in Helsingin Sanomat, the dominating Finnish newspaper. (Also a lot of coverage of Emma Salokoski. We should probably have an article on her specifically as well.) /Julle (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Via Google Translate, which I admit is not perfect, that article appears to be focused on the careers of Prättälä and Salokoski, who happened to be in the same place at the same time at a Quintessence concert. Since this AfD is about the band, it appears that they are typically mentioned as a side project in discussions about the individual members, but once again I could be persuaded if significant Quintessence-centric sources come to light. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a reason I replied with a comment, instead of an outright keep argument. (: But I'm hopeful there might be something to dig up. /Julle (talk) 15:19, 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 Husky Rescue#Discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other World: Remixes and Rarities[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG after searching google sources >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:40, 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 14:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Misión, Tamaulipas[edit]

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

Also:

They fail WP:NPLACE and in most of the cases, the articles lack real context and content beyond "it's an X in Y". Mexican states are not that small to qualify an article as La Misión, Northern Tamaulipas. There are 10 municipalities in northern Tamaulipas, exactly where is it located La Misión, Northern Tamaulipas? It's not said beyond the coordinates and basing myself upon that map, it seems to be that that town is in San Fernando, Tamaulipas, which is not at Northern Tamaulipas, but at Central-Northern Tamaulipas. All these articles were created 15 years ago when there were no real guidelines on the creation of minor places like these. Very few minor locations in Mexico (i.e. towns, villages, barrios and neighborhoods) manage to be as relevant as the municipalities in which they are located. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Mexico. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Fails WP:Geoland#1. Particularly, no evidence in a reliable, independent source that any of these are legally recognised populated communities. The source relied upon in every case is GEOnet Names Server, which (per the RSN discussion) is not a reliable source. One article has two additional sources (a link to the Mexican post-code website and a link to the Mexican statistics office) but it is not clear at all how these sources support the content of that article. One article also comes with co-ordinates, but these appear to be that of an open field next to a single house. These articles were all created by Carlossuarez46 and are hoax/spam articles so bundling is justified per WP:Bundle. Carlossuarez46’s mass-creation of articles eventually led to an arbcom case where they were desysoped, after which he retired under a cloud, and clearing up the mess he created has now been an ongoing task for years. FOARP (talk) 05:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Creek, West Virginia[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that such a place exists. There's nothing in the GNIS database, and (despite "Google Maps" being listed as a source) there's no label for this place on either the Google Map or the OpenStreetMap. There is a watercourse named Rush Creek that empties into the Kanawha River at 38°15′42″N 81°34′24″W / 38.2618°N 81.5734°W / 38.2618; -81.5734, with some evidence of mining to the west, but I see no "community" or Connell Road in the vicinity. Deor (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm turning up the creek and a bridge over it, but nothing that suggests that this is the formal name of a notable community. This seems more like an informally named, vaguely defined local area, rather than something that would meet WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 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) 17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morey Schwartz[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Single effective reference is local news. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 17:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Judaism, Israel, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's authored bylines in the Jerusalem Post, but that's not SIGCOV. He's also published by Israeli publisher Gefen - and there may be reviews in Hebrew, but unlikely given the book's in English. There's nothing significant in English. He's apparently moved on from Melton and is now International Director at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but I don't think that gets him beyond WP:GNG, either. Basically doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable yet. He might become in the future, however, we do not WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he does become notable, an undelete request can be submitted. gidonb (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Andrevan@ 00:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article borders on WP:SPIP in that it appears to be written as an autobiography. The article lists his supposed achievements, however there appears to be no standout notability. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:48, 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! 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Law Scientists[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Non-goverment, non public. Private org. Fails sigcov. scope_creepTalk 16:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Unable to find significant, independent, reliable coverage of the organization in the existing en.wp article, the Georgian Wiki article, or via newspaper searches including Georgian sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:29, 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) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Sandford[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 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 redirect to Righeira discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bambini Forever[edit]

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

Recreated after being deleted at AfD last year, but still fails WP:NALBUM. The article creator is determined to create articles for all of this group's records (they've recently created an article for a completely non-notable B-side), and many of them can be redirected, but seeing as this has already come to AfD before and the creator's refusal to accept that these articles are not notable, I have to bring this to AfD again. There is a lot of text here, but nothing that marks this album out as notable – the group had no. 1 singles in Italy, including a song from this album, but that song already has its own article, and it doesn't make this album notable. None of the group's albums ever charted – they were primarily a singles group. The "recording and production" section is one quote from one of the album's producers, talking entirely about the fact the group worked with other producers on subsequent albums... it says nothing about THIS album apart from it was the producers' last one with them. The "Songs" section is largely original research and simple descriptions of the songs such as "it was released as a single", "it was a B-side", etc. The only two songs with any kind of further information beyond "it exists" are the two singles, which already have their own articles and the information is not relevant to this album. There are no reliable sources here that talk about the album itself in detail and the redirect to Righeira discography should be restored. Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I ask what song that was a no. 1 single in Italy? Tomaten05 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tomaten05: sorry, my mistake... I though "L'estate sta finendo" was on this album, but of course, it isn't... the only song from this album that made the Italian singles charts was "Innamoratissimo". But that song reaching the singles chart doesn't make this album notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Righeira discography. I made this same recommendation in the first AfD last year, and also recommended that some sort of protection against reversion be instituted because the overzealous editor(s) would probably try to revive the article. It looks like I was right, and we are likely to go through this process yet again unless there is some sort of protection this time. Anyway, I agree fully with the nominator on why this album does not qualify for its own article, because reliable media coverage on the album itself simply doesn't exist. The article is padded with the larger history of the band and geek trivia that should be left to fan sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Righeira discography. Still fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:03, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Takayama[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driving licence in Brunei[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. While there are government sources which discuss the topic, this isn't a thing that media cover in-depth. This article by the same author was speedy-deleted in November 2020 so I'm seeking an AfD to prevent later re-creation. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, you don't have to delete this. It might be useful for someone in the future. JackFreddanni (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, paragraph 9. BilletsMauves (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey Chris, you don't have to delete this. It might be useful for someone in the future (JackFreddanni): that's not a valid argument for notability. More generally, if I were planning to rent a car in Brunei I would check the relevant official government document. It would be crazy to go to Wikipedia for precise up-to-date legal information -- not just for Brunei but for anywhere. Athel cb (talk) 20:10, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the outcome of this match was surprising and widely reported at the time, I find no evidence of lasting impact or coverage. In my search for significant coverage well after the match (no sources are currently present in the article), I found a blog post [17] and some brief mentions [18] [19], but I'm not sure that this is enough. Sourcing is otherwise what one would expect for any Champions League match, in which quite a few upsets occur every season. Therefore, I don't believe this match satisfies WP:EVENT or WP:SIGCOV. ComplexRational (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason this is being considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryllyld (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryllyld: - see above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An underdog win is a shock, but it is not unheard of. Do we have an article for when MK Dons beat Manchester United in 2014 in the EFL Cup or any other teams that lose to underdogs. The answer is no, because we’d have endless articles. It is poorly sourced and exaggerated as well. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a previous AFD, after which we moved it to draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was slightly mistaken, for which I apologise, and have re-worded. However, I still think that the article should be deleted. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it was a very unexpected result, but despite it having "sent seismic shockwaves across the footballing world" (whatever...), there is no lasting coverage of this event. BilletsMauves (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as there is not sustained coverage of this, so fails WP:NOTNEWS. In the last AFD, I supported a move to draftspace to see if prolonged coverage did appear. That was 9 months ago, and there's no evidence of sustained coverage of this event, so should be deleted. And this will likely repeatedly get re-created, so salting would be sensible too. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - not enough for its own article. GiantSnowman 08:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments There are places to house some of this like the Real Madrid season page, the Sheriff Tiraspol season page. I have nothing against this article if done right, there are match sources on the web. For England you have BBC The Guardian +more, In America on CNN, Covered in India with The Times of India. Not to mention covered by other major news agencies around the world. :/ The WP:SIGCOV is there. I don't think SALT is necessary either. It had impact on the following match for Marca to title their article Real Madrid exact revenge on Sheriff to make the last 16. Again this is down to how wikipedia wants to handle the information out there. And there are loads of sources regarding the match. There are follow up sources as well around, some analytical. It's all there if you want to use them. Govvy (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider this coverage routine and not indicative of lasting coverage. Every match (whether or not the outcome is "expected") will be reported in many sources immediately after it takes place, and the relevance for the second leg is also pretty routine. Along the lines of Fats40boy11, I could also claim the existence of such coverages for other "shocking results" – Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Atalanta B.C. was perhaps one of the greatest international moments in my team's history, and surely was well-documented in the English and Italian media right after it happened, but it doesn't have enough lasting coverage to justify writing an article about it. On the other hand, FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich had a much more profound impact (Barcelona rebuilding, records broken) and still receives non-trivial coverage over a year later; that's why there's an article on that match, for example. ComplexRational (talk) 13:57, 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) 14:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putt (magazine)[edit]

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

Golf magazine that only produced three issues, of which little significant independent coverage appears to exists. – Ploni (talk) 14:57, 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 14:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Riling[edit]

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

I am not finding any sources that give us indepth coverage of Ray Riling. The linked source is about his wife, and my searches at best find passing mention of him as someone who studied guns, but one sentence mentions at best. More often they are mentions of works published by Ray Riling Arms Books. I do not think we have enough to show he meets Academic notability 1 as a scholar who had a significant impact on his field, I found no reviews of his works, so I do not think he would pass author notability, and we clearly lack sourcing to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 7 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 14:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable sources to prove notability. Searching on the subject's name merely brings up his gun book, but even that book doesn't appear to meet notability standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 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 Withdrawn. Being bold and withdrawing this myself - I nominated it. If we had sources like that white paper presented below I would have been less likely to nominate it again. Also, please avoid WP:THREATEN (re ANI) and remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are "western" organization - or any other organizations geographically - that fail WP:GNG or WP:NORG please nominate them for deletion. Thank you and please assume good faith. Missvain (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Missvain (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Organization of Nairobi University[edit]

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

The creator of this new version of this article - which was deleted yesterday, July 20 for not being notable - claims that the AfD was "unfounded" and decided to start another version of the article.

Here we go again. All of the sources presented are PASSING MENTIONS of the "Student Organization of Nairobi University" except one.

Most of the reliable secondary sources talk about the leadership or people who have been involved with the organization, not specifically about SONU.

This is supposedly NOT the same organization as the "University of Nairobi Students Association."

The only article that contributes to this subject's notability is The Standard article.

I am still struggling to see how this organization meets WP:NORG.

Perhaps the new student union is notable and meets reliable secondary sources, but, I do not believe this specific organization, the now defunct SONU, is not.

I'd also recommend this for WP:SALT. I am happy to salt it if reviewers recommend it. Missvain (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to me the Star article also appears to be significant coverage of the organization. It's a small newspaper but I don't see why it shouldn't be regarded as reliable. This version of the article is certainly improved from what I recall (can't see the old version as it was deleted) and I'm starting to lean towards keep. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: definitely more sources than on the previous version, although only one or two are not passing mentions. I also found this paper [20], which I think contains more than passing mentions and is probably reliable. The current corpus of sources still only gives a partial view of this organisation's history, but the article can most likely be improved with more reliable sources. BilletsMauves (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm a bit tied up with off-wiki stuff at the moment, but I'm considering bringing this to ANI or other forum. None of the arguments presented in the 1st AfD were valid, each of the 3 participants in the 1st AfD (nominator + 2 delete voters) presented blatantly false arguments (Missvain "I did my due diligence and could not find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP", BilletsMauves "nothing more than trivial coverage found on the Internet...", Ganesha811 "unable to find significant coverage even in Kenyan sources.") - https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/big-read/2021-09-17-uon-student-leadership-today-a-shadow-of-sonu/ , https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ureport/article/2001323668/torturous-journey-that-birthed-student-union , https://nation.africa/kenya/news/games-university-administrations-play-in-student-politics-158134 is all clearly in-depth coverage, easily found in a 5 min google search in English. Note for example the wording "Sonu’s politics for decades had been fiery and had a direct linkage with national affairs, such that whenever there was a sneeze in the national political landscape, Sonu would catch a cold.", which is pretty much as clear indicator of notability as ever possible. Whilst trying to maintain AGF, I can't but feel that the treatment of the article subject is conditioned by its geographic location in Africa whereby non-Western experiences are presumed to be less notable. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Jstor (login required) - Crisis and Student Protest in Universities in Kenya: Examining the Role of Students in National Leadership and the Democratization, Crisis and Student Protest in Universities in Kenya: Examining the Role of Students in National Leadership and the Democratization Process, Maurice N. Amutabi, African Studies Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, Special Issue: African Universities in Crisis and the Promotion of a Democratic Culture (Sep., 2002), pp. 157-177, which has 14 mentions of SONU, there are a few additional factoids. Unlike other ref, this article separates between Nairobi University Students Organization in 1970s (banned) and SONU founded in 1982. Some of the mention, affirming notability of SONU in national politics,
    • "The checkered life of the Student Organization of the Nairobi University (SONU), a channel of grievance articulation which the government has always sought to silence, is one example of this pursuit. SONU has organized political rallies and meetings with or without the government's permission, and even when security forces have dispersed such meetings, students have always regrouped immediately."
    • "The president [of the country] has voiced his opposition to the [students] Movement on several occasions, alluding to the dangerous nature of the schemes that the leaders, together with university students, are putting together to topple his government. In the past, "Jeshi la Mzee" (a group of youths allegedly hired by KANU's Nairobi branch to harass and intimidate perceived opponents and critics of Moi) has been dominant in violence in Nairobi. But recently university students led by self-styled Godwin "Karl Marx" Ochilo and SONU 92 have curbed its threat and dominance. In 2000 it was very clear that the university students are increasing their capacity to neutralize the dreaded Jeshi la Mzee"
    • "Thus in July 1982 SONU organized a boycott of the new forms. On July 28, 1982, SONU issued an ultimatum to the minister of higher education requiring that he consult with students about this. Although these plans were overtaken by events when four days later was an attempted coup, these forms were shelved permanentely."
    • "In 1992, SONU 92 was reinstated after concerted pressure from students taking advantage of the euphoria of multiparty politics. It has been active in creating a democratic space in Kenya. It is difficult to envisage how multiparty politics would have appeared in Kenya without the university students..."
    • "The SONU 92 officials, including Godffrey Kabando (Kabando wa Kabando), Kamau wa Mbugua, Michael Oliewa, Otieno Aluoka, Judy Muthoni, Moses Kuria, Jane Muigai, Allan Nguri, Cannon Ponge Awuor, and Moses Awili put up a spirited and sustained pressure for the removal of an inefficient and allegedly unqualified director of the Students Welfare Authority (SWA), the office charged with students' accommodation and catering needs at the University of Nairobi. Although the officer was eventually removed, the university was closed and SONU was banned once again."
Likewise from University Crisis, Student Activism, and the Contemporary Struggle for Democracy in Kenya, Jacqueline M. Klopp and Janai R. Orina, African Studies Review, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Apr., 2002), pp. 43-76, (12 mentions of SONU)
    • "In February 1982, the government capitulated and allowed the registration of the Student Organization of Nairobi University (SONU). However, in August of the same year, after a whirlwind of detentions without trial and a subsequent unsuccessful coup attempt, the university was shut down for fourteen months, the longest closure ever, and student activists were put under closer surveillance. To punish university students who celebrated the coup attempt, Tito Adungosi Aloo, chairman of the newly formed SONU, along with sixty-seven other students, were thrown into jail and tortured"
    • " In the same year, the [national] government also manipulated student election to make sure that the new SONU chairman would be favorable to the government"
    • " By this point the government's patience was wearing thin; the last straw was a fiery student meeting on November 13 at which SONU leaders demanded autonomy for the university, security for students on campus, and the right to speak out on national problems, particularly corruption (Awiti & Ong'wen 1990:18; Weekly Review, Nov. 20, 1987). At 3:00 A.M. the next morning, the secret police stormed the university and arrested SONU student leaders.10 Riot police circled the campus in anticipation of student protest, and at the end of a daylong battle, one student had been shot dead and many others injured. Once again, the university was closed and SONU was banned. The popular SONU chairman, Wafula Buke, was jailed for five years, and President Moi threatened students with the introduction of university fees as punishment for their "riotous attitude"" --Soman (talk) 20:08, 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Estrada[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTY no longer exists and this subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Much of the coverage I could find online comes from the clubs where the subject plays, media networks who broadcast his games, and the league in which he plays. I don't think molineux.news is a reliable source as it looks like some over-eager fan page. Decent media like Birminham Mail and Sky Sports he's a mere mention. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found sources which show he is notable in Europe, some of which were already on the page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. In addition to those sources, he has many interviews on club media, fan media, and podcasts. and is a young player with an ongoing professional career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article needs improvement, but defineilty not deletion. hanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 08:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ahmad[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney, also fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, despite run for mayorship. Amon Stutzman (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT nothing here indicates notability despite an AfD in 2014 that included a keep vote remarking that and this was borderline spam. Looks like it’s been edited by the subject too. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said before: I'm leaning towards considering that the chief legal officer of England's second city probably is notable. Has held a number of notable positions. Not a politician, so WP:NPOL is utterly irrelevant (funny how many times that one is cited for people who don't fall within its purview). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ref to NPOL was to make precisely your point - although the article talks about roles in local government he did not hold elected office, so cannot be an NPOL pass. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, every single person on the planet who isn't a politician fails WP:NPOL, so its citation is fairly pointless! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads as if it were a resume, but doesn't demonstrate how the subject is notable. riffic (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lucey[edit]

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

Sources are lacking, not surprising for a manager of a junior camogie team. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources are somehow lacking... Most are from Independent.ie (including The Herald), and GNG says: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The article in the Irish Examiner mentions the subject in a sentence of twelve words. Half the citations are about the subject's family members. NOTINHERITED says: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." No one has added anything else to this article since about an hour after this nomination was opened, nearly two weeks ago. I don't know what else to add to it. Given that it is four sentences, and if someone can prove otherwise, it isn't an enormous loss and wouldn't be difficult to begin again. --Gaois (talk) 21:53, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linc Pen & Plastics[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Deb (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Looking back over the history of this article, it does not appear ever to have been anything but an advertisement for the company, and several of the contributors would appear to have an undeclared COI. It doesn't even contain a serious claim to notability and has been marked for better references for a few months as well as having been unsuccessfully proposed for deletion. Time for it to go. Deb (talk) 12:54, 7 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 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 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 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hengihengi Ikuvalu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:21, 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) 13:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Victor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:19, 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) 13:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Ioane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:18, 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 14:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kome[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:15, 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) 13:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Penitusi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:14, 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 14:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:11, 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 delete. I find Sportsfan's analysis of the coverage persuasive. The two keep arguments that follow are extremely weak. The plain keep is hardly an argument at all. The weak keep makes a better argument but still presents no sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Ott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Besides the FIFA article. there is no sources that satisfy either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ramin Ott is a very important personality for American Samoa football, and a very important figure for the nation, since he is the top scorer, having scored crucial goals, changing the course of football for his whole nation, making him a national hero, and his page, being one of few about footballers from American Samoa with some information, must not be banned under no circumstances, since references and sources can easily be found.

Thank you, Ach.de.graf

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. The FIFA source is good but not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 08:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Ach.de.graf:. He is American Samoa's all-time top scorer (see this and this), was captain at one point, and scored in their famous first ever victory, a 2-1 win over Tonga (see this and this). He was featured in the well-known documentary Next Goal Wins] (see this and this) and has been interviewed by World Soccer magazine (see this) Also, these sources show he is notable in American Samoa: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first six sources clearly fail the WP:100 words (on the subject) that is required to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The FIFA source is fine. The eighth source is quotes from Ott, which fails "independent of the subject". The ninth source is not independent of the subject and the last source listed also fails WP:100 words. This is a clear fail of both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please stop bombarding these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. This is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The FIFA source is not fine, it fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: He is the topscorer of American Samoa football team, an important public figure. I found some sources (not much reliable) from youtube. Its really hard to find sources about a player from American Samoa. But Im pretty sure that many offline sources would be available from newspapers and magazines.Silentone1995 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Happy to change my !vote if new sources are found, however currently the subject lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is zero presumption of SIGCOV for footballers, even international ones, if there are no SIGCOV sources cited in the article. Zilch. So appeals to his status as a "top scorer" have no weight. This means GNG must be demonstrated to prevent deletion, and efforts to do so have manifestly failed. How many times do we have to remind the same editors that passing mentions, routine match recaps, transactional coverage, promo pieces from governing sports orgs, interviews, and unreliable sources do not count towards notability? It should not be up to other editors to fact-check every single source presented by these editors at each AfD just to ensure they meet our basic requirements for independence and reliability, let alone SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Ott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:09, 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 speedy deleted under CSD G5 by Ponyo on 22 July 2022. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izin Hash[edit]

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

Hope subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR very well. There are so many international articles about the subject to prove his notability . But one user move this to draft space. Finally, decided let this go through AFD. If this fails the criteria, then delete. Thank you. That Mallu Guy (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply as per WP:NACTOR, he passes the criteria. He has significant roles in multiple notable films and advertisements. Kindly please do a WP:BEFORE, before voting delete. He has significant coverage in international newspapers as well. That Mallu Guy (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As, effectively, the article creator AND the person nominating the article for deletion, there's a certain cheek to asking participants to do a WP:BEFORE - surely at least worth a consideration is that if there are sources not presented in the article that contribute to notability of the subject that you would have added these before/when you took it to AfD? The guideline that applies here, beyond WP:GNG ("has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") is WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The key word here in both cases is 'significant' and this is where, IMHO, we fall down. It's not really about whether there are more sources to be found by searching, but that the case being made here for notability is based on two very minor film roles and some TVC work. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have (within the bounds of decency and legality, I hope) reverted the non-admin closure of this AfD performed by a) the nominator, an involved party who is b) a blocked sock. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine. General rule of thumb at afd is that it can't be speedy kept (withdrawn) if there are any legitimate delete !votes already presented. In this case, there are so the afd needs to at least run the course (unless we then get considerable a delete pile-on, then WP:SNOW may be considered). Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:48, 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.

Dougal McNeill[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gusfriend (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:PROF with a h-index of 4 (per Google Scholar) and no fellowships of journal editorships. Mentions in Stuff, etc. do not appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Gusfriend (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator as it now meets WP:NAUTHOR thanks to the work of David Eppstein. Gusfriend (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Gusfriend (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Far WP:TOOSOON. No indication WP:NPROF or WP:GNG is passed. Curbon7 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Striking per below. Curbon7 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Senior lecturer at a good New Zealand university (comparable to somewhere between associate and full professor for US academic ranks) is not a particularly TOOSOON position in academia. He appears to be working in a book field rather than a journal field, explaining the dearth of journal citations to his work. I found seven reviews of three of his books, and added them to the article; I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Zunnunova[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lola Zunnunova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG. I examined all of the sources.
  • 1- An error occurred.
  • 2- Her own explanations, not an independent source.
  • 3- The page that gives very little information about her.
  • 4- An error occurred.
  • 5- A video placed in an unreliable website, irrelevant for notability.
  • 6- The same YT video with 5th source.
  • 7- A junk source.
  • 8- Her own explanations again, not independent.
  • 9- The same YT video with 5th source.
  • 10- A different YT video, does not contributes to her notability.
  • 11- A news content which contains 3 sentences about her new job.
  • 12- The book does not have Lola Zunnunova inside it.
  • 13- "404 Not Found".
  • 14- Another YT video, inadequate for notability.
  • 15- The same video with 14th link.
  • 16- Her own explanations again, not independent.
  • 17- An error occurred again with Daryo website.
  • 18- The same video with 14th link.
In the final analysis, the article is inappropriate for an online encyclopedia. A clear example for WP:REFBOMB. Speedy delete. Kadı Message 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hosting a non-notable TV show and winning a non-notable award won't make someone inherently notable, and is not a NACTOR pass. Per above analysis, also lacks reliable, independent, and most importantly, significant coverage. Only a few sentences and trivial mentions isn't significant. Person fails NACTOR and the GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 07:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article appears to be supported by at least three reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you show them? Kadı Message 15:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER as the host of multiple nationally broadcast programs in her native country. Additionally the source analysis above has issues. Just because you are unable to access a url link doesn't mean the source isn't valid. We would at a minimum WP:AGF just as we would with an offline reference. Further, I found errors in the analysis above (she is mentioned in a long list in that book for example; it's viewable if you search for her name in google books and open that book out of a search). That said, that book is self published and I wouldn't consider it reliable RS. However, she passes criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, and arguably criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. That is all we need to prove notability. Additionally, I am concerned of potential bias on the part of the nominator towards Western culture and English language entertainment and sources. If we had an American or British host of a similar nationally broadcast program who had won similar awards in those countries there would have been no question of deletion. We shouldn't treat the entertainers of non-Western nations differently than American and UK entertainers. 4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @4meter4, You are doing mind reading, please do not do. I am from Türkiye, not USA or UK etc. :) Please show me a valuable source about her, I looked all of them and I can read Uzbek. In addition, I am editing systemic bias article :) I am one of the users who are most against systemic bias. All of the sources contains promotional YT videos and her own explanations. I am waiting for your reply. Kadı Message 08:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A question: Do you think being mentioned on a long list proves someone's notability? Kadı Message 08:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting so that others can confirm or deny 4meter4's assessment. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything new being provided. ~StyyxTalk? 11:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0, courtesy ping. Kadı Message 21:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My previous relisting did not successfully place this page on the current log page, so this discussion did not receive any additional attention. My apologies. Thank you, Kadı, for the ping. Let's give this another week to attract comments. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources as explained, don't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first source states: The well-known journalist and film critic Lola Zunnunova worked as the editor-in-chief of National TV in 2019-2020, and as the director-general of the TV channel from August to December 2020.. As the DG, she is likely notable. Ref 4 has a captcha in front of it. scope_creepTalk 09:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed ref 4. Its a real dog and I can't get by it, so I don't think the reader will either, if the article is kept. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urs Meisterhans[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of a WP:MILL financial services professional. Nothing in the (blatantly self-promotional) text or the sources suggests notability per WP:GNG.

The most interesting aspect of his biography is conspicuously not mentioned in the article: In 2021, Meisterhans was charged by US federal prosecutors with financial crimes, which he denies. He was also convicted for financial crimes in Switzerland, and has appealed. He now works as a kiosk tenant in Switzerland. All this was covered in a recent article in the Swiss online paper Republik. But being an alleged criminal is the only remotely interesting thing about him, and in my view passes below the WP:ONEEVENT bar.

If people nonetheless consider him notable, the article would need to be entirely rewritten and would probably need to focus on his alleged criminal career, so WP:TNT would be an option. Sandstein 10:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, and Switzerland. Sandstein 10:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for people to promote themselves and their career, it is meant to only have articles on people who can be established to be notable by secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective referencing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed to find any reference in either Le Temps, the NZZ or Bilanz, which for a "figure" within the finance industry is quite surprising. Superboilles (talk) 22:17, 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 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 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Zullo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Cannot find any better sources. Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Aguirre Agudelo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, player has received no coverage in secondary sources. With NFOOTY no longer being in use, he does not pass an SNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:04, 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 11:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Benegas[edit]

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

Paraguayan heavy metal composer, producer, keyboardist etc. Tagged since March, no improvement. Sourcing is patchy, at best - fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO no notability, no chart positions for music, notability outside band (itself not a bluelink). Lacks sigcov across all roles. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:35, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Mason (schoolmaster)[edit]

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

School headmaster doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's a former headmaster of The Doon School, which is the Indian equivalent of Eton College or Philips Exeter /Andover Academy. If you even open that page, you will realize why the headmaster has his own page. There is a reason why this article has existed for a decade and a half, and been restored after having been deleted by another user. If this article is deleted, then all pages of Eton headmasters should also be deleted. Ranban282 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I participated in the previous AFD years ago which ended in keep. Milowent found clear evidence of the notability of this person, then everyone who participated afterwards agreed with the sources found and said to keep it. The Times of India called him renowned educationist John Mason [24] and "legendary teacher, John Mason" [25] Dream Focus 11:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 11:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #6 - headmaster at Doon School for 7 years. "Renowned" and "legendary", synonymous with "notable". -- GreenC 18:50, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Higher Earth[edit]

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

Comic series which lasted one issue doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is mostly routine reviews. Perhaps merging into Sam Humphries is an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Apologies, I got confused from looking at an older version and through that only one issue had been published. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 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 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fearsome Wilderness[edit]

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

The article relies on three refs- two YouTube videos considered as SPS and a BGG link with just 30 ratings. On Google, News, Books, and BGG, no RS could be found. GNG is not met at all, and the development section is unsourced (OR or from Kickstarter, which is unrefed?). VickKiang (talk) 07:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of world production[edit]

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

Of course production is notable as a general concept and people measure the production of specific things, but that is not enough to justify this list of "world production". This is a collection of statistics where no consistent methodology is discernible. For example, different ideas of what counts as production are applied for different chemical elements; different years are mixed together. The results can't meaningfully be compared, especially across sectors. A hypothetical acceptable list would need to be rescoped, renamed, and rewritten with completely replaced content and sourcing – in other words, not the same page at all. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Lists. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the fact that this would have to be a long, long, long, long, long list to account for all things produced. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RAWDATA. It's unsourced anyway and probably original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unsourced, indiscriminate list with near-unlimited potential scope, even for the primary sector. Accounting for chemical elements is spotty and inconsistent; for example, the nitrogen figure includes ammonia, but the oxygen figure includes only pure oxygen; the yttrium figure probably includes all raw production, whereas the fermium figure is based on fallout from a single nuclear test in 1969. Not all elements have data, whereas the USGS maintains extensive data on metal production and usage. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because the list includes data about chemical elements, WikiProject Elements has been notified of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Production is listed in articles for each thing, there a template at the bottom of the article linking to it, and some entries on the list link to the information. List of countries by apple production and the many other such lists shows information in the same years for a proper comparison. The list includes things that have low production as well as things that produce hundreds of times more than these lowest items. If it only included the highest produced things, leaving nothing out, and having them for the same year, it might be a valid information list. Right now its just random stats. Dream Focus 12:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 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 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! 04:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Argentina, Vienna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article just confirms basic details like address and who was a past ambassador. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Significant amount of sources found to improve the article. (non-admin closure) Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shui On Centre[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. The building was built in the 1980s, but does not seem to have any significant background, apart from being an office building, or history. If I am missing something important about this building, then please let me know. Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nominator – Withdraw Given the sources that have been listed above, it is impossible to say that the building is not notable. Therefore, I would like to withdraw this AFD. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:02, 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 14:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Moves[edit]

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

Originally PRODed by Piotrus, which (see 1) I endorsed, but reverted by IP editor with the rationale "take it to AfD". Article links four refs, ref one couldn't be opened, refs 2 and 3 are trivial (too short), and ref 4 is not independent. I don't think this meets GNG, and couldn't find any refs, so I am taking this to AfD. VickKiang (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required for WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references/sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:56, 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 keep. There might be "no need to create a page" but we aren't dealing with the potential creation of an article but an article that has already been created. WP:Too early is an essay on notability that I don't feel rule bound to follow when I consider whether or not the project would be better off with or without an article on this subject. Two hundred years might seem far off but there could be reasons readers would be interested in these predictions in our current times though they will not be alive when they happen, just like readers are interested in events that happened thousands of years ago before they were alive. We're an encyclopedia, there is room for all types of reliably sourced information here, whether or not it will personally affect the lives of our readers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Saros 162[edit]

Lunar Saros 162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too early：The most recent lunar eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 200 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Q𝟤𝟪 08:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per my reasoning at the AfD for solar Saros 162 (which closed "keep"), which I will reproduce here. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. There's simply no chance of this not happening: the only thing that could cause it not to happen involves the literal destruction of the Earth, and if that happens, I don't think it matters whether Wikipedia had an article on it. jp×g 10:03, 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 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 02:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Logan[edit]

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

No indication of notability and sources. Fails GNG. DavidEfraim (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Upcoming film whose production is not yet notable under WP:NFF. Draftification was reverted by article creator with little improvement.

Propose to delete this page since a draft already exists at Draft:Animal (2023 film) which is in a better condition than this article. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFF, draft already exists as nominator noted, just delete this page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or speedy move/merge to draftspace. Andrevan@ 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. I was going to suggest a merge, but there is no content I could find in this article that was not already present in the draft. The couple citations are not worth the trouble of the attribution requirements of merging. HouseBlastertalk 00:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has zero content. A much better draft is present. Also Fails WP:NFF Jha09
  • Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:NFF. ManaliJain (talk) 11:12, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Improvements and expansion have been made to the article in light of new reliable sources being added.(non-admin closure) Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Royal, Southampton[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The former theatre was destroyed in 1940, but I can’t seem to find many sources on the subject matter. There is only one reference in the article, which I’m not sure passes as reliable (someone can correct me if this is otherwise). Unless people can find some reliable sources, which I have not been able to, I’m not sure as to whether we can keep the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as a theatre in existence from 1760-1940, there are likely to be many references in contemporary newspapers, such as the Southampton Herald and Hampshire Telegraph. This article might be better off being draftified or userfied in the short term, allowing it to be worked upon and improved. AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots I understand your point. However, the problem is that I have been looking, but haven’t found anything myself as of yet in contemporary newspapers, books etc that may be relevant. I know AFD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement, but there has to be sources for there to be an improvement. I’ve been looking for sources that are relevant for a short time. If someone could find sources that would be relevant, then that would be great.
    I’m not against it being draftified in the short term, but we can’t keep articles because there is likely to be sources. If it’s not with us, then we can’t keep it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fats40boy11: The above comments are not a criticism of your nomination, which was made in good faith, and is a valid nomination. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can see both sides. If Wishva de Silva indicates that they are amenable to the article being moved to draft or user space, it can be done and this discussion closed. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. If it can be improved, then of course it should. I’d be willing to withdraw if improvements can be made, but as you say, I think it would be best to be moved to draft or user space whilst the improvements are being made. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of new sources and expansion. Nomination was very appropriate, as the sources cited previously were not accurate or reliable (although they did provide useful clues about where to look). The following sources provide in-depth coverage that satisfies WP:GNG – Patterson 2006 book published by University of Southampton Press (Volumes 1 & 2), and The Era weekly newspaper article from 1880 (continued here). There are also many newspaper articles available covering the opening of the theatre in 1803, and articles about the fire that burned down the theatre in 1884. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator – Withdraw Due to significant improvements made to the page, I would like to withdraw my AFD. I would like to thank everyone who has been engaged in this AFD, and those who have improved the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Chia-hsin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 04:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Zhu, Peiwein 朱佩雯 (2002-03-21). "羽球人物素描 黃嘉欣 要向姊姊看齊" [Badminton character sketch: Huang Chia-hsin wants to follow her sister]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. B2.

      The article notes: "羽壇有不少兄妹、兄弟、姊妹檔，但像黃嘉琪、黃嘉欣這對姊妹同樣專攻女單，還能在全國排名名列前茅的，卻很少見，而黃嘉欣絲毫不畏懼姊姊的盛名壓力，期待早日像姊姊一樣成為全國第一。 ... 黃嘉欣現在就讀松山高中，當初打羽球，正是因為跟著姊姊打，一路從社子國小、成淵國中、大同高中、喬治商工、松山高中發展她的羽球路。但正式投入羽球後，兩姊妹倒是很少一起練球，而人們總是說：「那是黃嘉琪的妹妹。」與黃嘉琪不同的是，黃嘉欣身高 164 公分，算嬌小型，但她的步法好，加上她的個性開朗，黃嘉欣說，這造就她獨特的韌性，這一年多來，她進步很多。"

      From Google Translate: "There are many siblings, brothers and sisters in the badminton world, but it is rare for sisters like Huang Chia-chi and Huang Chia-hsin to specialize in women's singles and rank among the best in the country. As soon as possible, like her sister, she hopes to become the number one in the country. ... Huang Chia-hsin is currently studying at Songshan High School. She played badminton at first because she played with her sister and developed her badminton career from Shezi Elementary School, Chengyuan Middle School, Datong High School, George Commercial and Songshan High School. But after they officially entered badminton, the two sisters rarely practiced together, and people always said, "That's Huang Chia-chi's sister." Unlike Huang Chia-chi, Huang Chia-hsin is 164 cm tall, which is considered petite, but her footwork is good, and her personality is cheerful. Huang Jiaxin said that this has created her unique toughness. Over the past year, she has improved a lot."

    2. Wang, Shuheng 王樹衡 (2000-01-20). "黃嘉欣 一鳴驚人: 首度參加國際賽就晉級16強 搶走姊姊黃嘉琪風采" [Huang Chia-hsin is a blockbuster: She entered the top 16 for the first time in the international competition, and took away the style of her sister Huang Chia-chi]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.

      The article notes: "她，只有16歲，當所有人的目光焦點都集中她姊姊黃嘉琪身上時，她卻打進台北羽球公開賽會內賽女單16強，並且是年紀最輕的一位，這次是她首度參加國際賽就一鳴驚人，搶走姊姊的風采，她就是黃嘉欣。 ... 從小就視黃嘉琪為偶像，黃嘉欣在姐姐指導下接觸羽球，去年排名賽她打入前八，今年才首度參加台北羽球公開賽得以與姊姊同場競技，為了向姊姊看齊，黃嘉欣拚命從會外賽打進會內賽，"

      From Google Translate: "She, only 16 years old, when everyone's attention was on her sister Huang Chia-chi, she reached the top 16 women's singles in the Taipei Badminton Open, and was the youngest one. This is her first time Participating in the international competition was a blockbuster, stealing the style of her sister, she is Huang Chia-hsin. ... Huang Chia-chi has been regarded as her idol since she was a child. Huang Chia-hsin was exposed to badminton under the guidance of her sister. Last year, she entered the top eight in the ranking competition. This year, she participated in the Taipei Badminton Open for the first time and was able to compete with her sister. Out-of-conference matches into in-conference matches,"

    3. Lei, Guanghan 雷光涵 (2000-12-01). "全國羽球排名賽 詹雅玲勝黃嘉欣 晉四強 男單李謀周出局 女雙第二種子程文欣∕簡秀凌爆冷輸給隊友" [National Badminton Ranking Tournament. Zhan Yaling beats Huang Chia-chi to reach the semi-finals. Men's singles Li Mouzhou out, women's doubles second seed. Cheng Wenxin/Jian Xiuling upset to teammates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 31.

      The article notes: "羽球場上的「小巨人」台電隊詹雅玲昨天在第二次全國羽球排名賽展現強悍的球風，為松中高中的黃嘉欣上了一課，... 在新生代裡黃嘉欣屬於很能跑的球員，但首次與足智多謀的詹雅玲交手，一開始跟不上節奏，頻出現空檔；首局被連拿九分後，黃嘉欣才拿到唯一的一分，以一比十一輸球。第二局黃嘉欣較適應對手球路，追成四平，此時詹雅玲又加快速度，讓黃嘉欣以六比十一稱臣。現就讀高一的黃嘉欣是松山高中羽球隊創始隊員，..."

      From Google Translate: "The "little giant" Taipower team on the badminton court Zhan Yaling showed a strong style in the second National Badminton Ranking Tournament yesterday, and taught Huang Jiaxin from Songzhong High School a lesson. In the new generation, Huang Chia-chi is a very capable player. , but played against the resourceful Zhan Yaling for the first time. She couldn't keep up with the rhythm at the beginning, and there were frequent gaps; after scoring nine points in a row in the first game, Huang Chia-chi scored the only point and lost 1-11. In the second game, Huang Chia-chi was more comfortable with the opponent's ball and tied the game. At this time, Zhan Yaling accelerated again, allowing Huang Chia-chi to win 6-11. Huang Chia-chi, who is currently studying in the first year of high school, is the founding member of the Songshan High School badminton team,..."

    4. Zhu, Peiwein 朱佩雯 (2005-03-27). "摩亞杯全國羽球排名賽 張政雄 32歲拿冠軍 黃嘉欣女單衛冕成功 球技更成熟" [Moa Cup National Badminton Ranking Tournament. Zhang Zhengxiong won the championship at the age of 32. Huang Chia-hsin successfully defends the women's singles title and has more mature skills] (PDF). Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. B3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-06-11. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes: "本次排名賽衛冕成功的只有女單黃嘉欣（合庫、國體）、女雙程文欣╱簡毓瑾（合庫）。黃嘉欣打球的缺點就是對自己缺乏信心，這一個月在左訓國家隊練習，還是覺得不夠，決賽出賽前，她並無衛冕自信。決賽中黃嘉欣切球犀利，成功調動簡毓瑾，防守也都到位，而簡毓瑾畢竟沒練女單，連贏三場後，體力也到達極限，失誤比上次對陣時要多，黃嘉欣11：3、4衛冕成功，讓她出征下周泰國公開賽更有信心。"

      From Google Translate: "Only the women's singles Huang Chia-hsin (Heku, National Sports) and the women's doubles Cheng Wenxin/Jian Yujin (Heku) have successfully defended their titles in this ranking match. The disadvantage of Huang Chia-hsin's playing is that she lacks confidence in herself. She practiced with the Zuoxun national team this month, but she still felt that it was not enough. Before the finals, she did not have the confidence to defend her title. In the final, Huang Chia-hsin cut the ball sharply, successfully mobilized Jian Yujin, and defended well. After all, Jian Yujin didn't practice women's singles. After winning three games in a row, her physical strength reached the limit, and she made more mistakes than in the last match. Huang Chia-hsin 11:3,4 The success of defending her title has given her more confidence in the Thailand Open next week."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Chia-hsin (Chinese: 黃嘉欣) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard thanks for the excellent sourcing, which could satisfy GNG. I hope you can help in improving the article. zoglophie 07:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard Stvbastian (talk) 01:53, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 14:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Archives[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Only one source, which is primary, is used throughout the whole article. Also, there is little to no content. A merger is also a possibility, but I don’t think the article deserves its own standalone in its current form. Fats40boy11 (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since adding a deletion tag to Southampton Archives this morning, there has been a flurry of activity improving and expanding the article. It looks like it is now a work in progress, and I’ll consider withdrawing my AFD when I check the article again in a few hours. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as from a glance it looks like sourcing exists to get it over WP:ORG hump. At worst, merge to the town where it merits a line about the long history. Star Mississippi 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator – Withdraw I would like to withdraw the AFD. Upon discussion on their talk page, the page creator is looking around to see what they can find, and has added more information again today with some more sources. I think it would be unjust to delete the page after being given this guarantee, and that we should review the article in future months after all this information has been found and added. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:56, 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Boyz Entertainment[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films. And, it has significant coverage though.SangrurUser (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Your argument that It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films has nothing to do with notability. Since you are the creator of this article, please point to a source which gives significant coverage. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: @Alphaonekannan: Here are the Box Office Mojo and Deadline sources. The film Chal Mera Putt 3 produced and distributed by the company the company entered top 10 in United States and Canada. If you want to go through other secondary and independent sources you can go through the references section of the article.SangrurUser (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply:@SangrurUser:, the Box office Mojo is simply listing box office collection of a movie. The next one is just a review of a movie. None of this gives significant coverage to the coverage. There is not even a single source in the article which talks about the company in depth and accounts to notability. Please point out one such source so that I can withdraw my nomination. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Searched in Google News: This was the 2nd one down. Looking at the way the mention even though brief is mentioned in The Tribune, April 8, 2008 article by Gurnaaz Kaur, "It’s all about money, honey!" about the upcoming film, Golak Bugni Bank Te Batua and how it reads with "Directed by Ksshitij Chaudhary, it is a Rhythm Boyz Entertainment film that stars Harish Verma and Simi Chahal in the lead roles". There's huge familiarity with how that's written. Please forgive me for using this term but some may say .... "if it was the Anglosphere equivalent, it would be the same as mentioning the mainstream production companies we all know!" I know that foreign films are soimetimes hard to gauge sometimes but for me this is easily notable. A quick glance in other searches confirms this. Karl Twist (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is NCORP. We require sources which contains significant and in-depth "Independent Content" that directly discusses the topic company. We don't have that. Instead we have brief mentions-in-passing (mostly in relation to articles on movies where the topic company was involved in some capacity) and PR/Announcements. There's nothing that even comes close to what is required. The Keep !voters reasoning - that because some of the movies were successful, the production company is therefore successful - is not supported by any of our guidelines (also see WP:NOTINHERITED). Similarly, the GHITS argument with a side-helping of Anglosphere bias is also unsupported by any hard data and links/references. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Just looking at the impressive resume of this company and what is already available in Google News etc., it's obvious that they are very prominent in India. Karl Twist (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We require references/sources that discuss the *company* in-depth and containing "Independent Content" as per WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. This topic has been at AfD for nearly a month and to date, not a single reference has been located which can be used to establish notability as per NCORP. HighKing++ 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This source clearly says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment is also one of the industry’s leading film houses and the audience always look forward to their movies", also check this.SangrurUser (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That source from kiddaan.com is little more than a blog with the "Contact" as a gmail address. The article has no attributed author. I could go on - for example the tone, the lack of in-depth information, etc. But easiest to just tell you that it isn't a reliable source and fails WP:RS. HighKing++ 13:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Check this source, it is from reliable source The Tribune. It says "Rhythm Boyz is among the top production companies". Also, it is clear it is a notable company, so I suppose we can keep the article with a tag of "in-depth source required".SangrurUser (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked at the first 15 references. Very poor junk. Company founders information, interviews with the partners. Typical startup news. It may be an entertainment company but it fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. The rest of a mix of press-releases, film reviews which are not specific to the company, PR, non-rs links, film awards box office numbers, music awards, numbers, again not linked to the org. Its a complete mess designed to disguise its true nature as private startup. scope_creepTalk 09:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the obvious non-reliable sources, trivial mentions like [26], [27], [28] qualify REFBOMB#Citations to work that the article's subject produced. I have doubts on the individual notability of this company's founders Amrinder Gill and Karaj Gill, due to the subpar sourcing in those too. — hako9 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete replete with trivial mentions. Nom is correct. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only trivial mentions that do not provide evidence of notability. Pinguinn 🐧 10:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, a lot of this is viewing India from the outside. How about from the Inside? If I was in India I would know where to look. I still believe it is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For a regional Indian language, which has very limited audience, opens in top 10 in North America. So, obviously it is notable. Also, I have above mentioned The Tribune source which directly says as "one of the top production companies", and some other local sources which highlight its notability. Earlier, a user said "some of the movies were successful", well most of the movies produced by this company are success. Almost every film produced by them opens in top 10 in Australia and New Zealand.SangrurUser (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Check this source by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment, a Canadian entertainment company which also operates in India and the United States. It is one of the major players in the burgeoning Punjabi film industry, which caters to Punjabi speakers in India, Pakistan and diaspora communities around the world." I think this is enough for proving notability.SangrurUser (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Maybe enough for notability of Chhalla Mud Ke Nahi Aaya, not this article. This fails NCORP. — hako9 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both, an International and an Indian source describing it as among the "top and major" companies. Also, these lines are not just quotes or trivial sources by the founder or someone else, these are from the authors themselves.SangrurUser (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this source gives the significant coverage too.SangrurUser (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bunyan Land[edit]

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

Slightly unnotable amusement park which has no reliable sources at all and it fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV . `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have posted to the talk page of the Brainerd, Minnesota article here, in case anyone wants to use some of the content of this article in the history of that community. While I agree that the defunct amusement park may lack independent notability due to its transient nature and poor sourcing, I suggest that deletion be deferred for a week or so to see if anyone wants to use some content on the city article. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is highly unlikely that this AFD will be open in mid-August. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I admire the boldness of the nominator, coming after an article about Paul Bunyan with an axe probably isn't a good idea. I found some articles on the park in Newspapers.Com and I added WP:THREE from that provide WP:SIGCOV. One says there are pictures in Holiday and Redbook (from 1950-1963) and maybe there's some articles about the park in those magazines as well. It was getting an annual attendance of 200K people a year in the 1960's and if that's roughly the same over its 50+ years of operation, that's about 10M attendees. Best not let a 19-foot tall, 6,000 pound blue ox hear you calling this a run-of-the-mill transient tourist trap. :) BBQboffin (talk) 04:39, 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! 03:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have no idea who Paul Bunyan is, but even reading through it wihtout looking at the references, it seems notable, from its size, apparent impact on society and the bizarre statues.I think nominator has probably only checked recent references, where there are more substantial ones from later part of 20th c when it was more active. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis of the excellent research by BBQboffin, which lists sources which my (too brief) search regrettably failed to uncover. (BBQBoffin is a boffin of more than brisket.) Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships - Men's qualification[edit]

2021 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships - Men's qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

2022 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships - Men's qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

2021 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships – Men's artistic team all-around (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 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. Originally closed as No Consensus, overturned to Delete at Deletion review -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemusa Alatasi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per the old WP:NFOOTY, this was viable for creation when it was created a year ago. Now the RfC change was passed with the condition that there won't be mass deletions based on it, which feels is what Sportsfan 1234 is pushing with the tens of AfDs I've seen they've created in recent period. --SuperJew (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out where that condition was placed? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperJew:, I agree with everything you said, especially about the mass deletions by the nominator. I also feel like people shouldn't have to create articles that satisfy guidelines knowing they could be deleted a few years later because of some random guideline change. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah I had enough of a nightmare trying to trudge through that clusterf* as it was happening and have no desire to revisit it -- SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. There is no grandfather rule. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has no grandfather clause. We judge articles on current inclusion criteria, not on the inclusion criteria that existed when the article was made. Thus we should delete this article because it does not meet current inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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! 03:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the presumption of notability is based on a guideline that no longer exists. Google News has no hits. DDG has trivial coverage in FFAS and EMTV. ProQuest has nothing. Sources cited in the article currently are only trivial mentions or basic stats pages. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people need to work on the article, they can do so from user or draft space. I don't see the point in keeping an article just on the off chance that they might be notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs work. Yes, American Samoa may seem a bit small in the grand scheme of things But Atalasi has played a significant part in football there. I can see this but various sites I have looked at. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ere are the sources? This article is a clear fail of WP:GNG.h Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like others, I've searched for GNG-qualifying sources and haven't found any that discuss Alatasi "directly and in detail", nor is there any indication that others exist. There's global consensus that significant coverage is needed in these circumstances, so since I'm not seeing any strong policy/guideline-based arguments to keep, he isn't notable, as best I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are any of the 'keep' commenters going to provide any SIGCOV? This was nominated on the grounds of failing WP:GNG but I can't see any guideline-based arguments against deletion nor attempts to actually counter the assertion that Alatasi fails GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to above - No wonder it looks like this. What a scantily referenced page. It needs a lot more work, that's for sure!. Looking at Pacific Island news which I have done a bit of study on, I know that many Pacific Islands newspapers would have profiles and articles on people like Lemusa Atalasi. I knew this before I created the Pacific Islands Monthly page back in 2016. I've learnt a bit more since then. I'm quite certain Mr. Atalasi is notable. We have to remember too that many of the Pacific Islands news papers are not uploaded online. Looking around at the work that he has done. I believe he is notable. Again, this Wikipedia page for Lemusa Atalasi needs work. Karl Twist (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable person in his country. Simione001 (talk) 03:51, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Planners in Malaysia[edit]

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

Unnecessary, essay-like, and OR. Bringing to AFD since it was previously PROD'ed in 2012. Ploni (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Malaysia. Ploni (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete topic not suitable for Wikipedia. Cites one unreliable source that's not even quite about the topic. Femke (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 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 redirect to Betty Who#Discography. Article can be restored once the album has received enough coverage to meet either WP:FUTUREALBUM or WP:NALBUM. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big! (Betty Who album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Big! (Betty Who album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not ready for mainspace and requires incubation. Had either of the singles released in advance of the album's release charted, I'd say we'd have a case for going ahead and creating an article. However, the article fails to assert notability per WP:NALBUM: the BroadwayWorld piece is just a rewrapped press release, and the Paper interview focuses on Who, not Big!. If this album were by The Who, there'd be enough press coverage to easily meet WP:GNG, and I'd have no problem with an article at this point, since we have a title and a release date. However, with all respect to Betty Who, it's a little more of a speculative gaze into the crystal ball to expect this album to chart upon release. That said, rather than deleting the article outright, I'd like to park it in draft space for now, so we can continue to refine it and bring it live quickly if it hits specific notability in the future.
Given that there was at least one one !vote to keep in the aborted first AfD, I consider a unilateral move to Draft: space to be contested. Therefore, per WP:Drafts, I am opening discussion to move it to draft space at AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MeeWha Alana Lee[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. Artist who became actor but coverage doesn't support either. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage for both artist and actor careers are clearly cited in the article. Not really clear on how this got marked for deletion since this individual has a title role in a Sam Raimi produced movie as well as many other well-cited roles specifically listed in the article. Artist career cited sources also show evidence of widespread activity in visual art in gallery, academic and corporate settings with awards won. Hyungsubshim (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep. In addition, I concur with all the points clearly articulated by @Hyungsubshim to retain the article. Shoebox911 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is frankly laughable. In a matter of weeks this article was accepted by a reviewer who clearly checked it for notability to being marked for deletion. Seems like another article found by a deletionist. FourPaws (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FourPaws Getting through AFC is not a guarantee that the subject of an article is notable and it certainly does not make a page exempt from a deletion nomination - some of our highest volume AFC reviewers work on the basis of "an accepted article should have a 50% chance of surviving an immediate AFD nomination". Instead of attacking other editors and making baseless comments about the nomination being "laughable" how about clearly explaining why this person passes WP:NBASIC WP:NARTIST or WP:NACTOR and what sources support them passing. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just expressing an opinion, Mr. Random IP Address. I'm not sure how I'm "attacking" editors when I spoke in such broad terms undirected at anyone particular. Other than abusing the English language and expressing severe intolerance to other opinions I think you're demonstrating a more damaging appearance. Again, just my own opinion, feel free to believe otherwise. I didn't mean to poke a nerve there. I'm sorry I used an adjective you disapproved of. Regardless, I say Keep by default since no one has given a counter argument. FourPaws (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources, and per discussion. Agreed that it shouldn't have been nommed, but doing so does call attention to it for fixes. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a lot of them, so that means they are notable. I don't think so. I'll examine the sources and show what appears on WP:BEFORE. scope_creepTalk 04:37, 9 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! 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Rock[edit]

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

Small private island that once had a windmill and large house; fails to meet notability criteria in WP:GEOLAND. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable, because:

  1. It was in the news in 2018: Bird sightings. (2018, Feb 11). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/bird-sightings/docview/2000707677/se-2
  2. Also this year Bird sightings from mass audubon. (2022, Jan 01). Boston Globe (Online) Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/bird-sightings-mass-audubon/docview/2615625560/se-2
  3. It was the subject of this piece: https://www.westislandweather.com/angelicarock.htm
  4. And this one https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/local/advocate/2013/02/28/angelica-rock-once-peaceful-retrieve/49063195007/
  5. It's mentioned 8 times in this book, which has a page about it Mussel Watch Project Site Descriptions, Through 1997. (1997). United States: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division.
  6. It's mentioned here as a spider habitat Edwards, Robert L., and Annabel D. Edwards. “Life History and Ecology of the Armored Spider Monoblemma Muchmorei (Araneae, Tetrablemmidae).” The Journal of Arachnology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2006, pp. 599–609. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149974. Accessed 13 Jul. 2022.

Comment Again I am left wondering if you did all the searches before nominating this one and all the others. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles where it is the subject of the content are a local news article about the island's sale, and the West Island Weather website. I would not consider the latter a WP:RS, as it seems to be a personal website. The South Coast Today article is simply about the island's sale, and doesn't really establish the location's notability any more so than other large private properties. I did not find the same articles and books when I did my Google Books/News/Scholar searches, but all coverage in both the sources above and what I found before creating this nomination listed Angelica Rock as a location, but it was not the subject, nor a major part, of the content. There is not WP:SIGCOV about Angelica Rock to merit an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The local news site provides significant coverage, I see no reason to say it is not reliable or independent. It is not simply about the sale, it gives the history of Dr. Aris T. Papas endeavours to turn the island into a residence, the windmill build etc.
I think source 5 above could also be considered significant, I used it to improve the article.
Please note WP:GEOLAND criterion 4, which says Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.. We have more than the statistics and coordinates. So I think that is satisfied.
I've improved the article a bit today, I'm about to do some more. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has definitely been improved, but I still don't believe Angelica Rock has sufficient notability to merit an article. The only information specifically about it is that it's a one-acre property that once had an owner-made windmill. The fact that it has common beach wildlife does not make it any more significant. I don't think Angelica Rock's story is any more notable than the story of a private property that included a beach; the only difference is that it is on an island in this case. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I respect your argument. I remain of the opinion that it is notable. I think people are writing about it because it's an island, I think that provokes human interest. But the writing is dominated by one writer and it's not the most compelling keep argument I ever made. I thought for a while the doctor lived on the island, which would have made it a habituated place and therefore a clear pass at WP:GEOLAND but he didn't get the buildings up, which doesn't give it a clear pass at GEOLAND. I remain thinking we should keep this. But I respect that it is a decision where sensible people might disagree. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one writer creating multiple mentions of a place is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He wrote multiple articles, not mentions. Also there are three sources and one is academic and unconnected to the other three. CT55555 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentions within an academic source do not immediately confer notability; it isn't prominently featured in the spider habitat article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mentions within an academic source do not immediately confer notability. It is not any one source that confers notability, it's the combination of them. CT55555 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the current revision, this article is hardly even a stub anymore; there are four sources giving us a solid few paragraphs of text about this island and what's gone on there. There are sources, and the article has been improved. The existence of revulsion towards non-notable geostubs should not be taken to imply that all geostubs are non-notable. jp×g 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:31, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Riley[edit]

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

Seemingly NN writer and composer. While he's worked with some notable folks, notability is not inherited. Could not find anything covering this individual (plenty about the basketball player and the MMA artist). Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As found by the nominator, there are other people of this name, which makes searching a drag. I also found a Canadian country musician of the same name: [29]. For this Jordan Riley, he has a lot of behind-the-scenes songwriting and studio credits, but no truly reliable coverage of his career in his own right. I found this: [30] but it's too close to a promotion for the equipment brands that he uses, and otherwise he only has basic directory entries like this: [31]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the indepth sources that are indepdent and secondary that are key to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Riley is producer of current Top 10 Global hit and is one of the most influential music producers in the UK. Crazy What Love Can Do has gone top 10 in multiple countries.
In relation the entry written about, sponsorship products show significance. https://www.mixonline.com/the-wire/producer-and-songwriter-jordan-riley-adds-the-power-of-pmc-to-his-garden-studio
His name is often used in ways to advertise artists work, due to being an influential name in the music world.
https://www.banquetrecords.com/ella-henderson/everything-i-didn’t-say/0190296399077
He has his own page on Tidal Streaming service. https://tidal.com/browse/mix/006d7a8349e6c234ecaccb80064cb9 81.105.104.226 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist:
Riley is producer of current Top 10 Global hit and is one of the most influential music producers in the UK. Crazy What Love Can Do has gone top 10 in multiple countries.
In relation the entry written about, sponsorship products show significance. https://www.mixonline.com/the-wire/producer-and-songwriter-jordan-riley-adds-the-power-of-pmc-to-his-garden-studio
His name is often used in ways to advertise artists work, due to being an influential name in the music world.
https://www.banquetrecords.com/ella-henderson/everything-i-didn’t-say/0190296399077
He has his own page on Tidal Streaming service. https://tidal.com/browse/mix/006d7a8349e6c234ecaccb80064cb9 81.105.104.226 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_July_21&oldid=1101970786"