Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 13	June 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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 23:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyball Daily Fantasy Sports[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. I was unable to find significant indepth coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soakai Vea[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick google search seems to confer significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? None of the sources in the article are both "independent" and address the subject "directly and in detail" as required by GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reason I am submitting a delete comment is because the article is not sourced with independent and reliable sources and I cannot locate any such sources elsewhere. The football association is not properly independent of the player. Another association piece is also not sufficiently independent. Boxscore article is of questionable reliability and any regard, references the subject only trivially. As the article subject is not significantly covered by multiple, secondary, independent, reliable sources. It hence does not meet WP:GNG. There is no specific criteria at NSPORT that applies. Taking a look at the most recent discussion of sport criteria here, a number of proposals were suggested and community consensus was most clear with the proposal that at least one instance of significant coverage is required. I am not seeing that here. Nothing comes up on Google, nothing on Newspapers, Wikipedia library draws a blank, as does Wayback. I sometimes avoid sports articles because people tend to flock to these with "sources exist". not good enough. Show me your sources. I will change my vote to keep, and vehemently defend an article that has good sourcing and meets guidelines! Sometimes I try to strengthen the keep argument by going further than what is required and incorporating them into the article. I want to see notable content stay, but simply saying "it is notable" is not a valid argument. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shorjo Depto Surjo[edit]

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

Non notable television director. Other than some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 1 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!} 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable writer and television director. The cited sources are book sales sites and passing mentions in credits ("written and directed by Shaurya Dipta Surya"). Non of his works appear to be notable. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found no better sources. There is no significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - most of his directed dramas are mention-worthy, have a stellar cast and found profound success. Abbasulu (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. No evidence that his work is notable enough to pass any of the criteria at CREATIVE, and no independent sources address the subject directly or in detail as required by our policies.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tevita Vakatapu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Inn Preparatory School[edit]

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

Recreation of an earlier removed article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIPS College. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nommed speedy G4. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the speedy doesn't happen, then Delete this advertisement. Jacona (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please Wait before considering speedy delete, I think this academy has strong grounds to pass WP:ORG. I'm just doing internet research, and will share that here, asap. Thanks Radioactive (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found following sources;
1. Newspaper, From the (5 August 2016). "A day out with army". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
2. "Harassment on campus: Private institute turns out to be a nightmare for female students and employees". Daily Pakistan Global. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
3. "#MeToo: More girls come forward after Daily Pakistan exposes sexual harassment at Kips college". Daily Pakistan Global. 23 June 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
4. Staff, Lens (22 July 2020). "KIPS College Gets Slammed For Protecting Teacher Involved in Sexual Harassment". Lens. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
5. Abid, Zehra (1 November 2016). "What It Was Like To Go To KIPS Academy For Entry Test Preparations After A Levels". Parhlo. Retrieved 8 June 2022. (Note: unreliable opinion article)
6. "ACADEMIC STRESS AND SUICIDAL IDEATION IN MDCAT REPEATING CANDIDATES: MEDIATING ROLE OF DEPRESSION AND MODERATING ROLE OF AGE AND GENDER" (PDF). pps.org.pk. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
7. "Islamabad Police Sign MoU With KIPS College". Associated Press of Pakistan. UrduPoint. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
8. "Kips College". Pakpedia.pk. 12 September 2020. Retrieved 8 June 2022.

Radioactive (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Not one of these sources is a reliable, independent and in-depth source. They are not usable to prove notability. The Banner talk 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, they all appear to be independent. Most of them appear to be RS. "In-depth" is still a reasonable question. Jacona (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, fails GNG per WP:PROMO. Even if sources found by Ahatd were used, there would be little more than a section on "Controversies", rather than an article built on RS about the school. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG as outlined by WP:NSCHOOL. Additionally, the article is not meaningfully different from the earlier article and could therefore be speedily deleted and salted per WP:G4.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viliami Vaitaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's no longer a presumption of notability for footballers under these circumstances, and my search was unable to identify any significant coverage of Vaitaki in independent reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siosifa Moimoi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ake Uhatahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. not notable Alex-h (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by CT55555. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson Commission on International Development[edit]

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

Not sure if this warrants a standalone article. The two relevant sentences and a few additional details can be incorporated into World_Bank#1944–1974 Mooonswimmer 15:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree per nom that there is little on offer here, best redirected to World Bank article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is a notable topic and there a high volume of independent, reliable, significant coverage about it:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592296.2015.999626
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002070208003500401?journalCode=ijxa
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/11123/IDSB_2_2_10.1111-j.1759-5436.1969.mp2002002.x.pdf?sequence=1
De Haan, Arjan. How the aid industry works: an introduction to international development. Kumarian Press, 2009.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220387208421406

It is notable how easy it was to establish this by doing a search of the article's title in google scholar, part of the required process that should precede nominating an article for deletion, see WP:BEFORE CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CT55555 and the sources found. Although it is not clear whether #3 is reliably published and #5 is by Pearson so does not count for WP:N. That still leaves three good sources. SpinningSpark 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 was written in 1969, by Frank Judd, Baron Judd the former Minister for Overseas Development of the UK. It was published by Pall Mall press, which operated from 1905 to 2017. I would consider that a reliable author and a reliable source.
- 5 is published in a journal and written by P. T. Bauer and B. S. Yamey, I see no reason to think they are anything but independent reliable sources CT55555 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of CT55555's sources above, I've reviewed nos. 1, 2, and 5, and I'm satisfied that they are all reliable and independent and that they provide the Commission with significant coverage. (#5 isn't by Pearson: it's a 2010 review of the report written by someone with no apparent connection to Pearson et al.) I wouldn't support a merge/redirect because, judging from the sources provided, there's more to say about the Commission than would be due in a broad-scope article like World Bank. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alex Cross (novel series). This doesn't disallow the possibility of an article existing in the future when there is adequate sources available to support a stand-alone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cross[edit]

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

Unsourced fictography. Most of this info is contained in other related pages. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Two books (James Patterson: A Critical Companion, Joan Kotker, ISBN 9780313320859, and James Patterson: All About the Author, Susan Nichols, ISBN 9781499462746), two scholarly articles (Friedman, S.H., Cerny, C.A. From Hannibal Lecter to Alex Cross: Forensic Mental Health Experts in Popular Fiction. Acad Psychiatry 37, 345–351 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.12090157 and Hart WB. The Case of the Missing Interracial Romance: An Ideological Critique of Kiss the Girls. North Carolina Literary Review. 2012;(21):59-76.) and an NPR review. GNG is met, article can (and probably should) be cleaned up. Deleting the article of one of the most prominent fictional African-American detectives? Not an encyclopedic move. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup was my first thought, but...how? Maybe something like what happened w/ the fictography of Deadpool (see that AfD discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_history_of_Deadpool)? Decision there was to merge one section, but in this case, I'm willing to bet everything in this article is duplicated somewhere else. If we tried that approach here, there'd be nothing left to merge. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if considering how to fix an article without deletion (aside from citing essays like WP:TNT) isn't part of WP:BEFORE, then it really should be. In other words: you nominated it, you consequently own figuring out how to fix it, up to and including a bottom-up rewrite. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, if it was up to me, I'd blank and redirect this whole thing over to Alex Cross (novel series). Tends to tick people off when I do that, however... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Cross (novel series). Given the article is a total WP:FANCRUFT, with no analysis/reception, just a very lenghty plot summary, WP:TNT applies. Maybe, as User:Jclemens notes, this is a notable topic - I am not sure, as my BEFORE came up with next to nothing, an his books are mainly about the author, not the character (and the Alex_Cross_(novel_series)#Critical_reception section is unreferenced, too). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.12090157, despite including Cross in its title, has little to say about him - one sentece of analysis, really, that he may be one of the most famous "fictional forensic experts". I am afraid that's too little per WP:SIGCOV, although I'd encourage adding this tidbit to an article somewhere. If someone does find a reliable source that confirms that he was indeed "one of the most prominent fictional African-American detectives", as Jclemens notes, and preferably one that offers a more in-depth analysis of the character, do ping me, but for now this is not an encyclopedic treatment of material. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are indeed about the author. They are also independent, reliable secondary sources that appear to cover the character in non-trivial depth. Those are not mutually exclusive statements. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  But it is your responsibility to show us that they do, indeed, "cover the character in non-trivial depth". The one I looked at does no appear to do so, since a single sentence fails SIGCOV. As such, I question whether any of the other sources you found are any better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Cross (novel series)#Characters - While it might be possible for an article with actual analysis or real world criticism on the fictional character to be written, as it stands now it is just a completely unsourced, extremely long, in-universe plot summary, which goes against the Manual of Style and WP:PLOT. So, it really should not remain in the mainspace in its current form. Fortunately, as a much more succinct character description already exists on the series' main page, redirecting there would allow readers to still be directed to the appropriate information during searches, and would also preserve the current article's history in case it was needed as the basis for a rewrite. Rorshacma (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who filed the AfD, but I'll go along w/ Redirect if it helps. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's essentially only one argument refuting the sources presented as satisfying the GNG; notability is not inherited. However, that argument was counter-refuted by discussion concerning the misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED and presentation of further sources establishing notability separate from the subject's parent. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lasry[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL, notability not inherited from father, unelected as an official. Page contains large amount of suspect COI/UPE, created by likely SPA. Coverage largely local and largely passing mentions, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTINHERITED plus WP:NOTYET.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari T. Benchaim (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently his notability is too connected with his father to justify a seperate article. If he is elected to the US senate that will change, but not beforehand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:INHERIT Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they passWikipedia:GNG. And the many quotes in the page Alex Lasry already reach that standard. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confused by the claim that the subject lacks significant, independent coverage. See [1] and several other articles on the article.--User:Namiba 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is also WP:SIGCOV in USA Today. It is about Alex, not his father. There are several additional references in the article that are about him, not his dad. He meets WP:GNG all on his own; WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't say that a father and son cannot both be notable, we'd have to delete a whole lot of articles if it did! Jacona (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG when I look at the sources. Significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources...and sustained). For convenience, here's a subset already in the article:
1. Aldridge, David (October 28, 2020). "Bucks VP Alex Lasry on his city's state of mind, and why the Deer unraveled". The Athletic. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
2. Nunley, Christian (February 17, 2021). "Milwaukee Bucks executive Alex Lasry to run for Senate in 2022". CNBC. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
3. Buckner, Candace (May 10, 2021). "Wall Street roots. NBA owner's son. Wisconsin's next Democratic senator?". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
4. Zillgitt, Jeff (July 18, 2021). "Bucks players inspired owner's son Alex Lasry to run for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin". USA Today. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
5. Bice, Daniel (August 13, 2021). "U.S. Senate candidate Alex Lasry's ritzy roots include elite schools, Michael Jackson home, $50 million-plus trust". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
6. Small, Taurean (March 17, 2022). "'What people are looking for are non-politicians who can go and actually deliver': Alex Lasry reintroduces himself to voters in bid for U.S. Senate". Spectrum News 1. Retrieved June 6, 2022.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Owner's son"; "Owner's son"; "Owner's son"; "Dad is Marc Lasry"; "Alex Lasry's ritzy roots include elite schools, Michael Jackson home, $50 million-plus trust"; Notability is not inherited. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment misconstrues NOTINHERITED. The mere fact that he is the son of a notable person does not make him notable, unless he has coverage that meets GNG. But if he has coverage that meets GNG - even if that coverage results from his relationships - that does not violate NOTINHERITED. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the son of someone famous/wealthy and the headlines about you are all 'Son of someone famous/wealthy does nothing in particular', then NOTINHERITED would appear to apply. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1)That is not what NOTINHERITED says. If independent reliable sources see fit to write that "Son of someone famous/wealthy does nothing in particular" then that contributes to their notability according to our guidelines. After all, not everyone related to someone famous gets stories written about them doing nothing in particular. (2)Even if NOTINHERITED did say that, not all these sources are "Son of someone famous/wealthy does nothing in particular". Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and WP:SALT, and move current article to draft space in case of election – probably doesn't pass threshold for WP:NPOL (wouldn't otherwise have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG if he wasn't running for Senate), coverage is largely centered around relationship to father and role as staffer/business executive which would otherwise not be sufficient to deem him notable. Stroopwafels (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...wouldn't otherwise have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG if he wasn't running for Senate...: Except he is running for Senate, the coverage is already there, and per the guideline WP:NOTTEMPORARY:
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the job of business executive is one thing, getting famous in this position is another, Not every sports executive can get famous and despite Lasry get this position because of his father his own accomplishment on it is the direct reason he get famous--and it is not done by his father. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone get famous with the help of his father do not mean do not have his own fame. By the same standard you can delete the page of George W.Bush because he may not get elected as TX Governor and later President without help from his father George H.W.Bush. And as what is listed here there are significant coverage of him that is indepedent from his father and also indepedent from the 2022 Wisconsin senate electioon like those:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/sports/bucks-new-owners-get-house-warming-gift-of-public-money.html

https://theathletic.com/2165256/2020/10/28/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-on-his-citys-state-of-mind-and-why-the-deer-unraveled/

https://www.milwaukeemag.com/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-chats-about-his-bid-to-bring-the-democratic-national-convention-to-milwaukee/

https://jewishinsider.com/2020/08/dnc-to-pick-milwaukee-then-covid-hit/

as a result this page clearly meets the Wikipedia:GNG standard here.Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Geeky1127 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep As has been showcased above, the subject has the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. While having a famous father doesn't automatically make you notable, it neither cancels out whatever significant coverage you have. Alvaldi (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing on this page is all up to a high standard and even the local sources are repubtable and serious publications. Lasry is now a major public figure who is spending millions to run as a Democrat for US Senate, he clearly passes many of the criteria for coverage. Also, his Dad's finances seem very pertitent to Alex in particular since he is running for office and his Dad is a major donor to the Democrats. M4aorbust1 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC) — M4aorbust1‬ (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Geeky1127 (talk · contribs). [reply]
Note to closer both M4aorbust1 and Dadylasry are effectively SPAs, recently created and editing this page almost exclusively. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Name change Note that the user account Dadylasry was since renamed to Fightagainstdarkmoney. They then edited their old signatures to use the new name, but references to the name from other editors still remain. They are also a confirmed sock.—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they disagree with you. —Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a clear enough COI, I'd expect 'em to... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so you should provide proofs innstead if descrimitating new wiki editors, I think wikiedia can track our IP address to see where me and him are. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your proof is just me and him are both newcomers but focus on this article if we were not focus on this article we would not speak here. And consider New accounts keep being created every day yo can expect several new accounts occur here. That can not prove any SPAs Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your new, but know the acronym SPA? I'd like to call your attention to an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Yourself extends to clients. Please don't put articles for non-qualified subjects.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Lasry himself and my name is just commemorate the first wiki page I want to create, I think wikipedia can track my ip address and by doing that you will find I do not live in Milwaukee or even Wisconsin now. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not the same user as Dadylasry, as stated you can check IPs if needed. For full transparency, I have never edited a wiki page before, but seeing as Lasry is currently flooding the zone with his wealth in our state in an attempt to buy a US Senate seat I wanted to take time to list his scandals and corruption on here. M4aorbust1 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also within that, I will be editing further and other accounts related to this senate race and Wisconsin politics in general. So you can define that as my single purpose but I think what I'm posting is very well-sourced (I have a journalism background, so I know high standards) & relevant information. M4aorbust1 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The GNG is not GNG for him, but rather demonstrates the notability of the 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about 2022 US senate election in WIsconsin? https://www.milwaukeemag.com/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-chats-about-his-bid-to-bring-the-democratic-national-convention-to-milwaukee/

or this https://theathletic.com/2165256/2020/10/28/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-on-his-citys-state-of-mind-and-why-the-deer-unraveled/

or this https://jewishinsider.com/2020/08/dnc-to-pick-milwaukee-then-covid-hit/

all of them are even before him announcing his senate run. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's incidental to the subject in all but the Athletic's profile of him.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He convinced convention" is definately not incidental, it changed the place of 2020 DNC. Dadylasry (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if just working for a nba team can make sure he is involved in 2020 Democratic National Convention without his effort like what "incidential' means, why don't Houston and Miami, who are also on the final list of DNC address and have NBA arena that are up for holding it, do not get the convention? Fightagainstdarkmoney (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it obviously meets the standard of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICANS, even if you exclude all the links about his senate campaign or connected to his father then there are still many media coverages about him like this :
https://theathletic.com/2165256/2020/10/28/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-on-his-citys-state-of-mind-and-why-the-deer-unraveled/

https://www.milwaukeemag.com/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-chats-about-his-bid-to-bring-the-democratic-national-convention-to-milwaukee/

~~https://jewishinsider.com/2020/08/dnc-to-pick-milwaukee-then-covid-hit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinettelasry (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)~~ — Antoinettelasry (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Geeky1127 (talk · contribs). [reply]
Keep because the topic has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources indicating notability. Dubarr18 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL. He's just a candidate at this point and has not won any elections. His business career is not noteworthy on its own. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs do not supercede GNG per the guideline WP:NBASIC:
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.
—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides his business career is noteworthy on his own because of holding 2020 DNC:https://theathletic.com/2165256/2020/10/28/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-on-his-citys-state-of-mind-and-why-the-deer-unraveled/

https://www.milwaukeemag.com/bucks-vp-alex-lasry-chats-about-his-bid-to-bring-the-democratic-national-convention-to-milwaukee/

https://jewishinsider.com/2020/08/dnc-to-pick-milwaukee-then-covid-hit/ Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus he is the owner of a major NBA team Antoinettelasry (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not full owner but definately has enough influence on it to get him mentioned in media when the team is alledged in union busting. Fightagainstdarkmoney (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what is with the new editors with user names that include "Lasry"? We have Dadylasry and now Antoinettelasry. This is weird...Marquardtika (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same user, they run an account on Twitter under the alias "Daddy Alex Lasry" which now seems to be "Daddy Alex 'Antoinette' Lasry" which is dedicated to flooding replies of any post mentioning Lasry or the WI-Sen election with negative info about him (which is also why the article content here is obviously tilted against Lasry and why they recreated it – because they really want him to lose). Stroopwafels (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to get an IP-search run to demonstrate that these two are the same user? I know this was done before during Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Williams_III--Mpen320 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPI, though not sure if the behavior here is actually genuinely disruptive given only one !vote from the user here. Stroopwafels (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time of you defaming me and accusing me of being the same people who I am not. Yes, that wiki account motivated me to let people know the truth about Lasry but after all I am not him no matter how I respect him. Besides, the main reason the information about Lasry is so negative is that what he has done is that negative. And if he lose because of this he deserve to lose. Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to free Lasry from those negative contents, you should either prove they are not true or to add positive things about Lasry, but you do neither. Instead you accuse someone else of being the same user without proof and want to delete the well sourced BLP about lasry which obviously meets the standard of notable in Wikipedia:BASIC even though it says "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dadylasry and I are different people. You can check our addresses. Antoinettelasry (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can run IP on me as well if you'd like, as a new editor of this page. It will be from Wisconsin and I'm not the same user as any of the accounts with Lasry in their name. I agree that many of the edits here need to editorialize less and be more neutral, but having helped make edits, I'm very firm in stating that what's presently on this page is overwhelmingly well-sourced. Regardless of how I feel about Alex Lasry as a person (I think he's a sliver spoon kid flooding our state with propaganda through his trust fund cash) and whether or not I want him to lose (I do!), this page should remain with all the well-sourced information it has. But the other editors do need to do their best to not editorialize and remain neutral in what they write for the page itself. M4aorbust1 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may both have interest in lasry's wiki page for sure, that is likely the reason why he also has lasry in his user name as me. However, I can garuentee that we are different accouts owned by different people. Which can be easily verified by IP research as mentioned above. I'm sure Tracking my IP address will comfirm we are from different cities! Fightagainstdarkmoney‬ (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like some discussion without sockpuppets involved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do I have to re-vote to delete the article or will my delete vote from above be counted?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will be counted (for a specific value of "counted" per WP:!VOTE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and protect until after election. WP:TNT article that has become a WP:COATRACK for positive and negative content only relevant to campaign, which no one will care about in 10 years.Suspect several UPE/COI from both sides of campaign involved. Slywriter (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:SIGCOV exists of Alex Lasry (see links brought up by User:Bagumba) showing notability outside of his being the son of Marc Lasry. Frank Anchor 15:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it fits the standard of WP:GNG based on the link provided by User:Bagumba and User:Fightagainstdarkmoney which showes his notability outside of him being son of Marc Lasry and out of 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin Madisonsocdem (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)— Madisonsocdem is a confirmed sock puppet of Geeky1127 (talk · contribs). [reply]
Note I have semi-protected this discussion because of the persistent sockpuppetry by Geeky1127/Fightagainstdarkmoney. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. While normally political candidates aren't notable, this particular candidate has received significant independent coverage as evidenced by the many sources linked above. Further these sources are not just local, but national, and span over more than a year of coverage. This shows that the subject passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once you discount the policy-free canvased responses, the clear consensus is to delete this article. There is no consensus as to if the band's singer, Noa Gruman, would be a better topic for an article as suggested by gidonb. 4meter4's source table was a particularly strong argument. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scardust[edit]

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

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

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

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

The article lacks any noteworthy information, and appears more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Most of the information included is more or less a backlog of random concerts and festivals that the band have performed at over the past with trivial detail such as “the band's largest headline up to that point”, “a concert in Tel Aviv, which sold out”, and “the band performed their first concert at a venue in 17 months” and is heavily relied on self-published sources such as the band's official website (note: the website was inaccessible when I clicked in on my browser) and various YouTube videos posted by the band's account.

As per WP:NBAND, the band has no singles or albums that have charted, are not signed to a major record label, and have very little coverage in independent sources. Magatta (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Noa Gruman per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:GNG, and WP:NBAND #1. While Scardust is just notable per WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS coverage, the lead singer has additional projects and is much more notable than the band. This resulted in a much longer article in the excellent Hewiki, that does have a brief article also on Scardust. I'm happy to rewrite the article to Gruman. Keep is only my second preference. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band's article; create a new article for Noa Gruman if viable and let that one earn its keep in a separate discussion. The previous voter's suggestion is creative but it wouldn't work because this article is purely about Scardust and it must stand on that band's notability. The band has some softball interviews and bloggy promotional announcements in the underground metal press {[2], [3], [4]), but I don't think they reach the requirements for significant and reliable coverage. If there were an article about Noa Gruman, it can say that she is a member of Scardust in addition to her other activities, if those are notable in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! My suggestion is to have an article for the lead singer similar to Hewiki, making good use of more coverage than exists just for this band. gidonb (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I question your rationale for how the article looks "like an advertisement," as it looks like a completely neutral and normal article, to me, with a lot of "noteworthy" information. Even at that point, I think it would make more sense to remove the elements you feel are not neutral, rather than remove the whole article. Upon looking at the history of this article, it almost appears as if you're trying to spite the creators of this article, considering you successfully had one of the recent editors banned, in a discussion I think was completely unfair and unjust, but I digress. The "backlog of random festivals, etc." appears to be a comprehensive history of the band's live performances. The band is signed to M-Theory Audio, a label that is run under much of the same management as Century Media, one of the largest labels in metal. Sacrdust's album "Strangers" made several end-of-year lists by music aggregates such as Angry Metal Guy, Sonic Perspectives, and The Prog Archives. They're also playing at Wacken Open Air, one of the most prestigious metal festivals in the world, this year; so the band has quite a bit of notoriety, within its subgenre, actually... there's your "coverage in independent sources." The sources here are predominately, if not exclusively, Wikipedia-approved third-party sources and if you search them on any search engine, a plethora of results show up. There is nothing wrong with this article, and frankly, I think this deletion request is personal...(2601:44:C27F:83A0:45E3:4BD6:C9CF:C10B (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC))— 2601:44:C27F:83A0:45E3:4BD6:C9CF:C10B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Angry Metal Guy is a blog, Sonic Perspectives is a fanzine that reviews albums after inviting bands to send them in, and Prog Archives is a fan-maintained site. None of those are independent media with professional journalistic and editorial standards, as required for reliable coverage in Wikipedia. In other words, Scardust has fans who run websites, but they have not been noticed by established music journalists. Meanwhile, if you choose to make an accusation about bad faith, take the opportunity to provide more evidence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The article is completely neutral, per WP:Neutral Point of View; you're wrong about it "[appearing] like an advertisement," entirely. Most of the sources are independent -- don't exaggerate and claim the three or four self-published sources on the page, which appear alongside the independent sources, are "heavily replied" upon. A ridiculous accusation, I do say. Scardust is reliable per WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, and should stay because of WP:PRESERVE, plain and simple. Several of the criteria of WP:NBAND are met, also, such as number 1 as per their recent Concrete Cages music video amongst other releases, number 4 as per their 2019 UK Tour including a show at the Ramblin Man Fair, and Dong Open Air and Wacken concerts in Germany later this year, amongst other performances (found cited in the Wikipeida article itself), and number 5 as per their the fact they are signed to M-Theory Audio, a "more important indie label" that manages several other notable artists such as Mordred and White Wizzard, amongst other criteria here. The article is properly sourced, as per WP:CITE and I believe it is very well constructed. --68.82.232.44 (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)— 68.82.232.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Metal Storm has a page about the band,[5] as does Spirit of Metal.[6] Total Rock wrote about the band,[7] including hurdy-gurdy player Patty Gurdy. Metal Insider interviewed them,[8] Encyclopedia Metallum has a page about the band[9] and also under their previous name, Somnia.[10] Metal Temple reviewed the band as Somnia in 2014.[11] Seems like enough activity and interest out there to include the band. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. It obviously isn't being voted for deletion. The majority of users and IPs have voted for keep. This is just a huge slap in the face to the editors. Give it a rest. There won't be much discussion, and by continuously renewing this deletion request, despite the majority consensus thus far, it just seems very petty. --2601:44:C27F:83A0:90FC:62D1:D898:82E (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources presented in the article and are a mix of primary, press releases, user exited, routine announcements. Nothing good for GNG. Touring lacks independent coverage for music#4. Only one album with m-theory so no meeting of music#5 (not that m-theory fit the criteria). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band and the lead singer Grubman have coverage that is significant.--CZUQZ (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)— CZUQZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV. See my source analysis below.4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Description	Main Subject?	Significant Coverage?	Policy
https://www.rockngrowl.com/scardust-singer-noa-gruman-and-youtube-queen-patty-gurdy-talking-about-strangers-video-posted	Summary of an interview released by the band. Lacks independence.	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://metalmaximumradio.net/2020/12/01/scardust-release-break-the-ice-music-video/	While this is supposedly a review, all of the critical assessments are quotes from other publications, and it reads like a promotional press release rather than a review. As such I question the independence and reliability of this article.	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://www.rockngrowl.com/scardust-announces-new-band-members	Press release announcement of new band members. Lacks independence	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://www.angrymetalguy.com/angry-metal-guys-top-15ish-of-2021/	Self published blog; not reliable	Yes	No	Fails WP:Verifiability/ WP:SIGCOV
https://www.sonicperspectives.com/features/the-2020-favorite-progressive-metal-albums/	Album review in a respectable ezine with reliable editorial oversight. This is a good source. (a note; academic journals and major established newspapers and magazines like The New Yorker and Time also take submissions and occasionally publish them after fact checking. The fact that this magazine allows bands to submit recordings for review doesn't mean this source lacks independence as they explicitly state policies that insure editorial oversight and independence, and are selective in what submissions they accept).	Yes	Yes	Passes WP:SIGCOV
http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp?syears=2020	self-published fan archive; not clear that there is sufficient editorial oversight to be considered reliable	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:Verifiability
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/scardust-premiere-epic-new-video-for-concrete-cages/ar-AAXHShw	Superficial promo piece that is mostly an interview; lacks independence as an interview	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://metalplanetmusic.com/2019/07/scardust-announce-july-shows-in-the-uk/	Press release; lacks independence	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
http://www.themidlandsrocks.com/ramblin-man-fair-day-2-saturday-20th-july-2019/	The publication itself is of questionable reliability as it publishes submissions from amateur writers as well as journalists with unclear editorial oversight. That said, this source only mentions the band in passing and it is not significant coverage.	No	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://www.loudersound.com/news/scardust-premiere-epic-new-video-for-concrete-cages	Press Release/ Interview; lacks independence	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=13193	Band bio page at metalstorm.net; database that anyone can edit; un-reliable	No	No	Fails WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV
{https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Somnia	Webzine profile; database listing with zero prose; does not address the band "directly and in-detail"	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV
https://totalrock.com/prog-metallers-scardust-announce-show-with-hurdy-gurdy-sensation-patty-gurdy/	Promotional article with connection to ticket sales for the group; lacks independence as the publication has a financial conflict of interest	Yes	No	Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:Verifiability
https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Scardust/3540429071	Encyclopedia Metallium entry; self-published website without a transparent editorial process; also can be edited by anyone and is not reliable; does not address the band in detail as there is zero prose	Yes	No	Fails WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV
https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Somnia/3540405193	Encyclopedia Metallium page; can be edited by anyone with an account, so not reliable	Yes	No	Fails WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV
http://www.metal-temple.com/site/catalogues/entry/worldwide_live_shows/double-feature-metal.htm	E-zine with unclear editorial process (website has no transparent editorial process described); questionable reliability	Yes	No	Fails WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV

Delete- Given the debate here, I am seeing contradictions, rather than refutations of the central points made in nomination. I'm going to lay out the argument for deletion in the nom and respond to these points.

Article lacks noteworthy information
Reads like an advertisement
Information is a backlog of random performances with trivial details
Does not meet band.

Clearly points 1-3 are true. The information is a regurgitation of the bands past performances, there is little properly sourced discussion of the personal lives of members, the development of the group and its developmental milestones, nothing on style and composition of the music style. Turning to point 4, we get an answer as to why. The band is not sufficiently notable to have a full article. It the band was truly notable, it would have been covered more significantly by independent, reliable sources, which as the excellent source comparison table shows, is not the case. As the subject has also not had charted music or major label contracts, it does not meet WP:NBAND. None of the arguments here point specifically to how the criteria at WP:NBAND are met? From criteria 1-12, I have assessed the article subject against the criteria and see no evidence any are met. I am not persuaded by arguments of a rename either - it may well be so that Noa Gruman is notable, there seem to be a few hits but I didn't do a deep dive on here. The article would need to be fundamentally rewritten for a rename to be appropriate, and so it seems a more suitable option for this article to be deleted and an entirely new article on Gruman be drafted and submitted to AFC for assessment. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article needs improvement to demonstrate notability more clearly. Were it clear enough either way, this AfD probably would not have started and certainly would not have gone on so long. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Mexico[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverifiable, un-maintained, contains external links within the text. Not a single source in sight, no maintenance in 13+ years. Strong consensus by now is that "list of people on the postage stamps of X" is not a notable topic. Prod contested without comment. Pinging @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: as usual. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mexico. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that constitutes reliable source coverage. Especially not a reliable source that covers the whole subject as a group. Long lists like this that are not closely sourced also have strong issues with false links and the like. I really have come to not see any of these lists as justified. Lists require more than being able to find a catalogue somewhere that has the thing lists and copying it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sources, the notability argument is based on a tortured interpretation of list rules that many editors are not buying, it has many additions through at least 2017. Many of the external links I see are to bios in es:, which is an interesting idea; I would like to see a design that makes it more evident that en: is, even all these years, still missing many articles about important people in the non-English-speaking parts of the world. Stan (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the in-article links are to other sites entirely such as this, is absolutely never allowed. There is a way to cross-wikilink to non-English Wikipedias. WP:ITSUSEFUL is also not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed the relevant guidelines and yeah, these don't seem to fit after all. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the interpretation of policy here is disputed; I'll leave this to the more experienced editors. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 19:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps. I still think there is no justification to the claim that this is a notable topic. Being put on postage stamps is way to easy, and there are no firm and fast rules of why people are put on them. It basically boils down to a trivial list of mostly notable people, but sometimes there are people put on postage stamps who are not notable. Some like Jean Baptiste Charbonneau are actually notable, but the reasons they are on postage stamps are trivial and non-notable. In his case it is because his parents were involved in a major journey of exploation and commerce creation starting just after his birth, so he was there as part of it as well, but that is not what makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reliable sources discussing the topic as a group need to have text talking about the topic. A catalog that just lists all stamps, and groups them by sub-heading like people, animals, etc. is not a reliable source giving the level of coverage we need to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw Orland (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above seem to have been happily copied without change to a fair few different number of AfDs, I'm going to happily oblige with the rebuke below. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that treat the complete list here as a group that needs to be considered together. A list like this belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just came across one of these lists that had James Bond on it. It was for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am not even sure James Bond has any connection to DR Congo. He is of course a fictional character. So I think the general evidence suggests that no, people being on stamps is not a special thing, at least in some cases, beyond the hope to encorage people to buy more of them because they like how they look. These amount to lists of trivia and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orland's argument is completely spurious. The individual members being (possibly, on other AfDs people have highlighted issues of accuracy with the sources used) verifiably depicted on stamps entirely (and, given the persistence of those making that argument, apparently deliberately) misses the point, go and read WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Orland and Lupe. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RandomCanadian says it best. Wikipedia is not a catalogue or directory. Fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:LISTN is the relevant notability guideline. It has a slightly lower bar than WP:GNG. I quote Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set independent reliable sources The sources in the list are offline, so I have assumed good faith. It seems credible that a book on Mexican postage stamps has discussed people on them, it is independent from the postal authority of Mexico, therefore this passes the relevant notability guideline. CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I am symphatetic to CT55555's point above, we do not know if that book has such a list. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We can't assume a book on Mexican stamps has such a list. I'd expect it would discuss some cases of who was on stamp, etc. but whether it would attempt to list and organize people's portayals? Who knows. Unless this can be verified, this is just a variation of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555. It's concerning to me that some editors voting delete are discounting offline references. Fundamentally we must accept offline references in good faith as a rule unless we have some valid reason to distrust the source (such as a discredited author or a self-published source). Not doing so contradicts policies at WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per Piotrus. Until somebody acesses the book and can vouch for the contents, pointing to it just a version of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. The arguments by Orland and Lupe are hollow and are not backed by policy; the closing admin should discount them as well as the per X !votes based on them above. There is no indication that LISTN has been met here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apropos the two assertions of THEREMUSTBESOURCES above. Please do not conflate a lack of sources with a lack of access to sources; CT55555 is making comments about a specific source, not making a general claim over undefined sources. Further, CT55555 presumes good faith (our general tendency), Piotrus presumes bad faith: what in the present circumstances suggests we should reject good faith and presume the opposite? There might well be good reasons, but they need to be explicated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 never shows in their comment that there is significant coverage of the topic in the book. Just asserts that there should be coverage in the book. I would AGF accept something like "I looked at it and there is X pages of coverage of this topic". -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero I think CT55555 is reasonably asserting that the editor who added the reference to the article and created the list in this first place (Smitty Smith) identified it as having significant coverage, and used the source in creating the article which is why it was put into the article in the first place. At some point we have to trust editors adding offline references to articles that they are doing so following our policies. Demanding later to see the sources in an AFD when those editors with access to the source are no longer active seems to fly in the face of WP:AGF and sets a bad precedent for how we interact with the work of past editors who use offline sources (or sources behind paywalls).4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you are supposed to add citations with page numbers for a facts instead of the deprecated method of placing a book at the end. The article creator never mentioned how much of the book is devoted to the topic. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally they would have, but even page numbers wouldn’t tell us what is being demanded here. Again, at some point we have to Assume Good Faith. It’s policy.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing so far has been presented to show that list is notable, it is merely hearsay. At the moment it is an indiscriminate list of information that has a respectable veneer of being notable but not the actual actualite, i.e. concrete evidence. I don't see an encyclopedic value either. Where is the supposed value for Wikipedia. That would change if I saw each entry with a references, but as usual with the group doesn't want to reference, there is nothing of depth. It has been here since 2005 but there is no refs. If they were here, they would be in already. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Guillaume Quellier. "Keep passes GNG" with no other qualification is not a convincing argument Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Quellier[edit]

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

Article I created in 2007 before I understood WP:GNG, and my PROD was declined. This footballer made 3 brief substitute's appearances in Ligue 1, plus a handful of appearances in Ligue 2 - nothing that generated SIGCOV. I've checked online English- and French-language sources and found nothing but routine and trivial coverage (e.g., match reports, transfer announcements, statistical database entries) so it comprehensively fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's quite a bit of coverage of him and the bakery he opened after his professional career: [12], [13], [14]. What do we make of that? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I didn't mention that coverage. It really doesn't involve his footballing career (just noted that he used to play for Caen), and I also think it's insufficient to make him notable as a bakery owner. Jogurney (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, should be expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, and I also found sources about him as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for at least one more week - the keep arguments have simply pointed to the a policy without any discussion of how it meets notability standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as a potential future article. Clearly not ready as it stands now. ––FormalDude talk 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. There is a bit of coverage from his bakery, but these are all in the form of interviews, with little novel critical commentary on him: what the interviewers do independently note is either redundant, or is unencyclopedic primary descriptions of the interview setting (e.g. "He mimics or polishes the fermented dough, depending, and puts it in the oven, encouraged by the haunting smell of already warm bread, mixed with the even more enticing smell of chocolate."). JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going for a third relist. Apart from stat sites (one of which supplies an error message), the only source is about his career as a baker. And I would question sending a 15 year old article to Draft space which is just a longer road to deletion. If he is notable for his football skills, are there sources that cover his playing that aren't an archived stats table?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer Liz's question, I can't find non-database sources on him in English or French. I'm taking this general comment to be a choice between a straight keep or delete; as there isn't significant sourcing, and we can't draftify, delete.
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per JoelleJay. 4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band of Pride[edit]

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

Vanity page for non-notable group. There is no evidence in article as to why it is notable. Unsourced: None of the content is cited; In fact, G-Search indicates that the name may be used for many-a school band Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The one and only source does not have the band "featured" as claimed, it is a mere passing mention in a long list. Being the "funniest band in the land" is not encyclopaedic information. Rather, it is mere opinion of a sports magazine that has expertise in neither music nor humour. SpinningSpark 12:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the title of the article "Band of Pride" be changed to "Louisiana Tech University Marching Band". Just as more than 30 other United States university marching bands have articles detailing their history on Wikipedia, this university band is certainly at least notable to the hundreds of thousands of alumni of the school and especially to the thousands of students who have been members of the band in over one hundred years of its existence. The slogan "Band of Pride" can be mentioned in the body of the article, since other marching bands also have used this slogan. 67.7.18.63 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Canberra[edit]

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any significant coverage of this embassy. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is fine, Redirect is better per WP:NOPAGE. I think most (if not all) of these "embassy of" pages would be better off mentioned in another article rather than having their own page. Jacona (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough info for a separate page. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. A redirect has been proposed but a target page not identified (which would be helpful)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey; I assume that was also @Jacona:'s target? Nate • (chatter) 01:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plurals Party. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpam Priya Choudhary[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 23. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dakshinamurti: I highly suggest that you read WP:THREE before responding here. If you dump 20+ sources as you did at the DRV, nobody is going to take the time to review them. Just pick 3 of the most substantial sources and present them here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about my earlier action of dumping references. I am new to this space, so I did not have much idea of guidelines. As per your suggestion based on Wikipedia:THREE, here I am presenting only three sources. Three newspaper sources, all of them are national and reputed newspapers - published and mostly popular in three different regions of India - The Times of India (North), Deccan Heard (West) and The Hindu (South). The news covered are from three different period when the popularity of Pushpam Priya Choudhary were constantly increasing through her political campaign (obviously there are hundreds other news pieces). First from March 2020 when she declared herself as the Chief Ministerial candidate in the Indian State of Bihar and thus got nationwide recognition; second from October 2020 when her party published the manifesto and distributed tickets among candidates which were discussed a lot about innovative approach and policy based campaign; and third is basically an interview from November 2020 published by the largest circulated newspaper of India. She is still considered among the 4-5 possible Chief Ministerial candidates in Bihar. As 2020 was the election year, it was obvious that the whole national media was interested in her campaign and her performance. Once the election was over, her ground activity is mostly covered by the regional and vernacular media. Still the leading publications like Times of India are asking for her opinion on relevant political issues and publishing it with a wide coverage. She is very much notable and it is impossible to discuss the hot debated politics of Bihar without mentioning her. Yes, people are divided over her style of politics and her political future, but no-one can ignore her.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/plurals-pops-up-in-bihar/article31018474.ece

https://www.deccanherald.com/election-2020/bihar-polls-pushpam-priya-choudhary-the-lse-graduate-who-is-eyeing-cms-chair-905255.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/political-system-is-messy-in-bihar-im-going-to-stay-here/articleshow/78974227.cms Dakshinamurti (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu and Deccan Herald are about the party, which obviously include info on who founded the party. I'd disregard The Times of India in political and biographical AfDs WP:TOI [15] — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meta Comment/Delete per the prior two AfDs and no indication of sourcing with quality to indicate that she is notable. At best, redirect to the party. There is no consensus that Choudhary is independently notable, nor sourcing to think that consensus is incorrect, although I support this relist for a final consensus. Further, given what I know of participants in the AfDs/DRV, there's no biased motivation in participation. Star Mississippi 13:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to accept your contention here that Choudhary is not independently notable. The notability of her party is in fact totally based on her popularity and notability. I request you to run a simple test here. Please search for Pushpam Priya Choudhary on Google or on any search engine and see which one is more dominant - Choudhary or Plurals. It is not at all possible to separate both. Even if you search for The Plurals Party, it will be impossible that her name does not dominate the space. I am not placing my contention on this test only. I am just giving an example. Her notability is independently established in India and particularly in her State where her politics is currently based. It is just that we are not able to prove to your satisfaction. But definitely will try to address your concern. Thanks. Dakshinamurti (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dakshinamurti. I think the issue we're running into is they're intricately tied together in sourcing that is accessible. (Of course, English sourcing isn't required.) It's hard to discuss Choudhary without Plurals and vice versa. Maybe the article should be under her name and the party redirected? I h aven't dug too deeply into your search yet, but I will in the course of this discussion. Star Mississippi 23:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a fresh look on this @Star Mississippi. Honestly I am not sure about redirection thing, but I do hope that this discussion will lead to a through examination and amicable solution. Dakshinamurti (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Star Mississippi and possibly salt to avoid further disruptions. Even if this is redirected to the party, the redirect page should be fully protected from editing. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 11:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete" but have been challenged, so I am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plurals Party. As Star Mississippi and others have said, there is no indication that the Choudhary is at all notable except for the formation of the Plurals Party in 2020, and the accompanying short-lived coverage generated by buying "a two-page advertisement in all the leading newspapers ahead of Bihar Assembly elections" and declaring herself as a (highly improbable) chief-minister candidate. Neither Chaudhary nor the party are of any electoral importance (so far) but have arguably generated enough publicity to pass WP:GNG. There is no sense, however, in trying to maintain two separate wikipedia articles of borderline notability and duplicative content, and the party article is a better one to retain since it can provide information about the party's performance in the 2020 elections, which is the sole basis for either's notability. Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The arguments of @Abecedare are not based upon substantive facts. The so-called two page advertisement was just an announcement of political aspiration of Choudhary which got published in newspapers on 8th March 2020. But what about her campaign from March to November 2020 and thereafter? And notability should be based on political or electoral? Are we saying that 'electoral success' is the sole criteria for 'political success' and consequently 'electoral notability' should only be accepted as 'political notability'? Electoral is just a subset of political and there have been thousands of political leaders who were/are notable and who never got any electoral success. What about their notability? I am repeatedly asking this question that why and how press coverage can only be considered as the evidence of political notability (though she has enough press coverage too)? And press coverage in India which is placed at 150th position in Global Press Freedom index where print and electronic media are actually bought (not through advertisement as @Abecedare alleged, but through many hidden measures) by the ruling and oppositions parties? What is then left for new leaders and new parties who do not have that kind of money and muscle power in India and especially for a educated woman leader. India is known for its misogynist and sexist behaviour as far as women leaders are concerned. Even in this case, please look into the news article shared by @Abecedare, published in a reputed newspaper. It repeatedly mentions about the father and grandfather of Choudhary. Why? Did she contest on the ticket of his father's political party? Is there any evidence that his father has helped her or promoted her in forming her political party? Just because she is a woman, Indian journalists cannot resist their misogynistic assumption while writing about any woman leader. The argument of @Abecedare that "there is no indication that Choudhary is at all notable" while accepting the notability of her party is ridiculous and does not based on the ground situation. There was an uncontested wikipedia article about Choudhary and if someone has challenged her notability then the onus should be on him to prove that she is not notable. I have not seen any concrete evidence which could reflect that her party is more notable than her and she is "not at all notable". Dakshinamurti (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plurals Party as said by Abecedare. All the sources that I find are talking the [new] political party. Of course, they all have her bio info like her parents, education; they all are about the party and not her. They could all be combined together to argue for notability, the coverage post the single event seem non-existent — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plurals Party per above.4meter4 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plurals Party, notability only in context of the party. Agree that redirect would need to be protected. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Inong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only non-trivial source is this [16] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am happy with the source located that the person is individual. Giant Snowman 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG, and the other sources are not adding towards that either. We do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Poly Post is Cal Poly Pomona's student newspaper, so utterly fails independence and probably BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 11 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!} 22:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked at this one repeatedly since it was first nominated for deletion, and I just don't see a way to expand this meaningfully or justify keeping it based on the coverage that is available. I have now added a sentence about Tasha Inong to Alma Mana'o's biography. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch (TV series)[edit]

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

Deprodded. Only source is a YouTube upload. Couldn't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source find is not helped by the fact there is a much more notable twitch.tv, but other then IMDB I find nothing about the show. It's not a hoax though - most of the episodes in full are up on YouTube, and it's certainly an interesting piece of videogame history, it's just not notable. casualdejekyll 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who felt compelled to create the topic, so I feel I should contribute to the discussion. Forgive my lack of involvement on the article; my hope was that other users might take the reins after I started it back then, but as has been said, not much information has been available online about the series since it ended. Sadly, the series was brought to a sudden end when the network folded, but it was quite popular at the time, and is historically relevant for opening up a television genre that caters to the video game industry. It was simply misfortune that caused the series to end, and thus not much information can be found about it since no other network picked it up to keep it going. Only in recent years has new material been uncovered, particularly from the series creator who posted the YouTube upload, and as casualdejekyll pointed out, most full episodes from the series were digitized from VHS and uploaded in the past year, which allowed for me to patch some longstanding gaps in the article with direct information. For added context, some citations were included regarding the ill-fated cable network and its role in the lack of source material; nonetheless, the series did exist, and the recent information came direct from the series creator, which should be reliable enough to keep the article valid, especially if new information becomes available at some later point. The fact that it took this long for something useful to be found proves my point.

I think the article should not be deleted. RedStillRumblesNC-17 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria is WP:GNG. One of the common ways that GNG is applied in discussions such as these is WP:THREE - show your best three sources, three sources which cover the subject independently, reliably, and give it significant coverage. @RedStillRumblesNC-17 - Can you show me WP:THREE, or perhaps how this meets some other notability guideline on Wikipedia? casualdejekyll 01:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. casualdejekyll 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this source covering the TV show. I'm leaning keep, as it appears to be an interesting piece of video game history. Merko (talk) 09:37, 1 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!} 22:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, everyone; just wanted to come along to give a quick update. I've been working on buffing the issues stated about the article. I'm satisfied with what I've found and will be updating the article with new sources and other material to give more shape to the article, hopefully saving it from deletion entirely. The thing is, I've recently started a new job, so I'm kind of too busy to make said updates immediately, but I assure you that it'll be done soon enough.

On a personal note, I feel I should kind of thank you all for putting the matter back in the spotlight for me. Whether skeptical like Ten Pound Hammer and casualdejekyll or supportive like Merko, the discussion has been fruitful, and the task almost enjoyable. I dare say it's been kind of fun to revisit this whole thing, reminding me why I liked the program, thereby inspiring me to create the article in the first place.

I'll be back to the article soon to make the necessary adjustments; hopefully, the issue can be resolved and put to rest once I do. RedStillRumblesNC-17 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RedStillRumblesNC-17:If you have found sources you should share what they are here, either URL or title/publication/date/author. Regardless of whether it's put in article, a decision can be made based on existence of sources. You can add it into article at a later date. With 1 Delete and 1 lean keep, probably relisted so another week before a decision here has to be made. If you rather more time, drafting is an option but depending on consensus may just be deleted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sources (if found) should be listed here, they are what will save the article and not modifying it, unfortunately. Merko (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article and expect to update it by the end of the day on June 20th. RedStillRumblesNC-17 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to beat my original E.T.A.; was able to update the article yesterday afternoon.

I had three goals in mind with this latest update: reinsert the title card properly with appropriate accreditation, present new source materials and make proper citations to save the article from deletion, and to add greater depth of content to the article so that it may be delisted as a stub.

Hopefully, I have achieved all three. RedStillRumblesNC-17 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As User:WikiVirusC states, sharing any sources found in this AFD discussion could affect the outcome of this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its claim to be the first such show has some encyclopaedic value and should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia if correct. However, it is unsourced, and I'm not finding anything. It has to be said that searching is difficult due to the existence of Twitch.tv which is swamping search results. SpinningSpark 11:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted this show is nearly impossible to search for thanks to Twitch.tv . It doesn't help that before finding the article on Wikipedia, I had never heard of the show before.

I found a reference in SFGate, while Twitch was not the primary article subject, it wasn't quite trivial either since it gets its own paragraph and a few additional mentions elsewhere in the article, including some juicy nuggets absent from the Wikipedia article (The show was apparently significantly funded by Sega to promote the now long defunct Sega Channel online gaming service).

Based on similar topics I've searched for in the past I have a hunch that the best sources for this are on dead trees. I found a potential hit while searching Google Books (An edition of Editor & Publisher Syndicate Directory), but there's no online preview available for it. I'd be surprised if there aren't writeups of this in some industry publication, TV guide, or gaming mag from the era, but I realize that hardly helps establish notability unless someone can find them. That said researching this has been fun, and I hope I can find more sources to establish notability. I might try to see if my local library doesn't have anything. Mbrickn (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that I know that this show was virtually an infomercial promoting Sega products, it will take some strong sources to change my mind. SpinningSpark 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be clear, the show was significantly funded by Sega, but I didn't find any source saying it was fully funded by Sega. I watched a bit of some clips I found online, and while they certainly did product placement for Sega products (Like many mass market gaming or sports media of the era), they also positively reviewed games for competing platforms like the 3DO (Reviews for Road Rash, Gex), or the Atari Jaguar version of RayMan or the Jaguar exclusive Tempest 2000. Mbrickn (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be your OR that they are not, but the very source you cite above says "All three game-review shows look like souped-up infomercials..." You can't have it both ways: claiming the source is RS and then ignore what it says. SpinningSpark 07:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that. That's correct that it states that. Mbrickn (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bühler Motor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and Germany. Kadı Message 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not in itself sufficient to demonstrate notability, but the firm is used as a case study in a 2010 book: "Supply-Strategien in Einkauf und Beschaffung". AllyD (talk) 08:46, 6 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!} 22:07, 7 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!} 22:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks like a signigicant company, however the article is not backed by reliable sources that means it fails WP:NCORP --Bash7oven (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobimail[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:44, 7 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!} 22:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. SpinningSpark 10:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dappy. ✗plicit 14:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MIGI Clothing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Merge relevant pieces into it's founder's (Dappy) page. Bobs at 9 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 7 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!} 22:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the founder's article. Fails WP:NORG. SpinningSpark 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dappy as per WP:ATD. As a separate topic, the topic company fails WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as a Soft Deletion as most of the commentators and even the nominator seem ambivalent about this film's notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostril Picker[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable film. The only reference is to IMDB. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found one RS review at HorrorNews [17]. Needs one more review for WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 23:25, 7 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!} 22:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a review of sorts from Sight & Sound. Can't really access it, so I don't know how in-depth it is, but it seems like it's on the slim side. On the other hand, the fact that the magazine even covered the film at all is kind of amazing. There's B movies, Z grade flicks, Asylum creations... and then there's this film. What I have found about it in various non-usable outlets discuss it like it's kind of a "wow, they actually made this" type of movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it has an entry in Spinegrinder: The Movies Most Critics Won’t Write About but I can't see the actual page. Most entries in the book are one or two paragraphs only. SpinningSpark 10:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have access to the Sight & Sound review and can confirm that it's not in-depth enough to constitute sigcov. (If anyone would like to see it, feel free to email me and I'll send a copy.) I think the entry in Spinegrinder is just a mention on a list of horror movies filmed in Michigan, so it doesn't seem to be in-depth either. There's a review in Vox, but it's only two sentences (including a comment that the film "is too inept to be either offensive or even remotely entertaining"); it's also in an article in The Guardian on "The worst film titles in the world", which describes it with only a single word: "nauseating". The HorrorNews review is fine, but without additional significant coverage, the film doesn't quite seem to be notable. Glad to reconsider if there's something I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. I pondered this one for a while and did my best to make a good decision which is to AFD and let a broader group decide. This is the emblem of what (only) Russia considers to be a non-Ukraine republic inside of Ukraine. Of the four sources, the first is the Russian government or government controlled news agency Tass, the other also a Russian source. The third and fourth are criticism of (merely) sidebar items. From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no independent sources covering it as such, as the emblem of a republic. From an NPOV standpoint, the title (via an implied premise) is statement that the republic exists. From another Wikipedia standpoint, the article is an attempt to establish the same neologism. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 7 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!} 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom, this article (or the Russian article it was translated from) is a transparent attempt to endow legitimacy on an entity that only Russia recognises and was created with naked aggression by them. Its very title fails WP:NPOV. SpinningSpark 17:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This emblem should be used (and it is used) on other pages, but it is not notable by itself as a symbol of ~~not existing~~ unrecognized state. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 14:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Christian Andersen: My Life as a Fairytale[edit]

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

Unsourced stub, couldn't find any sources. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Deletion as it has been PROD'd and de-PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V. Dakshinamoorthy discography[edit]

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

largely unsourced extensive list that can just be redirected and covered (with waht can be sourced) in the main article PRAXIDICAE💕 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is huge. It consists all of his 950+ songs. And contains several reliable references. Abbasulu (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and some of the songs /movies are pretty popular Proton Dental (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a redirect being proposed here? To their main article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CFORK. Discography of a notable musician. It does need improved referencing (should not be difficult to source), but it is a reasonable content fork of the main article.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball titles streaks[edit]

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

Original research. "Consecutive title streaks" is not discussed by independent RS for a majority of these "streaks". Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hopefully, someone can find sourcing to satisfy NLIST, as I find this fascinating. Good old Dan Brouthers leading MLB in slugging percentage six straight years. And Ralph Kiner too with home runs. Good stuff. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pull out the stats books, there is ample documentation for baseball stats, but to source each one would be a pain in the backside. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Even if the stats can be verifiably found to be true; this is not encyclopedic material (and indeed, very much WP:FANCRUFT) if no independent, reliable sources cover this in a significant fashion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give a little more time in case more reliable sources are out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useful content, but Wikipedia is not a statsbook. Different content could be moved to the appropriate article (i.e. list of batting title streaks could be moved to batting average), but a central list here is not the right answer. Frank Anchor 15:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After three weeks, the article still cites no third-party sources, which means that WP:BLP mandates deletion. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND for improvement. Sandstein 09:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Govciyan[edit]

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

BLP. Only working reference is his own website Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Turkey. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. The Légion d'honneur is a valid notability claim in principle, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a recipient from actually having to have any reliable sources — we have seen articles created that falsely claimed that the subject had won a "notability-clinching" honour that they had not actually won in reality, so the notability test isn't in the things the article says, but in getting him over WP:GNG on the depth and quality of the referencing that can be shown to support the things it says. But since I don't have access to any database in which I could retrieve decades-old media coverage from France, I'm not able to determine whether he passes GNG or not — I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can actually fix the referencing problem here, but he still requires proper sourcing before any of this can be seen as notable enough to keep. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 11:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 11:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A google news search shows that he has many references from secondary sources. I would recommend to the author of the article to add the sources. As it stands it does not have WP:GNG. If sources are not added, I would move to Delete PaulPachad (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Hold up, hold up. This is Alexis Govciyan, elected councillor of Paris/Île-de-France in 2010 from the 9th arrondissement. This appears to be his Twitter account. This is another corroborating source. This clearly passes WP:NPOL. Perhaps the sources are lacking, but this is not a case of lacking notability. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the last bit of info from Iseult
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been elected mayor of the 9th Arrondissement and serves on the Laicity committee for the City of Paris. Also has penned a few books about the Armenian Genocide. Sources all en francais. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we have some references we can certainly keep it Rathfelder (talk) 22:47, 8 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!} 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:SIGCOV. Politicians at the municipal level are not considered notable under NPOL. No evidence has been presented demonstrating the subject passes any of the criteria at NAUTHOR, or that the subject passes SIGCOV. While others have vaguely mentioned sources exist, nobody has actually presented that evidence here or in the article. Without sources, I can't see a strong policy based argument for keeping this article. 4meter4 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yanick Dusseault[edit]

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

My nom is very similar to that in this related recent AfD, for a reason.

Non-notable. Promotional, with likely COI / UPE issues. Effectively unreferenced, as it only lists a few sources at the end, without actually citing any. And of them, only one (namely #4, the latter La Presse article) fully meets the GNG criteria, the rest are primary, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts, directory listings, etc. The career details look at first impressive, but essentially are just a work history, with nothing to indicate they would add up to WP:FILMMAKER / WP:ARTIST notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Canada. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, not notable. Clear. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does being nominated for an award with the VES (Visual Effects Society) add to notability? [18] or [19] ,lists him in a long list of nominees. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is no - a nomination don't count, awarding a major public award does. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an actual policy on this, but my gut says this would depend on the 'importance' of the award, and also on whether the person received it in their own right (or at least in a lead role) or as part of a wider team. As for the nomination vs. win question, IMDb claims that they did actually win some of these, although this isn't mentioned in the article. All the same, I would argue that a (shared) award like that isn't alone enough to make anyone inherently notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would a shared award and the one article add to notability for our purposes here? Leaning Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For major awards (e.g. Oscars, Emmys, etc.) which curate and release shortlists of nominees between the "any person who meets the eligibility criteria can submit their work for consideration" and "announcement of the actual winner" phases, a nomination is often considered sufficient — it wouldn't be enough in the case of something like the Nobel Prize, where absolutely anybody on earth can be submitted but the Nobel Prize committee doesn't reveal anything at all about who's actually under serious consideration until the actual winner is announced, but it can be a valid notability claim if there's an official shortlist released by the award committee as part of the process. So it's not at all the case that non-winning nominees can never be notable for that per se — it depends on the award, because nomination is enough for some awards and not enough for others. What I don't know is whether we've ever established a consensus either way around which bucket the VES Awards would fall in.
We also don't, for the record, treat "team" nominations or wins any differently than "solo" nominations or wins when it comes to awards like this: if an award is accepted as significant enough to be a notability-maker for its nominees and/or winners at all, then group nominations or wins count just the same as solo ones so long as the person was actually named as a nominee in their own right and isn't just trying to reify "was part of the support crew behind the actual nominees" into personal nominations of their own. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I plug his name into GBooks above and you get pages and pages of mentions with his name, seems to be an OG matte painter in the movie world, everything from Marvel to Lord of the Rings to Star Trek. I think that's enough traction to keep the article. One newspaper feature, at least 2 nominations for the awards above and about a dozen mentions in books. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Mentions' being the operative word there. Mentions =/= sigcov. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP by editor with only one article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 10 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!} 21:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better. Even the article about his business partner was deleted on WP:TNT grounds rather than fundamental non-notability — he had a valid notability claim, but the article was such a badly-written and puffed-up mess that starting over from scratch had to be preferred over keeping the existing article regardless of his basis for notability, and that's kind of the same here. (Raynault's advertorialized puffery isn't a problem in this case, because that stuff's already been cleaned up, but the formatting and sourcing here are still for the birds.)
Dusseault isn't even just a VES nominee, by the way, because he actually also has a VES win under his belt ([20]) — but to me, the VES seems like the kind of mid-level "important in its field, but not prominent among the general public" award where that would be enough if the article were well-sourced, but not enough if the presence of his name in award listicles is more or less the only sourcing he has. So "Un Québécois au coeur de l'aventure Star Wars" is indeed a start down the right path (but "Pourquoi j’ai quitté l’empire Star Wars?" is not, because he wrote that himself in the first person) — if somebody could find two or three more of those, then he'd be keepable on WP:GNG grounds regardless of any disagreements about the notability of the VES Awards, but I don't think a VES award is enough all by itself to exempt him from having to have at least a couple more sources of an "Un Québécois au coeur de l'aventure Star Wars" calibre. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article in "La Nouvelle Union" [21] and "Voir.ca" [22]. Part of the article talks about him, Quebecers at the Oscars [23] Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuia Falepapalangi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneti Felela[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Teu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 - Unambiguous copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Female Foeticide A Violation of Women Rights[edit]

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

The article has strong evidence of original research. I also noticed that the article was written in an argumentative way. Encyclopedic articles must be expository. Also, the sources do not cover the content. In fact, much of the text is the creator's opinion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete I barely got to the We all know what female foeticide is. We all know why it is taking place at such a rampant pace. But we should also know the laws which are specifically made to prevent this heinous crime. In this article, we will be discussing the laws which have been made by the government from time to time to stop female foeticide. before I had to stop reading. Either way, this isn't encyclopedic and it's a copyvio. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Stavast[edit]

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

It is now almost 8 months since the first nomination and while there have been a few additional passing mentions in association with "Let's Go Brandon," there is a total lack of additional WP:SIGCOV. The sources which exist do not meet the GNG as they are either not independent of the subject (either from being press releases by an employer or being interviews) or are passing mentions related to the meme. What exists may warrant a redirect to NASCAR on NBC or possibly Let's Go Brandon (though I do not support the latter), but GNG is not met therefore an article on this subject is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a tabloid of "who said what?" or a database of NASCAR personnel. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Motorsport, and Colorado. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaving aside the Let's Go Brandon stuff, I see significant coverage in Chapman News and Frontstretch Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chapman News is not independent - it is a university news outlet reporting on her (an alumni), with many quotes from her, e.g. "Part of the reason I chose Chapman over other schools...". The Frontstretch post is about pit reporting generally, with quotes from Stavast based on an interview, and the limited prose about her work does not appear independent, because it summarizes her descriptions of her work. Beccaynr (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mujinga. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yup, she's still notable minus Brandon; no change in my previous rationale, and that's all I have to say. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for the same reasons found in the previous nomination, which was withdrawn after an overwhelming consensus to keep. Very little has changed since then. Stavast is notable even without the “LGB” misspeak, and there was and still is significant coverage making her a clear pass of WP:GNG Frank Anchor 22:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Which was withdrawn in order to give time for the meme nonsense to die down, after the first discussion closed with no consensus because of the aformentioned nonsense"** Fixed that for you. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear that she is notable even without what you call “meme nonsense,” as was overwhelmingly demonstrated by the two prior AFDs. Frank Anchor 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I agree that very little has changed; the sources still are not both independent or significant and this article should be deleted for that reason. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately almost 100% of the others in the ~~prior AFDs~~ second AFD did not see it the way you do and bring up several reliable sources that you (and only you) claim to be invalid. Frank Anchor 23:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (minor modification as I inadvertently misrepresented the first AFD Frank Anchor 01:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Except that's not how the closer of the first AfD saw things. They clearly saw a significant number of delete !votes and likely also discounted the numerous SPAs and socks who popped up in that discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin of the first AFD made no mention of SPAs or socks. So you are misrepresenting his/her opinion. Frank Anchor 01:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator; a clear case of someone who is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT and given that one event involves mishearing people shouting a profane political slogan there are broader WP:BLP concerns for me here about keeping this article online with the potential for defamatory vandalism or the like. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources in this article predate the LGB "movement" so any WP:BLP1E argument is baseless. While a very small minority of editors are questioning the reliability of such sources per WP:SIGCOV, that is an entirely separate issue. Frank Anchor 14:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a real reason to delete this article. Arguing WP:BLP1E doesn't hold up, as this article was created 10 months prior to the LGB incident; additionally there is an entire article about her on Frontstretch that was published well before the incident. See WP:NOT1E#"One dominant event". Additionally, keep in mind that someone reaching this article through its main sources of linked traffic (Let's Go Brandon and Brandon Brown (racing driver)), likely would be doing so to find out more about Kelli's career as a reporter, which this article covers. ~XyNq^t_c 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the article was created in a good faith attempt to make a complete database on the NASCAR pit reporters, as can be evidenced in the first edit summary of the article ("...Now, all the major/notable TV analysts for NASCAR have articles. Both of them were the only two that didn't have articles until today.") and even Frontstretch, the only source which comes close to sniffing GNG acceptability, is still mostly based on an interview with the subject. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Third pointless nomination of the same article in less than a year. She was already notable before and without the "Let's Go Brandon" incident. While it made her go viral worldwide for some time, associating all her fame with it is absurd. Her career as a reporter goes so much further than that and there is WP:SIGCOV to prove it. MSport1005 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything significant is not independent and anything independent is not significant. The only source that comes close to being both is Frontstretch, so even if you want to count it, that's still only a single source. So how is this meeting GNG requirements? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get why this article keeps getting pointlessly nominated for deletion, she's notable enough even without the "Let's Go Brandon" fiasco. Nascar9919 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to reply generally to anyone giving the argument of "It existed for 10 months before LBG" Okay? And? The sourcing, as can be seen in the history, was inadequate then, too and if I had come across the article sooner (really, 10 months is a very brief window), I would have nominated at that time as well. Literally the only additional references since the meme blew up have been passing mentions related to it. GNG was not met then, it's still not after LGB. I am not arguing BLP1E, but I am arguing that GNG has never been met for this person. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ten months is not at all a brief window. Even if the article was created ten minutes before LGB became a thing, it invalidates any BLP1E argument. And there several sourced articles in the page dated well before September 2021 which the vast majority of editors in this AFD and the last AFD consider to be reliable and independent. Obviously longevity of an article alone is not a reason to keep an article, but it shows notability independent of the LGB event. Frank Anchor 01:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using weasel words such as "vast majority" and "very small minority" as this is simply not true. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will most certainly not be doing so, because it is 100% true that a "vast majority" of contributors make some indication that there are reliable and independent sources. Between the 2nd nomination and this nomination, 12 of 15 users who made references to the sources either directly or indirectly via another user's rationale [e.g. "keep per User:X"] find the sources to be acceptable. That's 80%, which is certainly a vast majority. (nothing in this post is meant to suggest this AFD is a vote. I am simply pointing out where all of the participants have stood on this one issue). Frank Anchor 02:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and referenced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annociate Nshimirimana[edit]

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

This Burundian footballer article fails WP:GNG, as the subject is completely lacking in WP:SIGCOV from independent WP:RS. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists. My WP:BEFORE is showing only WP:ROUTINE soccer match coverage of Nshimirimana (and not to be confused with a government official who shares the name). No hits from Burundi's sole private national newspaper, Iwacu. No hits from the government newspaper Le Renouveau. No hits from Jimbere Magazine, a Burundian magazine which focuses on women's issues. The only source provided in the article is a database entry, which doesn't count towards notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. Indy beetle (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by user:Deb, CSD G11 and G12 SpinningSpark 17:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Mozafari Manesh[edit]

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

All refs are mentions of displays in gallery. No in-depth secondary independent coverage of the person himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Cyprus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. References are for generic gallery sites. Article is essentially a resume copied from existing artist promotional site. No reliable sources found on this person. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue is whether the article subject meets WP:GNG. The sources provided to support notability have been analyzed in some detail by the "delete" side, showing that in their view the sources are insufficient in the light of WP:GNG. This analysis has largely remained unrebutted or unaddressed by the "keep" side, which makes the "delete" arguments substantially stronger. Sandstein 09:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Arrechea[edit]

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

~~Can't find any significant coverage in Spanish. All that I could find are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Merko (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV, failes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sources found by Ortizesp - good work! Giant Snowman 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, you clearly did not actually look at the sources, unless you, as an administrator, are somehow not aware that blogs and press releases from the player's own team unequivocally do not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, I did look at the sources. you know what they say when you make assumptions... Giant Snowman 14:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman So you actually consider the blogs and press releases sufficient to meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no. I consider the overall coverage of this individual (from only a seemingly quick Google search) sufficient for him to be notable. Giant Snowman 12:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep another lazy nomination, of a footballer with over 200 appearances in a pro league. Some references: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and tons more significant coverage in Latin American sites. Guys, please stop taking the lazy way out and do a proper BEFORE, AFD isn't supposed to be a removal tool.@Merko:@Alexandermcnabb:@GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sources found lack significant coverage and independence from Arrechea. Dougal18 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination per sources provided by Ortizesp. Merko (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are: a call up to the national team (cited twice), two interviews about him marking Ronaldo, a transfer story (routine coverage) that confuses him with his brother Yovanni and a paragraph on him and his brother. The Independiente sources are ignored as they are not independent of Arrechea as he used to play for them. Dougal18 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those are all valid and significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merko cannot withdraw a nom that has delete !votes, so it's irrelevant anyway, but Ortizesp's interpretation of what constitutes SIGCOV seemingly includes blogs, obviously non-independent sources, trivial mentions, and routine transactional coverage despite being shown/told over and over and over that these do not count toward GNG. His assertions of the nom being lazy and not doing BEFORE are completely baseless and stupendously ironic given the garbage sources (like the one on Yair's brother) that he put forth.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Independiente Santa Fe 1	interview with club website		4 sentences of routine background	✘ No
Independiente Santa Fe 2			1 sentence on transaction	✘ No
El Pais			1 sentence on transaction	✘ No
Soy del Vinotinto y Oro blog	? who knows	it's a BLOG	Q&A interview with 4 questions	✘ No
Caracol			brief mention in transaction report	✘ No
Futbol Red			at best, 4 sentences on him in the context of he and his brother both having scored for ISF	✘ No
Columbia.com			despite the title, this routine transactional coverage is on his brother	✘ No
GE Globo			something like 2 sentences on him, the rest being quotes and the interviewer's background on Ronaldo and Dentinho	✘ 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}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although several editors, not least the nominator, withdrew their view to delete the article, not everyone did, so further discussion is required. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly he has made 200+ appearances in a fully pro league, secondly, I found 1 and 2 more sources about him besides the ones @Ortizesp: found. Thirdly, he has a Spanish Wikipedia page and is probably known in Colombia. Lastly, even the nominator withdrew his deletion nomination. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Appearances in pro leagues mean literally nothing as that metric was deprecated specifically because it was such a terrible predictor of notability. 2. BeSoccer has zero info on their authors (author?) so cannot be considered reliable, and anyway that one is an interview with little secondary commentary so it fails independent SIGCOV as well. The Antenna2 article similarly cannot be verified, and also contains strictly injury reporting, which has long been classed as routine coverage for sportspeople. 3. It doesn't matter whether he has an es wiki page, other editions have different notability criteria. 4. The nom withdrew without understanding the outrageously poor quality of the sources, and should reconsider that decision. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew based on the fact that I wouldn't have nominated if I had seen those sources in the first place. In a WP:BEFORE search, I found literally nothing. Merko (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But @Merko, none of those sources can even partially contribute to notability due to not being independent, not being reliable, not containing SIGCOV, or not even being about Yair. WP:NSPORT explicitly requires coverage beyond routine match reports, and GNG requires coverage that is direct and in detail -- which four sentences on him and his brother cannot fulfill. JoelleJay (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? Based on what evidence?4meter4 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source table by JoelleJay that clearly shows that there is not enough SIGCOV and therefore NSPORT has not been met --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Arrechea was a mainstay in the defense of several top-flight Colombian football clubs during the internet era, so I would expect that we could find SIGCOV. That said, there are literally hundreds of match reports, previews, and miscellaneous trivial coverage in Spanish-language sources. I searched Ibagué-based El Nuevo Día's archives (where Arrechea played for many years), and could only find one article that could be SIGCOV (although it's really more about the team's defense - of which he was a key component). I worry that we haven't done the work collectively to determine if the GNG can be met (the sources evaluated in the table above are not a good sampling of what's available online), but it's proving more difficult for me than expected. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this blogpost that approaches SIGCOV (at least in the section on Arrechea). It's from a blog run by a Deportivo Pasto supporter, which normally wouldn't count towards the GNG, but based on the content at the website, they appear to have some expertise in Colombian football (as opposed to simply being a fanboy). Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - His hometown paper (well, same Department), El Nuevo Liberal doesn't appear to dedicate much ink to his recent footballing exploits (perhaps if we could access the newspaper's earlier archives, there would be more). I could only find snippets like [24] and [25]. Jogurney (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I appreciate the work you've put in here and hope you do find something. The blog is definitely out -- strictly forbidden for BLPs. The other source is certainly the best we've gotten so far, though still only a few sentences on him specifically. My own searches earlier also came up empty apart from the numerous routine mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This article is about a top Colombian footballer during the 2010s, who was even called up to his national team. There are so many mentions of him in match reports (I know it's routine coverage, but there is a book's worth of it), and a few articles that rise to a level that is either SIGCOV or preciously close ([26], [27] - behind a paywall, but not your average match preview, and [28] get me there). I think there's just enough to suggest the GNG can be passed if we had better access to Colombian newspaper archives that date back to the late 2000s and early 2010s (unfortunately, I don't). Jogurney (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I would not agree the interviews in El Tiempo, El Nuevo Dia, and El Espectador approach SIGCOV. Quotes from the subject never contribute to GNG, and removing those we're left with just one complete sentence about him in the first, roughly two sentences in the second, and two-ish in the third. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in a professional league and called up for a national team, generally considered notable. I think the sources found by others are enough to satisfy GNG Hzh (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Played in a professional league and called up for a national team, generally considered notable. " Try again. WP:NFOOTBALL is no more. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234 Well, apparently if enough keep !voters make these arguments, NFOOTY is resurrected and becomes DRV-proof, so I can see why editors would continue to make such arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to speak for Hzh, but I didn't see any mention of NFOOTBALL in their !vote rationale. Instead, they said the article satisfies the GNG (it's close of course, but I concur). I suspect they mentioned the national team call-up and professional career for similar reasons to my own (it illustrates that this article isn't one of thousands about marginal or journeyman footballers who rarely turn out for their clubs, instead this one concerns a notable footballer with achievements beyond those of a marginal or even regular squad member). Jogurney (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. John Yunshire (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Ortizesp.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After 15 years, this thing is still barely a stub. The Keep arguments do not hold up. If they did, somebody would have said something else about this person by now. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the current state of the article matters. We've identified some sources here that can be used to expand it significantly, but I don't plan to do so if the consensus is to delete (which isn't apparent to me yet). Jogurney (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'm not seeing the required significant coverage in the sources that have been presented. Alvaldi (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 12:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time4learning[edit]

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

Not much substantial converage. Non-notable company. Mooonswimmer 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a bit of external coverage, being used by over 175,000 students as per source, and clearly receiving attention. I would claim the website definitely passes notability. Spiralwidget (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four of the citations are passing mentions of the company as a source of a minor statistic or claim. The best source is the Florida Trend item, which is three very short paragraphs that read like a press release. Not enough coverage to establish notability. - Donald Albury 17:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some minor coverage, nothing here that meets WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If I Can't Have Love, I Want Power. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Asked for This[edit]

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

This song is not notable per WP:NSONGS - it did not receive coverage independent of its parent album that would warrant enough information to create a full page. A lot of the information is not about the song itself and there's some dubious unsourced information about media based adds. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than press-releases, no sources found. I don't think the song "impacted" as the article suggests. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's a viable search term - a promo song of sorts from a popular album - but it doesn't appear to pass NSONGS on its own, and as is, there's very little prose anyways. (I've even trimmed some, as it seems to veer off-topic as a means to mask what little there is to be said.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to If I Can't Have Love, I Want Power. Minor hit w/ little coverage per WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing my nomination per the comments below. Thank you @Xx236: & @Spinningspark:. (non-admin closure) Khgk (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bänziger[edit]

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

Bänziger is not a popular surname. Only two articles found with this name Khgk (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Khgk (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One person with the name would be sufficient for a list article; two is more than sufficient. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There exist thousands of such articles. There are articles listing one person or two members of a small family. Let's move this discussion to an another place - do we accept 'surname' articles under certain limit? What is the limit? 2, 5, 20 notable people? 1000, 10,000 people with such surname, Surnames from lists of popular surnames?Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be kept in any case, perhaps as a disambiguation. Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NNAME. SpinningSpark 17:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Sandstein 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Assembly Committee on Local Bodies[edit]

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

Although state assemblies are notable, I don’t believe that individual committees of state assemblies are. Does not pass WP:BRANCH. Mccapra (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Punjab. Mccapra (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created it. The State Assembly committees are notable and serve an important function that need to be discussed somewhere along with the membership. These pages also help to look up the other members of the committee and the party they belong to. They are linked from the Biographies of the MLAs if the reader is interested to know the specific function of the particular committee.[29][30][31] This page can be considered as content forks of Assembly page Punjab Legislative Assembly and 15th_Punjab_Assembly#Committees, 16th Punjab Assembly for better organization and historical purpose. At worst they all will need to be merged to the parent page, where they will be less organized and will be harder to navigate in comparison to keeping the committee in their own fork pages. Venkat TL (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All assemblies have committees. Without sources showing how this particular one stands out or has otherwise been involved in significant matters, this one looks just like all the others (looking at other pages in the category, a group nom would probably have done better service here) and is a case of WP:NOTCATALOG and of failing WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, an editor has expressed concern Special:Diff/1093448438/1093456027 that the above !vote may not be in good faith. I believe this !vote is to spite me (creator of this page), as some kind of retaliation for my keep votes in recent bunch of Indian Singers Afd nominated by RandomCanadian.--Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly, which only has a name check mention in a table. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Unclear if the committee is independently notable to warrant a stand alone article. Regardless, the content can be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was AfDed within 3 hrs of creation and has since been considerably expanded. Since this is a valid WP:CFORK of Punjab Legislative Assembly it can possibly be merged there. But how will the previous year chairpersons and members be accommodated there? There are multiple committees over multiple years and all are linked from the article Punjab Legislative Assembly. For the sake of better organization of the Punjab Legislative Assembly page I still suggest that these CFORKs be allowed to stay on separate pages. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think listing the committee members has any encyclopedic utility, tbh. The committee members change every year, each legislator can be part of multiple committees, and the legislature has multiple such committees. And we are only talking about one state legislature, there are 29 other state/UT legislatures in India with similar structure. These committees are dynamic and bureaucratic in nature, so it's borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list all those. Therefore, it can be discussed in brief as a section in the main article without the member listings. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Committees are the entities through with the Assemblies in India function. They are extremely vital. I believe both the committee functions and its membership has an encyclopedic value for the reader checking the Politician Bio or the Assembly page. Certain committee assignments are more valued due to bigger clout and power. Almost all the laws go through the committees. They are formed annually. To give you the analogy, What cabinets are for the Executive, the same Committees are for the legislature and Benches are for Judiciary. Venkat TL (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ab207. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Does not need to be an standalone article Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly per Northamerica1000, and Ab207. The committee itself is not notable, and notability is not inherited. Also, size of content/article has nothing to do with notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have run into a similar problem in the context of a different subnational legislature, the Illinois General Assembly: committees and their memberships/chairmanships are significant for many reasons, but the committees as such don't get a lot of dedicated coverage in independent reliable sources. So what I have been doing so far is to have, in the article for each legislative session, a list of members that includes each member's committee roles. (Random example: 93rd Illinois General Assembly#State Senators). So that could be one way to structure this valuable information without running into any WP:N problems. (Another possible alternative would be, in the article for a particular legislative session, to have a "Committees" section that would hold this information, separate from the list of members.) I've also noticed that in some cases, information on a particular legislator's committee roles has also been included in that legislator's own article. I have no idea which approach is best for the Punjab Legislative Assembly, but since this is a problem I've also been thinking about, I wanted to share the approach I've been taking. -- Visviva (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I see that for example 16th Punjab Assembly indeed has a Committees section. Although it currently only has a Chairman column, a column for the members of each committee could easily be added. That seems like it might be a good solution here: the general information in the article lede could be merged into the main Punjab Legislative Assembly article, and membership information for each session could be presented in the respective session article. -- Visviva (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Visviva thanks for sharing and elaborating your valuable experience. Glad to see a deep thought on how to better resolve this Afd. I may be wrong, but I believe the US legislators are elected for 2 yr tenure in which they are selected into committee assignments of 2 yr tenure. I know the fact that in India the legislators are elected for 5 yr tenure in which they have committee assignments every year, they may or may not remain in the same committee. So adding them into the table list of legislators like you did for 93rd Illinois General Assembly#State_Senators will not be practical, it will be a mess. Hence the committee assignments should have their own table for ease of reading and better organisation of data. Yes a legislators committee assignments need to be listed on his bio as it is relevant encyclopedic information. Who all were his co-members is also encyclopedic and we are assessing where to best put that information.

About your followup comment, putting the functions of the committee on one page and then discussing the membership on multiple session pages is forcing the reader to make multiple clicks and it is likely that they may miss some information. It is precisely because of all these reasons, that I believe the individual committees should be allowed to have their own page, regardless of the fact that the Assembly page and the Assembly session page has some bits of information about the committees that is relevant to those pages. I see several merge votes above who may have not given a thought at how the article would appear when they are merged.

I am looking at it this way, we have election articles that give the information about constituency results in that election, yet we have different standalone constituency pages to provide the election results spread over multiple years. In the same way the Assembly sessions page, sure can have the information about the committees of that session, but we should have standalone pages that have 4 important info (1) functions (2) history (3) membership current and historical (4) Major work done by the committee. In my opinion this information is best served to the reader on a separate standalone article rather than merging some bits of it here and some bits there. WP:CFORK Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the helpful explanation above, and in particular given that legislators change committee assignments within a session, I can see how this would be a preferred solution. Notability is about whether to have a stand-alone page on a topic, and a good case has been made as to why it is helpful to our encyclopedic purpose to have a stand-alone page in this case, rather than organizing this important information in some other way. -- Visviva (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Fails WP:BRANCH and WP:SIGCOV so keep is not an option under policy. Likewise, the lack of significant coverage means that WP:CFORK doesn't;'t apply in this context. The above argument by Visviva is an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, which is listed in the arguments to avoid at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Kishore Chowdhury[edit]

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

Absolutely no sourcing to this problematic stub. Twice draftified, the Santdas Kathiyababa article (his name as a monk) was duly deleted and this one needs to follow suit. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see lots of refs to him in primary sources (court documents) but only one snippet of secondary. Given his age we would be looking for colonial period written records, and as the first Bengali attorney general of the Calcutta High Court he is pretty certainly notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we can confirm that he held the post, a high court judge qualifies per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I agree that he'd probably be notable if he were a high court judge, but despite an awful lot of searching, I simply can't find any sources that say that. He does appear to have been a lawyer in the Calcutta High Court, but there's no indication that he was ever appointed to the judiciary. This is ultimately a WP:V issue, so I think deletion is our only option. Draftification might be on the table in some circumstances, but despite a year's worth of attempts to create an article for Chowdhury at a number of different titles (see User talk:Srabanta Deb; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santadas Kathiababa (2nd nomination); etc.), no sources have been forthcoming, so I don't think yet another draftification would be productive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Extraordinary Writ: While he was a general attorney who appeared before the High Court, I doubt he was Attorney General to the High Court - see Advocate-General of Bengal. The Justice Chowdhury who served on the High Court from 1912 to 1920 was Sir Ashutosh Chaudhuri.[32] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriots (Greco-Turks)[edit]

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

The two references used in the article pertain to a genetic study from 2017, which found a close genetic affinity between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots overall; there is no mention of any "Greco-Turkish Cypriots" or "Turco-Greek Cypriots". The article violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cyprus. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a misuse of the source. The paper concerned could be mentioned in other existing articles, but that's a different task. SpinningSpark 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Thanks for taking the time to vote. By the way, the aforementioned genetic study is already covered in both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots articles that relate. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claires Court School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Goodness! When I clicked "News" at the top of this discussion, there were so many news articles returned! Here are three off just the first page of results: [33], [34], [35]. There were are many pages of results and many of them appear to be in-depth articles. That's plenty of significant coverage, this article meets WP:GNG quite easily. I didn't bother to click any of the other links, as this subject is so obviously notable just from the news results. Jacona (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing No. 3 High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only source gave a virus warning. Hardly any content. A WP:BEFORE gave mainly listings and social media The Banner talk 12:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some other sources are cited at zh:南京市第三高级中学. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nr. 1 is the school website, nr. 3 a random link to a news website. I have sincere doubt if nr. 2 is independent but certainly not in-depth. Translation. The Banner talk 09:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is a dead link but archived here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "南京市第三高级中学：在这里，陶行知立下了"实"字校训" [Nanjing No. 3 High School: Here, Tao Xingzhi established the school motto of "true"]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). 2012-03-29. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Hexun [zh].
  The article extensively profiles the school. The article's title refers to the educator and reformer Tao Xingzhi. The article notes: "110 years is a long period of time. From the advanced educational ideas cultivated by the old principal, Mr. Tao Xingzhi, to the characteristic road of running a school adhered to by the New Century School, the people of Sanzhong have been striving for it; 110 years is a young life, whether it is 2004 Since 2007, the college entrance examination results have been awarded the highest in the city for 8 consecutive years. It was also the first time in 2007 that students and American astronauts "dialogue between heaven and earth" attracted worldwide attention. Nanjing No. 3 Middle School has bloomed again and again."
2. Ma, Xiaoqian 马晓倩, ed. (2012-10-29). "南京三中110周年校庆陶行知曾亲任7年校长" [The 110th anniversary celebration of Nanjing No. 3 High School. Tao Xingzhi once served as the principal for 7 years] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Sohu.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "On the 28th, Nanjing No. 3 Middle School ushered in its 110th anniversary celebration. ... Nanjing No. 3 Senior High School (referred to as Nanjing No. 3 High School) was established in 1902, and established the "Jiangning House Shangyuan County Higher Primary School" on the official residence of the former Zhongwang Li Xiucheng. It is equivalent to the school for the children of the officials of Shangyuan County, which is the predecessor of Nanjing No. 3 Senior High School. Since then, the school has changed its name several times, and in 1939 it was renamed the private Zhengshi Middle School. In 1946, it was renamed the Municipal Third Middle School. In 2004, it was renamed Nanjing No. 3 Senior High School."
3. "南京三中六中合并成"新三中"" [Nanjing No. 3 High School and No. Six High School merged into "New Three High School"]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). 2011-04-30. Archived from the original on 2019-01-21. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Phoenix Television.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Yesterday, the Education Bureau of Baixia District, Nanjing held a press conference announcing that Nanjing No. 3 Middle School and Nanjing No. 6 Middle School will be officially merged into the "New No. 3 Middle School". The integrated school name is "Nanjing No. 3 Senior High School", and the school emblem and school motto are the school emblem and school motto of Anhui Public School "Shi" written by Mr. Tao Xingzhi, which is still used by the sixth middle school. After the integration, Nanjing No. 3 Middle School's general high school enrollment plan this year will remain unchanged, but it will increase the program for about 100 art students."
4. Zheng, Jinming 郑晋鸣 (2007-08-27). "评论：从学生与宇航员天地对话看南京素质教育" [Comment: Looking at quality education in Nanjing from the dialogue between students and astronauts]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The amateur radio station of Nanjing No. 3 Middle School was established in 1992. In recent years, the amateur radio station of the school has won the championship six times in the national and Jiangsu Province Youth Amateur Radio Championships, and has maintained cooperation with more than 100 countries and regions in the world and more than 20,000 radio stations. connect."
5. Su, Su 苏涛; Liuy, Ying 刘颖 (2012-12-18). "模拟应急演练初中生5分钟架好短波电台" [Simulated emergency drill, junior high school students set up shortwave radio in 5 minutes]. 龙虎网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The Nanjing No. 3 High School Amateur Radio is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year and is applying to become a special radio station for the 2014 Nanjing Youth Olympic Games. At that time, the No. 3 High School Amateur Radio will undertake the work of publicizing the Youth Olympics and releasing news about the Youth Olympics. Youth Olympic athletes can also pass through the Third High School. radio to communicate with radio stations around the world."
6. "中国学生与空间站宇航员首次天地对话(图)" [Chinese students and space station astronauts have the first world-to-earth dialogue (photo)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2007-08-26. Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "At 18:50 on 26 August, Beijing time, 20 Chinese students had a conversation with American astronauts on the International Space Station through amateur radio at Nanjing No. 3 High School. The entire conversation lasted 9 minutes and 44 seconds, and 20 Chinese students asked 20 questions, which were answered instantly by the astronauts. This is the first time for Chinese middle school students (including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) to communicate directly with astronauts on the International Space Station through the school's amateur radio station, which is a milestone. ... and got an answer from American astronaut Clayton Anderson ... Afterwards, 19 other primary and secondary school students from Nanjing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong in China also successfully asked the astronauts questions through Nanjing No. 3 High School amateur radio station BY4RRR, and got answers immediately."
7. Chen, Chang-e 陈昌娥, ed. (2007-08-25). "中国学生将对话空间站问能从空间站看到长城吗" [Chinese students will talk to the space station and ask if they can see the Great Wall from the space station]. Oriental Morning Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via CCTV.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "This "Heaven and Earth Dialogue" will be the first time for Chinese students to communicate directly with astronauts on the International Space Station through the school's amateur radio station. "It is not easy to successfully apply for this dialogue opportunity." Wang Long said, "The application must be decided by a roundtable meeting of the member states of the 'International Space Station Amateur Radio Communication Program'. Nanjing No. 3 Middle School issued the application in June 2006 and finally won pass." Subsequently, Nanjing No. 3 Middle School selected 20 questions and 20 students who met the dialogue requirements through online voting. The selected students are required to be fluent in English, and their questions must be scientific and actionable."
8. Qian, Hongyan 钱红艳 (2011-10-19). "传承百年历史，建设现代名校" [Inheriting a century of history and building a modern famous school]. Nanjing Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Phoenix Television.
  The article notes from Google Translate: ""The new third middle school is a merger of two century-old schools, of which the original sixth middle school was founded in 1904. From 1923 to 1929, Mr. Tao Xingzhi, a people's educator, served as the principal, and during this period, the idea of Xingzhi education was basically formed. The original No. 3 Middle School was built in 1902 and has always been an advanced school for learning Tao Shi Tao. After the merger of the two schools, the New No. 3 Middle School will carry forward the spirit of running a school with knowledge and continuously promote the connotative development of the school." Lu Tianzong, the principal of New No. 3 Middle School Say. [discussion about the amateur radio station of Nanjing No. 3 High School and the International Space Station conversation]."
9. Liu, Jing 刘静; Liu, Ying 刘颖 (2019-06-01). Zhang, Hong 张红 (ed.). "刚刚，南京这三大热门高中最新招生信息发布！"数学帝"葛军现场答疑" [Just now, the latest enrollment information for these three popular high schools in Nanjing has been released! "Math Emperor" Ge Jun answers questions on the spot]. Xinhua Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Due to the adjustment of education layout, Nanjing No. 3 High School has stopped enrolling students from 2019, and the art classes of No. 3 High School have been integrated into No. 5 Middle School. The art teaching of No. 3 High School has always been well-received by students and parents because of its excellent teaching team and outstanding teaching quality. ... Many of the teachers in the art specialty class are experts in the Jiangsu Province art major unified examination proposition group and grading group. In recent years, the acceptance rate of art undergraduates has reached more than 95%. In 2018, 100% of the high school art class in the Jiangsu Province art major unified examination passed; professional grades."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nanjing No. 3 High School (simplified Chinese: 南京市第三高级中学; traditional Chinese: 南京市第三高級中學, also known as Chinese: 南京三中) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources provided above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reminds me why I rarely join discussions about deleting articles in countries where I don't speak the language. I don't have the competency that Cunard has demonstrated in finding these sources. If I had followed my first inclination and voted for deletion, it would not have been a reflection of the notability of the subject, but of my implicit WP:BIAS in favor of my search skills. Many thanks to those willing to go the extra mile and find sources for these articles! The sources provided by Cunard demonstrate the significant coverage necessary to pass the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beveridge (diver)[edit]

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

This article lacks any sources, and my search of google and google books turned up no addtional sources about this person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any coverage of Beveridge. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search in Google books for "Peter Beveridge 1899" turned up a book called "The Guv'nors: Ten of Scotland Yard's Greatest Detectives" which includes a chapter on a Peter Beveridge. Our page lists Beveridge's date of birth as "25 June 1899" but the book has Beveridge as being born "26 June 1899", so an argument could be made that this is a different Peter Beveridge. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any evidence that that Beveridge was involved in sporting competition as described in this article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like it may well be the same bloke.[36] Same middle initial (that's confirmed by mentions of the diver in The Times as P H Beveridge). If so, he's probably notable as there seems to be plenty of coverage in print sources and he commanded the Flying Squad at the time of the Great Train Robbery. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keep if the page is about the Met Police officer but I can't find any reference to him being a diver, there was a diver that I found in the British Newspaper Archive who seems to have done diving shows in the late 1930s. The Police Officer was Peter Henderson Beveridge, born 25 June 1899 in Scotland and died 6 Jan 1977 in Scotland. He was awarded an MBE in 1947. There's an image of his gravestone on FindAGrave. An obituary in the Reading Evening Post described him as a "crack Scotland Yard detective" who was involved in a number of high-profile murder cases. Piecesofuk (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [37] may be a WP:GNG-point if it's the same man.
- I think we need to figure out two things. A-was the police person involved in diving? 2-if he was, I think we should still probably rename the article because his diving is not the main source of his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I think we have enough evidence to show this is the same person as the police officer being covered, and I think we have enough evidence to show that that officer was notable. We probably should add some of these sources and rename the article to better reflect what he was notable for, but those are matters beyond the scope of AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Christian School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mainly listings available, no in-depth sources The Banner talk 11:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's this and this, which not only have coverage in print, but also on television. And that was just on the first page of the google search (which admittedly is difficult, since there are several schools with this name, e.g. in TN and FL). Also, on Newspapers.com, there's quite a bit of coverage, like, this, this half-page piece, this, this, this, this, plus a plethora more in-depth coverage of their sports teams. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the article that has to prove notability, not AfD. The Banner talk 20:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of those sources seem to be within the last few years and I think some wider ranging WP:SIGCOV would help here. I'll take a look too and see what I can find, but just sources from 2018 onwards may not cut it (the school was seemingly founded over 20 years before 2018). The nominator's response above is also baffling and questions understanding of afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I have too often seen remarks like "article can be improved by normal editing", followed by absolutely no action at all. So by now I am sceptic about promises to improve. The Banner talk 22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then [[WP:SOFIXIT|improve the articles yourself] instead of trying to foist the job off on others. WP:NEXIST is a guideline describing policy: the current state of the article is not the reason an article fails WP:N. If the sources exist it is notable even if they aren’t yet in the article. Jacona (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer to improve the article, Jacona. The Banner talk 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, maybe either restructure and recreate as list, or rename to region specific title. I have searched newspapers for this and something which strikes me is that there are a fair few schools by this name across various states (California, Tennessee, Idaho, Indiana etc) yet just one of them in a single state seems to have an article, at the primary article title. I don't think we can reasonably say this particular school in Idaho is more notable than the others, yet collectively there may be a notability case. Perhaps this article should be a list of the various schools by this name, maybe with brief info about some, as there are sources to be found on many yet I can't say there is one that is more notable over the others. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Onel5969 are sufficient significant coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time to satisfy the general notability guideline. I placed a few in the article.Jacona (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. ajay prakash[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, minor politician (not a member of an assembly, but a member of party committees only, as far as I can tell) Fram (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Fram (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Fails WP:NPOL. --Baggaet (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He co-owns a massage clinic or something of the sort. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~Snow Delete per WP:AVALANCHE. Per nom. ~~and WP:A7.~~, thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPOL, as well as WP:GNG. Let the AfD run its course for posterity — WP:G4. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOL as unelected politician article. Promoting the subject. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing stated here is an "inherent" notability claim that would guarantee him automatic inclusion in Wikipedia, and absolutely none of the sourcing is WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that would build a case for his passage of any of our conditional inclusion tests either. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eurovision Song Contest 1957. ✗plicit 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paule Desjardins[edit]

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

Very little information about the subject appear to be available. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and the subject falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1957. Nearly every search result using the "find sources" tool above is related to their Eurovision appearance, which is covered in greater detail in that article. The target also includes additional context. Appears to be a WP:ONEEVENT subject. Grk1011 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1957, in complete agreement with the nominator and previous voter. Unless someone can find dedicated coverage of the singer in old hardcopy sources, this does not pass the WP:ONEEVENT hurdle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. All I can find are videos of the performance and a record track list. She had a memorable second place finish apparently, but nothing else shows that. Even in French the sources are thin... Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eurovision Song Contest 1956. ✗plicit 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mony Marc[edit]

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

Very little information about the subject appear to be available. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and the subject falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1956. Nearly every search result using the "find sources" tool above is related to their Eurovision appearance. Appears to be a WP:ONEEVENT subject. Grk1011 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1956. Unless someone can find dedicated coverage of the singer in old hardcopy sources, there is nothing to be found about her except brief listings of her presence at the 1956 event. Does not pass WP:ONEEVENT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Turner[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, only passing mentions or posts from related sources (like "Black and Red United"). Prod was removed because he "meets WP:NFOOTBALL", but NFOOTBALL is no longer an accepted guideline, players need to show significant coverage, not just having played. Fram (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Virginia. Fram (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; even if he meets WP:NFOOTBALL as a current guideline, all sections under basic criteria are suggestions regarding sourcing, not a bright line. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the level of coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mayor Max II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Max I[edit]

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

I redirected this to Mayor Max II for lack of notability, but was reverted because somehow the "official" mayor max site establishes that notability. While "2" got probably enough attention to warrant an article, I don't see the same for "1" and a mention or short paragraph in the "2" article seems sufficient, so I again propose redirecting this. Fram (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Politics, and California. Fram (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note sourcing for Max I in articles [38] and [39]. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, some very local sources exist. The second one is a passing mention, the first one is really about Max. Fram (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the place has no government, so essentially the opening of the article is false. This is a publicity stunt, it has no encyclopedic value. This dog was not a mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayor Max II per nom. Subject is not independently notable per WP:GNG, so a standalone article isn't justified. Sal2100 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Writ. Sandstein 07:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrestandis bonis ne dissipentur[edit]

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

Yet another longstanding dicdef on a legal phrase, which should either be merged into a list of ancient/obsolete writs, or moved to Wiktionary. It should not be a freestanding article. BD2412 T 06:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Glossary of law.~~ These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500: I appreciate what you are aiming for with the Glossary of law, but given that the latest Black's Law Dictionary is well over a thousand pages, I do not think that this is conceptually manageable. Feel free to prove me wrong, though. BD2412 T 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merger of five very short articles into a 15kB list is not in any way comparable to a thousand page book. Our glossary of law has not so far attempted to reproduce the whole of Black's or anything close to that. Howell's glossary, which was been used as the starting point for our glossary, is 51 pages of fairly large and widely spaced type. In any event, we have glossaries with a similar scope and organisation in Category:Wikipedia glossaries. We also have lists with tens or hundreds of thousands of entries. Compared to those, our glossary of law is presently extremely small. Even if, for the sake of argument, we later considered it necessary to remove these five writs from the glossary, I could create a List of writs to house them and other suitable writs. And I would take care of that personally. James500 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just saying that the title, "Glossary of law", is not limited to any specific source, and if it were to end up being a complete collection reflecting that title, it would either be enormous or subdivided into a great many parts. BD2412 T 03:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The glossary is limited by the judgment and discretion of the editor(s) who maintain it. What you refer to as a "complete collection" has not been attempted. I do not understand why you suggest that it might be attempted in the future. I see no reason to worry about hypothetical theoretical imaginary scenarios. James500 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds arbitrary. I would suggest putting some limiting principles in writing to describe what should be included or excluded. BD2412 T 04:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Why are you not concerned about the other glossaries that have a similar scope and similar approach, such as Glossary of agriculture, amongst others? Why are you not concerned that the corresponding article Law does not have "limiting principles in writing"? Are you asking for "limiting principles in writing" that would prevent the merger of the five articles you have nominated? James500 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you don't like the idea of merging these five articles to the glossary, how about merging and redirecting them to the article Writ? That article is about 20kB and could easily take the content from these five articles. That article already includes a partial list of writs for the US, and it would be easy enough to add a similar list for England. James500 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It would have to be done in a way (for most of them) that avoids the impression that these are not ancient and obsolete. BD2412 T 13:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        So far as these articles are based on a book from 1728, that can dealt with that by writing the words "As of 1728", or a cognate expression, or by finding a more recent source. (There are better sources available). If you want to say these writs are obsolete, you would need to actually produce a reliable source that shows that these writs are obsolete. Have these writs been abolished by legislation? Is there a binding or persuasive judicial precedent that says they can no longer be used? In the absence of authority, is there a treatise or periodical article etc that expresses doubt that the courts would allow these writs to be used today? I can tell you, for example, that the writ "Auxilium ad filium militem . . . " is said to be abolished by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 (12 Car 2 c 24): [40]. Desuetude is often said to be unknown to English law. Conversely, I see no evidence that it is automatically applied in English law (if it is applied at all). Sources discussing this include, for example, [41] [42][43] [44].Ashford v Thornton would be an extreme example of the failure of English law to apply desuetude. Another example is the following source specifically dealing with (and denying) the alleged obsolesence of the writ ne exeat regno: [45]. James500 (talk) 23:04, 8 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!} 06:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Writ per above. This, as a dicdef without sufficient context (what does it mean? what are its implications?) cannot stand on its own, but merge-redirecting to the glossary might be unsustainable. Writ is fine, as per the def, it's a subcategory. That said, I do think that we need some better guidance/notability criteria on how to handle dicdefs; I think that, sooner or later, we're going to end up either with a lot of redirects or a lot of unbalanced merges. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Writ.4meter4 (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Writ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atturnato faciendo vel recipiendo[edit]

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

Another longstanding dicdef on a legal phrase, that should either be merged into a list of ancient/obsolete writs, or moved to Wiktionary. It does not belong here as a freestanding article. BD2412 T 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Glossary of law.~~ These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:07, 8 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!} 06:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Writ per [46]; class of identical AfDs. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Writ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auxilium ad filium militem faciendum et filiam maritandam[edit]

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

Another longstanding dicdef. Perhaps several of these can be merged together into a list of ancient/defunct writs, or moved to Wiktionary. This is not encyclopedia material, however. BD2412 T 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best 09:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Alexandermcnabb (talk)
~~Merge and redirect to Glossary of law.~~ These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:08, 8 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!} 06:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Writ per [47]; class of identical AfDs. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Writ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arresto facto super bonis mercatorum alienigenorum[edit]

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

Another longstanding dicdef for a legal term. If not deleted, this should be merged somewhere or moved to Wiktionary. BD2412 T 05:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 05:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best 09:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Alexandermcnabb (talk)
~~Merge and redirect to Glossary of law.~~ These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:10, 8 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!} 06:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Writ per [48]; class of identical AfDs. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even sure a redirect is needed, it's an old Latin phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A writ is not a phrase. A writ is a document. It is a physical object. This is a photograph that shows an example of what a medieval writ looked like. This and this are photographs of eighteenth century writs. As you can see, these documents do not consist of their name alone. They consist of a set of detailed instructions about who is to appear at what court and what they are to do when they appear. Before 1833, the choice of writ was extremely important, because everything else depended on it: [49] [50] [51]. James500 (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Writ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrestando ipsum qui pecuniam recepit[edit]

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

For over fifteen years, this has been nothing more than a dicdef. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere (I can't think of where, offhand) or moved to Wiktionary, but it is not something that belongs here. BD2412 T 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Glossary of law.~~ These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:11, 8 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!} 06:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Writ per [52]; class of identical AfDs. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Presence[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No notable awards, some coverage in Farsi [53] (primary source?) and [54] KH-1 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. KH-1 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the only English-language review of the film I can find is at https://asianmoviepulse.com/2020/11/documentary-review-khatemeh-2020-by-hadi-zarei-and-mehdi-zarei/. Not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source; they do promote some film distribution / production sponsors on the site although I don't necessarily know if this film is one such example. /wiae /tlk 12:13, 8 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!} 06:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Birt[edit]

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

Promotional article. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bands and musicians. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought that it might pass basic criteria despite not meeting NMUSIC or NAUTHOR, as these are guidelines, not bright lines, but we have issues with sourcing. First, I can't find reliable significant independent coverage in my WP:BEFORE checks. Second, the majority of sourcing in the article is either not independent (1, 3, 11), not significant (5-7, 12-14, 16), not reliable (6, 10), or unverifiable due to link rot (all remainder but 2). Source 2 is a short bio in a local news outlet, which might fulfill appropriate criteria, but we need multiple such sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does a lot of things but that does not add up to Wikipedia's notability standards. He is a published author whose works can be found in list form at the usual retail sites (e.g. [55]) and an occasional brief review ([56]); he is also a musician whose works can be found in the usual directories (e.g. [57]). The thing is, he hasn't gotten beyond basic lists, and no independent media source has ever covered his career in detail. His regular appearances at various geek conventions are only ever reported within those esoteric communities. For his professional work in therapy, he has a resume, but then so do I and I don't get a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ogden Newspapers#Colorado. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Daily News[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. References are from the subject's own website. No WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Denver Post or Ogden Newspapers#Colorado. No independent sourcing to establish notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ogden Newspapers#Colorado per nom; also can't find sources despite filtered searches. Closest thing found is a press release. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Life Mein Uski Wife[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub about a non-notable film. Search finds nothing that would come even close to RS sigcov. Moved back to drafts a few times, but instead of adding sources, contributors just move it straight back, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no good online sources under either the Hindi or Bengali names. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen Smeins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. JTtheOG (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would not seem to have played at a high enough level which would normally be needed to meet notability requirements and there does not appear to be anything else (such as substantial coverage) that would suggest notability for other reasons as far as I can see. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Prentice[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV from third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmackJam (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mollydooker Wines[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:NCORP based on the minimal level of coverage I located. Disregarding the primary sourcing, all we're left with here is lists of wines, which don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of the company. I found nothing more substantive on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies, and Australia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Meets WP:NCORP given it's wine rankings. With very little effort I was able to find multiple RSs and have added them to the page. ~~Nom: I'm not sure what your search involved but it was evidently insufficient: please be mindful of performing proper BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion~~. Cabrils (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking (see below).

Scolding people who have 110K+ edits and 15 years experience on you is a bad look. Assume good faith. valereee (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Valereee. I actually did perform a BEFORE check, but for whatever reason, I did not locate the sources that Cabrils cited. Given that many of them appear to be offline (otherwise why not provide links?), I'm not sure how you found them nor how I would have been supposed to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC: I do hope I did not offend, that was not at all my intent (and my history in AfD discussions would evidence this). I think my comment is self explanatory. I used WikiLibrary, and a public state library online access~~; both of which someone of your experience would have access to~~. Again, I do very much appreciate your experience here and my comments are made neutrally. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabrils, linking would help. Also your intent isn't actually the only or even most important thing. There's also your impact. Your statement "both of which someone of your experience would have access to" is problematic. This time I'll say both Assume Good Faith and Don't Be A Jerk. If you don't understand why this is problematic, ping me to your user talk, it's not productive to have this discussion further here. valereee (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee: I appreciate your comment and am aware of PMC's vast experience (including as an admin), but with respect my observation was not "scolding", rather an entirely neutral point of fact. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils, sorry, where are you seeing wine rankings coming in at NCORP? Sorry, searched under both wine and rankings, I'm probably just missing which section you were referencing? valereee (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read NCORP 2.7 Product Reviews to include wine reviews. I note the links to Wine Spectator are behind paywalls however so I was unable to verify the substance (although it would seem uncontroversial) so I'm hoping to find something to bolster those statements. Cabrils (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I totally agree with Cabrils. Mollydooker Wines is notable. --Bduke (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone find links to these pertinent offline sources? They're the ones that really are the claim to notability. valereee (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I just posted above to PMC, I used WikiLibrary, and a public state library online access~~; both of which someone of your experience would have access to~~. Also, this online article that I've added covers a lot of the ground. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'd urge you to reconsider your approach. Also to add the links. valereee (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I'm not sure what approach you're suggesting I reconsider? I'm putting forward a valid point, supported by evidence, in a polite and respectful way, urging editors to be mindful of procedures.

The links to the offline articles are to URLs behind proxy databases that are not acceptable to the wiki template. I'm not sure what you are suggesting? Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither polite nor respectful to make snarky remarks, which "both of which someone of your experience would have access to" is, and if you didn't intend it to be snarky, that's a sign of your inexperience. The people you are talking to have literally years and tens of thousands of edits of experience more than you do. They can be expected to know policy basics, which this is. Basics. This is 2+2=4. You don't need to teach grandma to suck eggs. Just be cool, dude. Again, if you don't understand this, ping me to your talk. valereee (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee kindly and patiently explained to me in more detail the issue and I've removed my comment above. Again, apologies and no offense intended. Cabrils (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts and I have pinged you on my Talk page as you suggest. Again, I intended no offense (and find it hard to see how my comment could be read that way, as I explain on my talk page) and absolutely acknowledge both your and PMC's vast experience. I simply made that point to evidence that what I have added was legitimate and you would be in a position to verify it. Less experienced reviewers may also benefit from this. Again, please see my history of constructive and helpful submissions to these discussions, including numerous amendments to nominated pages where appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now added more online and offline RSs, and removed the references to the dead links (and others behind the unverifiable paywall) at Wine Spectator. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabrils, you don't have to remove sources simply because they're not online or are behind a paywall or are otherwise difficult to access! If they're reliable sources, leave them, and maybe someone else will come along later and be able to add a link. The reason we were asking for links is that very commonly there is a way to find some sort of link, even if it's at wayback or behind a paywall, and links are generally helpful at AfD in assessing sources. valereee (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. Therefore, as per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability and we need multiple, therefore minimum of two - of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is jut as important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND.

Looking at the references and excluding PRIMARY sources and obvious PR/Announcements, here's what I think:

Chron prints an interview originally from the Houston Chronicle based entirely on an interview with Sparky Marquis (the owner) and fails ORGIND.
I've read the Atlanta Journal article "Why Aussies shake the wine" is written by a wine critic. He recounts how the topic company recommends that, because they add nitrogen to their wines, a vigorous shaking of the wine in the bottle is recommended before drinking to remove the nitrogen. The writer is skeptical, follows the advice, doesn't notice a lot of difference and so still skeptical. There's a canned description of the topic company but little else, fails CORPDEPTH
Profile on Wine Searcher has a canned description of the topic company but this is neither deep nor significant, it confirms the topic company exists and little else, fails CORPDEPTH
I've read the article "Deal to open cellar doors for exports" printed in The Australian. It has a couple of sentences - one where it says "Wine Spectator" has listed Mollydooker wines 8 times in its top 100 and ranked its "Carnival of Love" shiraz a record three times in its top 10 Wines of the World. Another where it provides a statistic that they produce 90,000 cases per year (unsure if this is correct because another article says it was this number for 2018, yet another (the "Glass Half Full" article says for 2019). For me, this is a little more than a mention-in-passing but not enough for CORPDEPTH
This from Wine Spectator details how Sarah has taken over the winery. Starting at paragraph 7, we can see that this article was based on an interview with the magazine. Fails ORGIND.
I am unable to locate a copy of "Shake for best result" in the Sydney Morning Herald. Perhaps someone can let me know whether this is good for establishing notability?
[telstrabestofbusinessawards.com/about/our-legacy/mollydooker-wines Telstra Best of Business Award] - not regarded as a significant award for the purposes of establishing notability, clearly the information/profile was provided by the company, fails ORGIND
I've read the "Mollydooker wines toasts telstra award: article and it doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, just a news mention about being nominated. Fails CORPDEPTH
"Glass half full for left-handed lady of wine" article relies entirely on an interview and information provided by the company. Fails ORGIND

None of the references meet NCORP criteria, there's either no in-depth information on the company (just mentions of the name or a focus on one of their brands, etc) or it has great information but it comes from an announcement or (more likely) an interview. If the topic company was notable, somebody would write about it without needing an interview or a news-event in order to comment. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are the Telstra Business Awards "not regarded as a significant award for the purposes of establishing notability"? And just for clarity, are you suggesting that interviews per se fail WP:ORGIND? Cabrils (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not significant for the purposes of establishing notability for a number of reasons. They're self-described as follows: The Telstra Best of Business Awards were created to give small to medium-sized businesses a platform to celebrate achievements and stories with their peers, and opportunities to learn from Australia's best business minds. Sounds fun. But the biggest reason is that each year there are multiple "winners" in each category. In 2019, the year this topic company "won" an award, there were 170 "finalists" and over 32 "winners". These types of national awards with multiple national winners across multiple categories are not notable. There might be an argument that an "overall champion winner" from each year is notable but that isn't the case with the topic company.

For clarity, if an article "relies entirely" an interview, effectively reprinting an interview, it is effectively a PRIMARY source anyway and I don't think there's any argument over sources like those. A popular format is where a writer mixes blocks of text with direct quotes such as the Chron article . For me, I cannot identify anything in that article that meets WP:SIRS, that is "Independent Content" - i.e. content that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company/org (which then meets WP:CORPDEPTH). The reason I point it out in this way is because there might be trivial parts to the article that could arguably be attributable to the journalist but is still no use for establishing notability. For example, you might say that the sentence "Marquis and his partner-in-winemaking wife Sarah aren't big into acid" is the opinion of the journalist, therefore Bingo! we have "Independent Content" and meets ORGIND - but no, that is trivia. Apologies for going into so much detail but often times the simplest is just to step back a little with SIRS in the forefront of your mind and simply read the article to see what the *journalist* (or perhaps a third party the journalist interviewed!) says about the topic company. If you can't find anything significant, it isn't a good source for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for patiently explaining that, and for your thorough assessment above of the refs. It's cogent and I am persuaded. I don't think the page can pass NCORP given that assessment. I've changed my !vote (above). Apologies to PMC for my evidently blunt and misguided wording, and appreciation to valereee. Cabrils (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I tend toward bluntness myself, so no hard feelings :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soeli Fakahafua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 9 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!} 03:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Glenn (American football coach)[edit]

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

fails WP:NCOLLATH Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 03:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If reliable, this is probably SIGCOV as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 7 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!} 03:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the WP:SIGCOV provided by User:BeanieFan11, clearly enough to establish notability per WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG, so expansion of the article is the answer, not deletion. Frank Anchor 14:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sexual orientation. Rereading all of the comments, this redirect has a majority of opinion in favor of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual orientations[edit]

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

My PROD was challenged, so coming over here. I put in the prod Same reason as List of gender identities Prod reason: {{tq|Unreferenced and appears to peter out half way through. . . (proposed by Mean as custard)}} in Special:Diff/1089462404. It was also PROD endorsed by Courtesy ping: TenPoundHammer. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 01:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Sexual identity#Identities. Anything covered in RS and not listed there can be added. The list here is unsourced and includes terms that are not sexual orientations, like "polyamorous", which is a type of relationship and not a sexual orientation any more than "monogamous", and "queer", which is an umbrella term. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer deletion as it seems an implausible search term, but I would also support redirection to another article, preferably Sexual identity#Identities, as a secondary choice. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say the list is useful for someone in our part of the world who don't have much info on this front. Sure references are missing but they can be sourced and added. Amitized (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. While lists aren't explicitly mentioned here, WP:NLIST supports the idea that lists can be kept because they are useful: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how this list could be justified. Not only does it not have reliable sources to support it, but the term "Sexual orientation" means "A person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.". According to Wikipedia's article on sexual orientation: "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.... Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice, whereas sexual orientation is not a choice." (emphasis mine)
Also, according to this list, "Queer" is a sexual orientation -- but it is not. "Queer" is an umbrella term used today for anything that isn't related to heterosexuality and biological male and female humans. "Bicurious" (which is correctly written as "Bi-curious") is not a sexual orientation -- it's a curiosity (otherwise known as being interested in learning about something).
Wikipedia already has an article about Sexual identity, with a bunch of them described and sourced. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Sexual identity#Identities~~Sexual orientation as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sexual identity#Identities. It does seem rather redundant when we already have a page that covers such material with sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual identity has a hatnote that states Not to be confused with sexual orientation or gender identity, so a redirect to that article does not appear to be a reasonable WP:ATD. I suggest a redirect to the Sexual orientation article, to preserve the editing history and so a list with navigational, developmental and/or informational purposes can be created when someone has time to conduct a WP:BEFORE for this notable topic. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the hatnote, it is clear from the text that the concepts are closely related. And really, it's more that this article is mistitled - what is listed here are sexual identities, as evidenced by "gay" and "lesbian" being separate and in addition to "homosexual" when these are all the same sexual orientation (homosexuality). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the article title is List of sexual orientations, it is a notable topic (a basic WP:BEFORE seems to confirm this) and there is a plausible redirect based on the title. It appears to create an original research or at least an accuracy issue to try to redirect a Sexual orientation topic to the Sexual identity article when the Sexual identity article specifically disclaims this. I do not think the unsourced items in the current article should guide what to do with this list, and I think we should use the article title as a guide, and allow further development after there is time for research. Redirecting to the Sexual orientation article could also help guide future development of the list article. For example, when I revised the List of gender identities, I removed unsourced items and added sourced items, and a similar process would appear to be needed here. Beccaynr (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientations and sexual identities are not one and the same. Sexual orientation is inborn. You're born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (with bi presenting in many forms: a little, a lot, infrequently, regularly, with preferences for male or female, without preferences for either sex). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Youth Sexualities: Public Feelings and Contemporary Cultural Politics at 272 "Whereas the list of sexual orientations is long, including graysexual, asexual, scoliosexual, demisexual, pansexual, polysexual, and all of the mentioned prefixes with the suffix "-romantic", the vocabulary for gender...", and there is discussion in the chapter about how various ideas about gender identity can inform the list of sexual orientations. Something similar appears to be discussed here: We're Here and We're Queer: Sexual Orientation and Sexual Fluidity Differences Between Bisexual and Queer Women ("Although early definitions of bisexuality may have been predominantly binary (i.e., attracted to women and men), in recent years there has been a move toward a more “queer” understanding of bisexuality (e.g., attraction to more than one gender beyond women and men).") Similarly, in a chapter of Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law at 117 ("Given the initiative's specific list of sexual orientations that would no longer be covered by the ordinance and the societal assumption that there are only two sexes, it is relatively safe to conclude that the creators of the initiative did not intend this outcome.") Based on my initial WP:BEFORE, this seems to be a clearly notable but obviously complicated topic that should be handled with care; I just do not have the time and focus right now to try to research and develop this list beyond trying to advocate for a redirect that appears to make the most sense based on the article title. But I do think a well-developed introduction could help this list have a navigational, development and informational purpose, including because even based on the previous research from the List of gender identities article, social media companies have been creating such lists, so it appears to be a viable search term. Beccaynr (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Pyxis Solitary's statement. Sahaib (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual orientation. It's trivial to find sources that handle this subject as a grouping, but the status quo is not right for mainspace. I would change my vote to keep if someone put in some WP:HEY. I can find sources about the difference between orientation and identity, but I can also find sources that treat the two as synonymous. As long as we have articles on both and have them defined as different, we shouldn't surprise readers by redirecting them to pages that immediately contradict they link they took to get there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a notable subject but you want it deleted unless it is improved before this AfD closes. What policy justify such a deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it deleted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual orientation. Apart from the sourcing issues some of the terms mentioned are arguably not sexual orientations, or at least aren't described as such in their article (e.g. Queer, Polyamory, Aromantic). Of the ones which are sexual orientations the Sexual orientation discusses all of them in more depth, so the list doesn't add much anyway. Sexual orientation and Sexual identity aren't the same thing, so I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect to Sexual identity. Hut 8.5 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the below comment I think the title is a reasonable search term, which means a redirect is appropriate even if there is no useful edit history. Hut 8.5 18:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without a redirect) per Pyxis's excellent statement. A list of four entries which are discussed at the actual article on the topic is utterly pointless. There is no editing history worthy of preservation of content of salvaging. A redirect would be pointless and ATD doesn't apply. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect as per. scope_creep^Talk 01:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Sexual orientation. TolWol56 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Along with Keep and Delete, a redirect has been strongly suggested, either to Sexual orientation or to Sexual identity#Identities. Is there a strong argument for one redirect over another?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the Sexual orientation article seems supported by the WP:R#ASTONISH guideline, i.e. Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Redirecting to another topic, such as Sexual identity, appears to be contrary to this guideline, including due to the hatnote on the Sexual identity article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual identity#Identities. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual orientation per Beccaynr, Hut 8.5, Scope creep, Firefangledfeathers, and Kvng. Disagree entirely with op, Crossroads, 35.139.154.158, and Pyxis Solitary. Agree in part with Amitized and Maxx-♥. The page should be a redirect, nothing more and nothing less. Deleting it would contribute to existing bias on here and further cause those outside Wikipedia (or even those who edit here) to see Wikipedia as against LGBTQ people, even though it obviously isn't. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cement and its applications[edit]

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

Unsourced article about seemingly insignificant Russian trade magazine {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by user:Diannaa as a copyvio. SpinningSpark 15:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent secondary coverage. The one review of the business that I could find was on a site blacklisted by Wikipedia, which means that that article must not be used to help establish notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe this page should not be deleted and here's why. Too Lost is a music distribution company that has became very popular in the music music distribution community having over 75.000 artist using it. I created the page since the company did not have a wikipedia page and wanted to contribute to publish more info about the company. I provided all the necessary credit and did research on the company to verify all information. I'm very passionate about music and believe everything posted is credible and plan to publish more information about the company. Also for the first article I posted that was blacklisted was made by mistake and corrected the error once I found out it was blacklisted. There were no outlandish claims being made in those news articles and merlin has confirmed that Too Lost is a partner WrightyTighty (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:GNG. Veracity of information does not imply notability. No significant independent secondary sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action in the North Atlantic (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seemingly lacks any coverage outside of sole passing review in Computer Gaming World. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Co-nominating Battleship Bismarck: Operation Rhine - May 1941 for the same reasons. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an old game, it's entirely possible we are missing old print sources. However, we can't assume they exist. Mobygames (itself unreliable, but a good source for finding reviews that may be reliable) has one the only CGW review listed, where many old games often have several print magazines listed. There's unsurprisingly no hits in WP:VG/S's search engine. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Newspapers.com either. Timur9008 (talk) 15:09 ,14 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Nothing found other than war films about the period the game is set in. Can easily be re-created if some offline/paper source turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to MobyGames, General Quarters Software seems to have developed only six games, all sharing similar gameplay to that of Avalon Hill's Under Southern Skies. All games by that company with stub articles should also be AfD-ed. Other than being stubs, they don't seem to have notability. -Vipz (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what additional sources BOZ found but they certainly are not mentioned in the article. And if he believes GNG can be passed with a single source, then that is not Wikipedia policy. So in lieu of any other sources being presented, it should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L'Desh Fresh[edit]

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

I initially PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional product created as part of an awareness campaign. The only included sources are either primary, or are not about the fictional product. Searches brought up no substantial coverage." It was later de-proded with the rationale to "consider merge to Water.org". I, however, disagree with this alternative. The lack of reliably sourced content in the article means that there is nothing currently that should be merged, and the lack of any kind of significant coverage in searches means that it is too non-notable to be covered in the water.org article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a 2009 advertising campaign by WaterPartners (which shortly afterwards merged into what became Water.org). As the nominator says, there seems to be a dearth of coverage to demonstrate that the campaign achieved notability. The suggested WP:ATD is a merge into the Water.org article; however there is no mention of this campaign on the water.org website, probably because it was a campaign by a predecessor organisation. A merge/redirect to WaterPartners would be more appropriate, though I still feel that the lack of coverage makes that WP:UNDUE. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the dead website, I find no mentions of it elsewhere. I would have possibly added it as a line or two in the water.org article if we had one source, but none turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water.org as WP:ATD. Minimally appears to be a useful search topic. Also WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Insufficiently notable to warrant a redirect. If further sourcing is found, a line could be added WaterPartners. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Bay, British Columbia[edit]

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

I can not find any evidence of population settled in the area or anything of significance beyond a data point in databases. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and British Columbia. Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a human settlement, at least in the 20th century. I quote:

"Mrs. Patterson from Shaw's Landing similarly wrote in 1923, "I cannot teach them properly. Every moment of my time is overworked and it breaks my heart to see them growing up in ignorance." Like Mrs. Patterson, Mrs. Connor Regan from Jackson Bay, BC, wrote in 1925, "I will take on the fourth year work when you send it although I feel incompetent. ... But will do the best I can in dictating at all times" from: Gleason, M. (2017). Families without schools: Rurality, correspondence education, and the promise of schooling in interwar western canada. History of Education Quarterly, 57(3), 305-330. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2017.14

Additionally it is listed on page LXI of the following book as a port: The Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States Calendar Year 1946. United States: U.S. Government Printing Office. (free to read in full on Google Books)

So that's multiple mentions, therefore I think gets a pass at WP:GEOLAND CT55555 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strathcona Regional District; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Article or redirect?. Mind matrix 01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to an article that does not even mention it is an excellent way of wasting readers' time and causing confusion and frustation. SpinningSpark 23:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a short, but useful, entry in the Encyclopedia of British Columbia which gives some of the history of the settlement and can be used to expand the article. SpinningSpark 23:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Spinningspark. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wollo Kombolcha[edit]

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

Lacking significant media coverage; thus, it might not meet notability guidelines. – 333 -blue at 11:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – 333 -blue at 11:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some sources can be found if you search the Amharic name, such as this.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 6 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!} 00:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enayet Karim (director)[edit]

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

The majority of the sources used are obituaries and do not show that he passes notability guidelines. Significant coverage not found. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. [ ]] (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the leading newspapers have covered his death news. I don’t think there should be any argument regarding his notability. Abbasulu (talk) 20:34, 2 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!} 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from a dead link (which judging from similar pages on the site probably never supported the content where cited) and a passing mention, the only reliable sources are several minor variations on a bare bones obituary. Obituaries are poor indicators of notability because the information is often supplied by the family (so not independent) and sometimes published for a fee. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no better sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sebastien1118 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:53, 14 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!} 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly Keep~~ - Most of the leading newspapers have covered his death news. I don’t think there should be any argument regarding his notability. Abbasulu (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC) No need to vote twice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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