Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 18	June 20 >

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 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sintanic[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. Haven't released anything and the whole text are just copy pasted quotes from interviews --FMSky (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is badly outdated as that album expected in 2010 never happened and the band's own social media has been inactive since 2012. I have no idea where someone got the info on new members joining in 2018 and 2020, and even if it's true it's non-notable and the band seems to exist in name only. Reliable info on the band is non-existent except for some announcements of their formation in 2009 and the release of a few demo tracks the following year. They can be briefly mentioned in the biography of Darrell Roberts as one of his short-lived side projects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 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 Entertainment Industry Foundation. ✗plicit 00:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think It Up[edit]

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

One-shot special that got no sourcing attention. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 29 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?)} 20:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Entertainment Industry Foundation as seems to have never been discussed after it launched. Slywriter (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 06:59, 23 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. I was going to redirect this page as an ATD but couldn't find a mention of this subject on the suggested target page so that would be inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Wine Country[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:19, 29 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?)} 20:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone else weigh in here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found a source, [[1]], but honestly reads like a press release. Slywriter (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by NBC#Reality/non-scripted programming It did indeed air on NBC, so a redirect is best. Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Episcopal Church[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability standards, extant only in primary sourcing from the church itself and a reference in a single comprehensive list of ecclesial bodies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I could find that discuss the topic centrally is 1) an entry in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (p. 165, entry 'Southern Episcopal Church'), 2) the academic paper "Episcopal splinter groups: a study of groups which have left the Episcopal Church, 1873-1985". I found nothing on Google news. One entry in the Melton - which catalogues even very minor denominations - and one analysis in a paper, is not enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Veverve. These two sources are all that is needed to satisfy WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I must confess I don't know what "repertoriates" means. St Anselm (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Only two sources cannot be considered as "multiple" (unless "multiple" is understood as 'more than one', which is obviously unlikely to be the meaning it is given in this policy). Veverve (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two good sources is "multiple," whether or not that applies in this case is a matter for discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "multiple" has always meant "more than one". St Anselm (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's multiple:

See corporate annual report at https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingDetail.aspx?CN=251123173026023201003090206059001040041195046179

denominational website at https://southernepiscopal.us/

sample parish at https://www.sacredheartepiscopal.org/

and listing at http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html Soleecitor (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soleecitor: none of those sources can qualify as reliable secondary sources that have a "significant coverage" (WP:GNG; see WP:TRIVIALMENTION) of the topic; none of those sources can establish or support the topic's notability. The first is a Business Entity Detail, the second and third are primary, the fourth one is a random website with a list making a trivial mention of the group. Veverve (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should consider if Soleecitor has a connect to this group following comments here and in the article talk on a supposed break off from this group. ~ Pbritti (talk)

Delete for dearth of sources. The only third-party mention I could find online was the article that Veverve found. The church may merit a mention in Continuing Anglican movement, but not its own article. Jdcompguy (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm; it is documented in two high quality sources. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the secondary sources identified in this discussion, Meltons Encyclopaedia and the academic paper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to the church's website, there are several dioceses, so that this is not a mere local church masquerading as a denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Barauni Junction[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GEOFEAT as a transportation facility, no reliable sources added and no significant coverage in a google search. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a source, and it's highly likely there are local non-English sources. I think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to keep all station articles as this helps users navigate using the adjacent stations feature and wth the Nearby feature on mobile. NemesisAT (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense. It would be just as easy—arguably easier—for the (unlikely) hypothetical user using Wikipedia to navigate the railway system, were this to be a redirect to the article on the relevant rail line. ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't even use the adjacent stations template. Did you read it? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this is kept, it needs to be totally rewritten. In its current state it should be at a minimum draftified until it follows the basics of Wikipedia style and formatting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is longstanding consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't automatically mean that each gets a stand-alone page, though. There's an equally long-standing consensus that if the sources don't exist for a stand-alone article, it gets converted into a redirect to the relevant List of stations in… page. ‑ Iridescent 13:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually true, as WP:RAILOUTCOMES points out. It is extremely rare for railway station AfDs to result in redirection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For what is worth I do not agree with either of the previous keep comments. For me it comes back to WP:GNG. Since the article was nominated for deletion references have been added to articles in Hindustan (newspaper) and Dainik Jagran. From a google translate each article is just about the station so meets the significant coverage requirement. I know very little about the Indian Newspaper market but from their brief articles each newspaper appears to be an independent source and there don't seem to be any red flags that they are not reliable sources. A search of WP:RSN doesn't yield anything either. Therefore I think that the article meets our notability requirements and should be kept. RicDod (talk) 19:34, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emaxee[edit]

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

Article about a non notable Nigerian singer/musician. All sources are non reliable or self published and a WP:Before did not produce anything useful as all I see are social media handles and music cites like Boomplay and the rest. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable entity. Does not satisfy WP:SINGER. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Does not meet MUSICBIO. Princess of Ara 07:27, 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 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 23:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Ohafia[edit]

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

Non notable school sourced mostly to lists. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 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 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 23:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Zaria[edit]

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

The sources for this article are mostly just lists. I don’t believe the school is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 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. Whilst I note a number of extremely lengthy contributions to the discussion, I must look for consensus of users rather than quantity of writing, and I find that that consensus favours deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yi-hsiu[edit]

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

There is a prod war on this article. It has been deleted from the zh Wikipedia as being non-notable. Prod war combatant has stated:

"First, it's a biography of a living person with no significant coverage, and it is poorly written and lacks sufficient information and reliable sources for an independent biography. Secondly, he is a person who is relatively unknown in Taiwan and the World. If this page suits as a significant notability, then every YouTuber in Taiwan with more than 223000 subscribers or more than 22.7million views can get an independent English Wiki page. Wiki should increase scrutiny for a YouTuber fan page because its existence can be easily used as self-promotion, which is something Wiki is not. This point is widely supported by the Chinese wiki community, which agrees youtube is not a reliable source for notability in the case of Lee. Moreover, the subject of this page intentionally falsely interpreted Wikipedia's notability policy and deletion made by the Mandarin wiki community as a clickbait for his own YouTube video [1]. Such conduct clearly violates the "Wiki is not" policy. Thirdly, the claimed radio personality on this page is poorly referenced([2]), one cannot find Lee Yi-hsiu in the cited site, and it shouldn't be taken as evidence for notability.

According to the edit history of this page, user Cunard who had deleted deletion several times had not provided any valid evidence or reasonably improved edits against the mentioned notability questions.

The most important of all is that the Mandarin Wikipedia community had already made a collective conclusion to delete the wiki page of 李易修 Lee Yi-hsiu in 2022/01/11.([3]) The reasonable AfD discussion was made by the source community, thus should suit all languages and eliminate all wiki pages of 李易修 Lee Yi-hsiu." Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Guo, Yijun 郭逸君 (2020-02-16). "〈家有韓粉2〉挺韓被譏高學歷智障　歷史哥與深綠父的世代矛盾【壹點就報】". Next Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Very Han Kuo-yu Internet celebrity history brother has had a very tense relationship with his father since he was a child. The mother is a gentle cushion between the father and son. The day when the 2020 presidential election was voted was the day when Brother History's wife gave birth by caesarean section. ... Brother History started a live broadcast on YouTube to discuss current affairs and share insights, and the number of channel subscriptions exceeded 100,000. ... Growing up in a dark green family, Brother History's political orientation was originally quite "politically correct", ... His father's political stance is dark green, and his historical brother supports Han Kuo-yu. Different political stances deepen the conflict between father and son."
2. "韓粉「高雄歷史哥」挑戰陳其邁？國民黨有考量過". Liberty Times (in Chinese). 2020-06-17. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In this regard, the Han Kuo-yu fan YouTuber "Mr. Taoyuan Sun" recently recommended another Han Kuo-yu fan YouTuber "Kaohsiung History Brother" to challenge Chen Qimai. Unexpectedly, the KMT source confirmed that he had really considered it. According to comprehensive media reports, "History Brother" is a well-known pro-Han Kuo-yu YouTuber, with 130,000 subscribers on YouTube and 35,000 likes on the Facebook fan page "Clarification". The Kuomintang source pointed out that he did consider looking for Brother History, mainly because he was local, young and eloquent. However, at present, the final candidate of the Kuomintang is probably not all the people named on the stage."
3. Lu, Bohua 盧伯華 (2020-01-06). "挺韓網紅高雄歷史哥：3因素決定大選結果". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes: "According to the analysis of the Han Kuo-yu Internet celebrity "Kaohsiung History Brother", there are three factors that determine the outcome of this election: First, what is the voter turnout rate of those who support Han Kuo-yu? Second, what is the voting rate of people who are dissatisfied with the status quo? Because he is dissatisfied with the status quo, of course he will not vote for Tsai Ing-wen. ... "China Review Press" pointed out that Kaohsiung's history brother, who is regarded as one of the top ten Han Kuo-yu live broadcasters, currently has 113,000 subscribers on his Youtube channel. He adheres to the concept of "supporting Han Kuo-yu but not following Han Kuo-yu". He needs to say what is right, and give advice when he is wrong. He hopes to use his strength to break the black criticism of Han, clarify the black and Han Kuo-yu industry chain that smears, smears, and smears red, and helps Han Clarify all kinds of fake news.
4. Jiang, Jiping 蔣繼平 (2021-03-05). "韓國瑜公益復出轉型　歷史哥建議四件事". China Review News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Li Yixiu, born in 1988, a native of Kaohsiung, holds a master's degree from the Department of History, National Taiwan Normal University. In 2019, "Kaohsiung History Brother" operated a live broadcast on YouTube, discussing news topics such as political current affairs, and now has 141,000 subscribers."
5. Li, Junyi 李俊毅 (2020-09-22). "10大韓粉直播主到底有多賺？一張圖揭驚人年收入". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The total amount in Douai ranks third, reaching more than 1.62 million yuan. "Kaohsiung History Brother" Li Yixiu, who has a master's degree in history from Taiwan Normal University, currently has 133,000 subscribers to the YT channel. The highest has reached nearly 10,000 people online at the same time. The name of the channel comes from the fact that when he was in the army, he was picked up by the commander to give an analysis of a historical speech. Brother Quanlian gave him the nickname "Brother History"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Yi-hsiu (Chinese: 李易修), also known as History Bro (traditional Chinese: 歷史哥; simplified Chinese: 历史哥) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These references you have posted are a new low for you, in bad quality and completly non-notable trash. Not one of these are significant. I've got an MSc, does that make me notable? Consensus for number of Youtube subcribers in 250k at the very least, making that non-notable. Just another ideological keep entry that makes no sense. scope_creep^Talk 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not notable for having received a master's degree from the Department of History, National Taiwan Normal University. The subject is not notable for the number of YouTube subscribers.

The subject is notable as sources have provided significant biographical coverage about him, allowing him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These so called reliable news source(mainly from the questionable China Times) and may be reliable in your opinion, but I don't see any significant coverage from it. There is no extend history of personal life, importance, political engagement, controversial events. A political YouTuber's fanpage and a subtle news figure is all this page is about.

The discussion process should be long over in January, since the zh Wiki community vote for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community. It is nothing personal but a late execution of a past consensus. If you are to claim an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN community, you should provide more english source instead of poor Chinese journalism from China Times. Dolphinforest (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion from the source community can be seen on the Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11#李易修 page, the equivalent of the English AfD discussion page.

The discussion process should be over in January since the Zh Wiki community voted for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community.

Suppose anyone insists on an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN Wiki community, ignoring the non-notable status in Zh wiki. In that case, one should provide more English sources instead of poor Chinese journalism, mainly from China Times, a Taiwan media extremely controversial for neutrality and authenticity. Dolphinforest (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cunard provided five sources above in support of Keep. Yet, in the translations Cunard copied I see not one single mention of "Lee Yi-hsiu." How can we ascertain that these sources are about the article's subject? They may be about something else, possibly related to but not about Lee Yi-hsiu. Which would render them useless as far as Lee Yi-hsiu's notability is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are interviews, bar none, all primary and all trash. Not one of them proves the person is notable. They are completely junk and they are indefensible, in an ideological support for a mediocre youtube streamer with no redeeming features that make them notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I admit I missed the alternate spelling ("Li Yixiu"), so our subject is indeed mentioned in the sources Cunard offered. Remains, though, the issue about their worth as supportive of notability. Interviews on their own do not make it (see note 'd' in WP:PRIMARY). -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AfD discussion from the source community can be seen on the Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11#李易修 page, the equivalent of the English AfD discussion page.The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community.

User Cunard claimed this wiki page independent of Han-Chinese page, yet has failed to provide any English news source, relying entirely on questionable Chinese news sources. The sources he provided had not passed the notability check on Zh wiki.

The page of Lee Yi-hsiu is a living biography page, not a historic figure page; if he is notable enough globally, there should be English coverage. However, the current status is that there is zero English coverage on him, and the Chinese wiki community disapproves the overall notability. Dolphinforest (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is sufficient independent, non-interview biographical coverage of Lee Yi-hsiu (Chinese: 李易修, also transliterated as Li Yixiu), also known as History Bro (traditional Chinese: 歷史哥; simplified Chinese: 历史哥) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The sources I provided are reliable sources.
I reviewed Dolphinforest's global contributions and found only four edits, all about this topic. I disagree with Dolphinforest's statement: "The discussion process should be long over in January, since the zh Wiki community vote for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community."
Regarding the Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion of the subject's article at zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11#李易修, each language Wikipedia has its own notability criteria. That the subject's article was deleted from the Chinese Wikipedia does not mean that the article should be deleted from the English Wikipedia. I translated all the comments in the Chinese Wikipedia discussion using Google Translate:
1. Reason for deletion: Refunded from DRV.
2. Opinion: Li Yixiu is reporting on Jiang Jiping's reporter column, and should not be used to prove attention in any way.
3. Leaning keep: The main representative of "Han Kuo-yu fans" in Taiwanese politics[1]. Phoenix TV host [2]. Just to add: YouTube followers are of course not a measure of attention. We should examine the existence of this person in current Taiwanese politics. Li Yixiu and "People from the Cold Country" belong to similar characters.
  [1]: https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20200622001980-260407?chdtv
  [2]: http://www.hkcd.com/hkcdweb/content/2022/01/10/content_1317397.html
4. Delete: the host of the first episode of the talk show, not a news channel.
5. Keep: First of all, Youtube has more than 220,000 subscriptions, which is one of the representatives of "Han Kuo-yu fans", which is enough to prove that it has sufficient attention. Secondly, although the content of the entry is not perfect, it does not mean that it needs to be deleted, and it can continue to be edited and improved.
6. Delete: DRV reviews source content, almost all sources are unreliable sources; YouTube subscriptions are not an indicator of attention.
7. Delete: YouTube subscriptions is not an indicator of attention - someone
8. Leaning delete: The number of YouTube subscriptions is not an indicator of attention.
9. Delete: the number of subscriptions is not an indicator of concern, and there are almost no reliable sources.
There is little source analysis in this Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion other than from the editor who wrote the "leaning keep" comment. Like many of the participants in the Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion, I strongly agree that "the number of YouTube subscriptions" does not establish notability. I am not basing my support for retention on that. I am basing my support for retention on the subject's having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has deliberately missed another argument of mine, which is, "suppose anyone insists on an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN Wiki community, ignoring the non-notable status in Zh wiki. In that case, one should provide more English sources instead of poor Chinese journalism."

The same lists of mandarin news media source he provided did not pass the notability check in the Zh community. I don't see any reason why it would be notable after merely translating it into English. Show us actual English news source(not your own translation) about Lee, or just admit this wiki page is nothing more than a fan page of a mediocre local political YouTuber. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More edits on Wikipedia should not make you more or less eligible to reason a fairly support debate. And I don't think insisting on creating pages for non-notable figures on Wikipedia really counts as contribution. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion had very little source analysis, and different language Wikipedias have different notability guidelines. I therefore am not giving any weight to that discussion in whether to support retention or deletion on the English Wikipedia.
The current version of the article is neutrally written. I do not consider it to be a "fan page".
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
The guideline says that reliable sources "in any language" can be used to establish notability.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources says:
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance.
I said that your account had four contributions to the English Wikipedia that were all about the subject of this article and no other contributions. You called the subject "a mediocre local political YouTuber". The essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account notes:
Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."
Cunard (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I do not see Dolphinforest violating here any policy or guideline, or even that essay with his contributions so far. Evidently, Dolphinforest holds strong views on the worthiness of the subject under discussion but there is no indication of Dolphinforest "following their own agenda". I believe that we should refrain from casting doubt on the worthiness of other contributions unless we have strong evidence of impartiality or some agenda, and here we do not. Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)°[reply]

I did not say that Dolphinforest has violated any policy or guideline. I did not say that Dolphinforest was "following their own agenda". I said that Dolphinforest is a single-purpose account whose only contributions are regarding deleting this article. Dolphinforest called the subject "a mediocre local political YouTuber". The Cambridge English Dictionary's definition of "mediocre" is "not very good". I do not find it to be appropriate discourse for an AfD participant to call an article subject "mediocre", so I posted the Arbitration Committee's reminder to single-purpose accounts who have a strong view on the topic. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, you responded to Dolphinforest by quoting verbatim the part of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee directive that states "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda." That was an explicit warning. You did not "accuse" but you did explicitly warn Doplhinforest about "following their own agenda." It's as clear as it can get but if you feel you can dispute such abundance of clarity go ahead. That's enough palaver for me. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a single-purpose account makes unsupported negative statements about a living person like "the subject of this page intentionally falsely interpreted Wikipedia's notability policy and deletion made by the Mandarin wiki community as a clickbait for his own YouTube video" and uses the negative term "mediocre" to share the user's opinion about the subject's performance as a YouTuber, I find it to be well within discretion to quote the Arbitration Committee's reminder. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject lacks notability, per above extensive commentary. Despite the avalanche of proffered links there is very little of cumulative substance in them. And interviews do not cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have posted five sources. Editors supporting deletion have called the sources "interviews, bar none, all primary and all trash" and having "very little of cumulative substance". I strongly disagree with these assertions. In their written statements, editors supporting deletion have not spelled out why these sources are "interviews, bar none" and have "very little of cumulative substance".
Beyond the quotes I posted in my first comment, I have not spelled out in detail why I believe these sources show that Lee Yi-hsiu (also known as History Brother) meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The guideline says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." I will provide my analysis for each source below to show that a "combinat[ion]" of these "multiple independent sources" demonstrates notability:
1. Guo 2020 is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter ridiculed for being highly educated and mentally retarded. The generational conflict between History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) and his Green Party Taiwan-supporting father". Noting that there is a "generational conflict" is independent analysis of the subject. The article provides biographical background about the subject by noting that he "starts livestreams on YouTube to discuss current affairs and share insights". The article notes that he has over 100,000 subscribers. The article later notes, "On the stage of Han Kuo-yu's pre-election campaign at Ketagalan Boulevard, the elderly Han fans "Five Tiger Generals" were speakers. History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) was a rare young face among the speakers." This provides independent reporting by noting he was a speaker at the pre-election campaign. This provides independent analysis by noting that the "was a rare young face among the speakers" who were mostly older people. The article says he is 31 years old and is from Kaohsiung. The article notes that he is married and his child was born on the day of the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. The article says that he is a supporter of Han Kuo-yu while his father is a strong Green Party Taiwan supporter. The article provides further analysis, saying, "Removing political factors, History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) is examining the parent-child relationship, the opposition between parents and children in Taiwan that is related to traditional education and the patriarchal structure, and complex social factors linked to power."
2. Liberty Times 2020 is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter "Kaohsiung History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu)" challenges Chen Qimai? The KMT has considered". The article notes that the Han Kuo-yu supporter and YouTuber Taoyuan Sun had suggested that Lee Yi-hsiu should run for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election to challenge Democratic Progressive Party nominee Chen Chi-mai. The article notes, "Unexpectedly, the KMT source confirmed that the political party had really considered choosing Lee Yi-hsiu." The article further said that "The Kuomintang source pointed out that the party did consider selecting Brother History, mainly because he was local, young and eloquent." The article says that Lee Yi-hsiu is "a well-known pro-Han Kuo-yu YouTuber". Noting that he "well-known" is independent commentary. The article notes that he has 130,000 YouTube subscribers and has 35,000 likes on Facebook. The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu's baby was born in 2020.
3. Lu 2020 is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter and Internet celebrity "Kaohsiung History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu)": 3 factors determine the outcome of the general election". The article's author reviewed Lee Yi-hsiu's YouTube video and his comments to another publication and discusses his thoughts about what would determine the outcome of the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. The article is not an interview because the author did not speak directly to him. The article notes that China Review Press called him "one of the top ten pro-Han Kuo-yu livestreamers". The article notes that he has 113,000 YouTube subscribers.
4. Jiang 2021 is titled "Han Kuo-yu's public welfare comeback and transformation, History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) suggests four things". The article provides independent commentary by noting that he is "a YouTuber who often comments on current affairs". The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu was born in 1988, is a Kaohsiung native, and has a master's degree from National Taiwan Normal University. The article notes that beginning in 2019, he did livestreams on YouTube to discuss current political affairs. The article said he has 141,000 YouTube subscribers. The article interviews Lee Yi-hsiu and discusses his suggestions about Han Kuo-yu's use of YouTube to stage a comeback.
5. Li 2020 is titled "How much do the top 10 Han Kuo-yu fans make? A Graph Reveals Amazing Annual Income". The article includes no interview with the subject. The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu is number three on the list and makes TWD$1.62 million. The article says that he has a master's degree in history from National Taiwan Normal University. The article said that in his livestreams, he reached a peak of 10,000 simultaneous viewers. The article said that his YouTube channel is called "Kaohsiung History Brother" because "when he was in the army, he was selected by the commander to give a historical speech and analysis". The article said that his comrades gave him the nickname "History Brother".
Although three out of five of these articles include interviews with the subject (sources 1, 2, and 4), there is enough independent reporting, commentary, and analysis across a "combinat[ion]" of these sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have noticed most of the sources Cunard provided about Lee Yi-hsiu are related to the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. Even we kindly assume these questionable news sources are valid, I don't think an active canvasser affiliated to a losing candidate from a past election is still counted as notable two years after the election ends. Dolphinforest (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and that is the crux of it. The claim to notability is nonsense. scope_creep^Talk 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous arguments for deletion were about how the sources did not discuss the subject in much detail. I explained why the sources did provide significant coverage about the subject and have not received a response countering this analysis.

Now, a new argument for deletion is that the sources are related to the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. That election happened on 11 January 2020. The five sources I provided were published on 6 January 2020, 16 February 2020, 17 June 2020, 22 September 2020, and 5 March 2021. The two earliest sources (the 6 January 2020 and 16 February 2020 sources) are directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the election. The other three sources are not directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the election. The 17 June 2020 source discusses Lee Yi-hsiu's consideration as a nominee for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election on 15 August 2020, the 22 September 2020 source discusses how Lee Yi-hsiu is one of the top Han Kuo-yu supporters who are Internet celebrities, and the 5 March 2021 article provides biographical background as it discusses Lee Yi-hsiu's commentary about how Han Kuo-yu can make a comeback.

Even one year after the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election, Lee Yi-hsiu continued to receive significant coverage in reliable sources for his political activity and commentary. This meets Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, which says, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events." If Lee Yi-hsiu had received coverage in only the 6 January 2020 and 16 February 2020 sources, a strong argument could be made that he received "brief bursts of news coverage" only because the election so is not notable. But since he continued receiving coverage in the months to more than a year after the election, he clearly has received sustained coverage.

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary says, "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."

Cunard (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only step back to show how absurd it is, even we accept your news source. Your new sources are still worthless.

You deliberately ignore the fact that China Times from Want Want China Times Media Group (旺旺中時集團) is a media with notorious manipulating records. Its media exposure relating to Han Kuo-yu is none-neutral and not reliable. A report, "Taiwan primaries highlight fears over China’s political influence", from Financial Times in 2019 had made an investigation on manufacturing notability of that media.

"......the media group sent several dozen reporters and editorial managers to the city to help push his campaign. “There is a task force in the editorial department for working on ‘Han Kuo-yu frozen garlic’,” a CTiTV journalist told the Financial Times, using a pun that means getting elected. The Taiwanese government is trying to push back. In March, the media regulator fined CTiTV NT$1m (US$32,000) for violations of broadcasting law, including giving too much air time to stories about Mr Han, which it said violated the principle of fairness and balance."

Also noted that Want Want China Times Media Group sued the reporter and the Financial Times for defamation after the release of that report, yet rescinded its lawsuits in 2021. ref

Last time I checked, the only media that has a "sustained coverage" on Lee Yi-hsiu after the election is Want Want China Times Media Group. Dolphinforest (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three sources that are not directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. They were published on 17 June 2020, 22 September 2020, and 5 March 2021. Only the 22 September 2020 article is from China Times.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Like many reliable sources, China Times is a biased source. According to the Financial Times article, China Times "sent several dozen reporters and editorial managers to the city to help push [Han Kuo-yu's] campaign" which shows it is biased towards him in extensively covering him in a positive light in news article and speaking positively of him in editorials. The Financial Times article does not say China Times is making false statements about him or his opponents. It is a biased source but it can be used with in-text attribution for controversial statements and can be used alongside other sources to contribute to notability. If it was the only source that covered him after the election, this bias towards covering him would indicate that no media outside biased pro-Han Kuo-yu sources covered him. With coverage in the Liberty Times, a newspaper with a Pan-Green Coalition political alignment that is the opposite of the political alignment of Han Kuo-yu and Lee Yi-hsiu, this is not the case. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you deliberately miss the argument again. The Liberty Times report is from the year 2020 relating the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. It's obvious only certain media cares about Han and his fellow canvassers after the election. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Taiwanese presidential election took place on 11 January 2020. The Liberty Times article was published over five months later on 17 June 2020. It is not about the presidential election. It is about how the Kuomintang considered selecting Lee Yi-hsiu as the party's nominee for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election on 15 August 2020. The Liberty Times is viewed as being more closely aligned with the Pan-Green Coalition (Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwan independence), while Lee Yi-hsiu is viewed as being more closely aligned with the Pan-Blue Coalition (Chinese nationalism and Chinese unification). That the Liberty Times, a newspaper with an opposite political alignment than Lee Yi-hsiu, continued to cover him so longer after the election strongly establishes he has received sustained coverage in an independent source and is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The concerns expressed by The Gnome and Dolphinforest over both the reliability and independence of the sources are convincing. With the absence of significant independent coverage in reliable sources this topic fails our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns were raised by Dolphinforest about the independence of the China Times for promoting Han Kuo-yu, whom Lee Yi-hsiu supports. There are three other publications I cited (Next Magazine, Liberty Times, and China Review News) who are reliable sources that provide significant biographical coverage of him and have not promoted Han Kuo-yu. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: You seem to be WP:BLUDGEONing editors. You have made your point, can you leave it alone. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 28 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 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Indian vice-presidential election[edit]

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

Way too soon. WP:TOOSOON. About an event 5 years in the future, no reason to be notable currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After doing a WP:Before, it is clear that there are no much reliable and independent sources to prove that this election will really hold. It is not published in news sites or papers and there seems to be almost nothing written about it. It's too soon Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG, no sourcing whatsoever to justify this article at present. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:47, 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 Procedural close. There is a merge discussion currently ongoing. Merging should be considered before deletion, per WP:ATD-M. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Garry's Mod hacking incident[edit]

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

Article does not follow WP:PRODUCT Owen250708 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen250708 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments at the ongoing merge discussion, which already has a consensus building. This discussion is probably not necessary, though whatever it takes to get rid of this atrocious article - don't let process get in the way of that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Speedy Close - This AfD should have never been opened to begin with since there was a merger discussion in progress, so this AfD needs to be set as Speedy Keep/Speedy Close on procedural grounds to let the actual merger take place. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:52, 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 delete. Agreement that it’s WP:TOOSOON for an article on this topic. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Indian presidential election[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. About an event 5 years in the future, no reason to be notable currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source talking about 2027 elections. And I dont expect sources until beginning of 2027. WP:TOOSOON applies. Venkat TL (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG, there's no sourcing whatsoever to justify this article at present. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Can be created a few months before the next poll is actually due. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:19, 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 23:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midhun Jith[edit]

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

Delete No valid notability claim that would get him over WP:NPOL or and does not meet our notability standards for kickboxers WP:NKICK. A guinness world record doesn't make a person wiki notable. Our conflict of interest rules also prevent the subject from starting his own article about himself. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any SNG that I can find (kickboxer, martial artist, etc.). Minor Guinness records and success in minor tournaments do not confer notability. I don't see any significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Micheletti[edit]

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

This page and an internet search do not give any eveidence that the subject is notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. A previous article was deleted after a deletion discussion in 2018. The current article was reported today at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Nicolas Micheletti - spam. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would say that this is not a G4 case, as there is post-2018 sourcing, but would still delete as not meeting encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, removed in 2018. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:50, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge (CNBC TV program)[edit]

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

Challenged WP:PROD (though no reason given for WP:DEPROD). The very similar article The Edge (Fox News TV program) was successfully WP:PRODed for exactly the same reason – this is a completely unsourced article, on a documentary-type TV program on a secondary cable TV channel, and is unlikely to ever pass WP:GNG or WP:NTV (see, specifically, the last sentence of WP:NTVNATL). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely unsourced. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nature of the show makes it highly unlikely to have sources, and a WP:BEFORE on ProQuest found nothing. There was literally zero reason to deprod this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are right about that - the only likely source will be on the CNBC website. It would be a shame for this article to be deleted. Rillington (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 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. czar 19:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana (novel)[edit]

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

Another unremarkable Arabic novel. Part of a recent slough of these. References do not demonstrate notability. A loose necktie (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately the article creator seems not to understand the sourcing requirements to demonstrate notability. Nevertheless the ar.wiki article has one full length review of the novel here. In addition I found other independent reviews here and here and additional coverage here so notability is demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short-listed for 2013 International Prize for Arabic Fiction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per immediately above. @Goldsztajn: Is the award called the Booker Prize, or is that a translation issue? —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @C.Fred: "Although the Prize is often referred to as the ‘Arabic Booker’, this is not instigated nor endorsed at all by IPAF or the Booker Prize Foundation which are two completely separate, independent organisations. IPAF is not in any way connected with The Booker Prize." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, part of a recent slough of cookiecutter nominations, any sort of WP:BEFORE would have revealed the wikinotability of this book, as editors above have shown this is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 24 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 00:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lonjah and the Ogre[edit]

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

Another unremarkable Arabic novel. Part of a recent slough of these. References do not demonstrate notability. A loose necktie (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator needs to stop putting these up for deletion without checking Arabic sources. Firstly they are not “unremarkable” Arab novels. They have been selected as among the 100 best novels in Arabic by the Arab Writers Union. That doesn’t guarantee their notability in Wikipedia terms but it gives us a pretty strong presumption. Sure enough I can easily find a review, a journal article on the novel’s narrative structure, another journal article on symbolism in the novel and a masters thesis about it. That took about two minutes and I haven’t looked more extensively but notability is clearly demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and overhaul. The article needs to make clear who ranked it among the 100 best novels in Arabic. The article is lacking that context. As an administrator, this article showed up in a flurry of hashtagged articles from some unspecified contest. The only reason I didn't redirect it was the claim of the 100 best list: that seemed enough to indicate significance or importance. @Mccapra: Can you put some effort in on these to clean them up? —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another wikinotable book that meets WP:NBOOK as demonstrated by the above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 24 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. czar 19:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starvation (novel)[edit]

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

Another unremarkable Arabic novel. Part of a recent slough of these. References do not demonstrate notability. A loose necktie (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per readily findable sources 1, 2, 3 and 4, all found in one minute of searching. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3 and 4 of Mccapra. 1 and 2 unless google translate breaking hard appear to be interview with author and German translator respectively. Slywriter (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Title appears to be mistranslated, should be "Hunger". Short-listed for the 2009 International Prize for Arabic Fiction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Another unremarkable Arabic novel.", didn't realise the nominator is an acclaimed critic of Arabian literature, anyway, another keep, as it has multiple reviews thus meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 24 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. czar 19:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Elephant (Novel)[edit]

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

We seem to be getting a lot of new articles about unremarkable Arabic novels. This one is part of that trend. refs do not demonstrate genuine notability. A loose necktie (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see 1, 2, 3 and 4, all found in two minutes. Nomination without merit. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3rd and 4th of Mccapra's sources. 1 has no proper byline, so little questionable. 2 is an interview. 3 is just a blurb but if we are accepting it as evidence of award then good enough. 4 is a proper review. Slywriter (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Short-listed for the 2014 International Prize for Arabic Fiction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Blais[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, and no notable appearances apart from 7 in Ligue 2 between 2003 and 2005. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer (made only 7 appearances in Ligue 2 over two seasons with Niort) that fails WP:GNG. I can't find any online English- or French-language coverage of any significance (just match reports/previews and statistical database entries). Jogurney (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Top 30[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. An award put out by a particular company. References appear to be only to themselves and content of article appears to be only by themselves. Unable to find GNG sources in a search. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mega Top 30 is the oldest (since 1969) and most important Dutch music chart after the Dutch Top 40. The weekly chart belongs to the Dutch national public broadcaster NPO. It used to be called the Mega Top 50 and Mega Top 100. In 2019 the NPO changed the charts' name from Mega Top 50 to Mega Top 30. Because of the references to the old name I created a new article Mega Top 30, copied the contents of Mega Top 50 to the new article and redirected Mega Top 50 to the new page. So the article may appear new but in fact it has been around since 2006. This is also reflected in the large number of articles linking to the page (mostly via redirects). If there is another another way I should've handled the charts' name change then mea culpa but don't delete this article because of it. I do agree that the sourcing could be better but I hope to have established WP:N here.Mill 1 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the best thing to do then and now is to find a source or two that talks about Mega Top 30. Even one that just says a few of things that you just said would do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I updated the article and added a relevant reference, albeit in Dutch. It's incredible that an affluent organisation as the NPO would tolerate such a bad pages about itself.Mill 1 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote (again) to 'Keep'; the action suggested by @Slywriter: has been executed, thus repairing my ill-conceived cut-and-paste move. I think this is pretty much the conclusion of the discussion. Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Procedurally this was wrong. If Mega 50 and Mega 30 are the same, then the cut and paste move was bad. Redirect should be reverted, Article should be renamed and then redirect created. Slywriter (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Delete stricken. Slywriter (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but I do not have the necessary permissions to perform that task myself. Who should do that? Mill 1 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REPAIR noticeboard should be able to provide guidance. Slywriter (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placed the histmerge template on Mega Top 30 Mill 1 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above; WP:REPAIR has been done.

Keep. There is no notability concern, there only was a technical problem. This problem has been fixed and the AfD can be closed. Nominator, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, please use all relevant channels and templates to fix problems, not just the AfD! gidonb (talk) 22:49, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TG Keerthi Kumar[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Previously deleted. None of the given references cover him. 5 are about a movie, and the other quotes self-generated content. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly drafted but it realizes WP:FILMMAKER. Malli Modalaindi and Oru Modhal Oru Kadhal are two solid notable films by this film maker. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 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. czar 19:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank-Petter Kval[edit]

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

With WP:NFOOTY deprecated, notability is no longer presumed on a single professional appearance; WP:GNG must be met. Although there is some coverage, both pieces center around his transfer to Burnley within the span of a few weeks - making it effectively WP:BLP1E as he would, at best, be notable for the transfer issue and not for his achievements in the field. I wasn't able to locate any additional coverage on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Norway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, couldn't find anything tangible in a search apart from social media handles and some sites, no sigcov from reliable sources. Article does not meet GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was having a look at the article, gave it a little cleanup, was trying to look for more information on his career for Brann, however I didn't see much, probably needs someone from Norway to look stuff up. According to this article which states in it that "He has had a lot of good Press for what he has done for Fana over the last couple of seasons. He's a good character and has the physical ability to make an impression." That's suggestive there might be some references out there for him. However I struggled to find such references. Govvy (talk) 17:41, 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. ✗plicit 00:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simen Key Grimsrud[edit]

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

FIS Ski Jumping Continental Cup is the second level of skiing (below FIS Ski Jumping World Cup); we can't really assume notability for a single 2nd-place finish in a second-level competition (especially when his top World Cup finish is 28th).

No WP:SIGCOV found on a search - only databases, which don't support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Norway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:46, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kabul River[edit]

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

Contested PROD with neither an edit summary nor improvement:

There's already an article about (what appears to be) this subject at Battle of Nowshera; this one is almost completely unsourced and includes unrelated content without detailing a battle. No sources appear to describe any "Battle of Kabul River", so redirecting may not be appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Pakistan. ComplexRational (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it really is the same Redirect/merge -- I assume that the article is supported by its one reference. If it is the same, this should not have been brought to AfD, but made a merge nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated here because I can't definitively say whether this is the same as Battle of Nowshera; a Google search turned up nothing for this article's title. If they are the same, I couldn't find any evidence that this is an alternative name for it, so even if it's redirected there could be an argument to delete at RfD. Of course, I'm open to being proven wrong. ComplexRational (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a mention of it on page 8 of: The Kipling Journal. (1943). United Kingdom: Kipling Society. You can see a snippet via Google Books CT55555 (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Battle of Nowshera, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

DELETE. Unsourced and no mention of battle of Kabul river in any reliable citation after search.MehmoodS (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Hoax. The book Empire of the Sikhs: The Life and Times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh which is supposed to verify this article does not mention the Kabul River or the Battle of Kabul River anywhere in its text. No other sources mention it either that I can find.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Hậu Hoàn Mỹ 2022[edit]

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

This is now the 4th posting of this article in mainspace despite warnings not to. Draft:Hoa hậu hoàn mỹ 2022, Draft:Hoa hậu hoàn mỹ 2022 (2) and Draft:Hoa hậu hoàn mỹ 2022 (3) are the previous incarnations.

I'm not familiar with Vietnamese so I'm using a translator to help but this appears to be an article about a beauty pageant. I am, however, struggling to verify its existence. Let's search in Google for some of the contestants' names. Chalis Buwong links only to Wikipedia. Same with another contestant - Efghi Tani. And Sirthop Botp. As you can guess, Wikiame Sitris also fails verification. Article currently fails WP:V, is completely unsourced and is not fit for mainspace in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional spam. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ideally, this should be a speedy delete- I Google-translated it (which is inaccurate though), but it seems to be a non-notable promotional page which is unreferenced and not following NPOV, and is IMO unsuitable for the mainspace. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also attempted a translate that ended with more questions than answers. I also second the speedy delete.

Lindsey40186 (talk) 23:05, 23 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. It's been 3 weeks since this AFD was started. If the match has occurred and there is no current coverage of it, it negates the argument that this AFD is happening because it came before the match occurred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nations League Tune–up match[edit]

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

An identical copy exists at Draft:Nations League Tune–up match. This is an article on a set of friendly matches that makes no claim to passing WP:SPORTSEVENT and has no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. When this was draftified, this was contested with the comment BRUH THIS IS NOT A DRAFT. SEE THE INFORMATION IN PHILIPPINE VOLLEYBALL PAGE IN FACEBOOK. CHECK FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A DRAFT

Firstly, the Volleyball Philippines Facebook page is not a reliable or independent source. In my searches, I could not find any significant coverage of this event taking place between these countries in volleyball. Wikipedia should not be a place for posting an exhaustive list of sports results per WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Japan, Philippines, Thailand, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is coverage of the announcement that they will play:

"PH men's and women's team to play exhibition matches against VNL squads". Manila Bulletin. 2022-05-05. Retrieved 2022-06-04.
Dannug, Jonash (2022-05-06). "Volleyball NTs to have friendlies during VNL week". Tiebreaker Times. Retrieved 2022-06-04.

Not sure if it is enough though. The AfD is unfortunately timed in that the first match happens in exactly 7 days, meaning the sourcing state could change right as the AfD would need to be decided. Also, if the matches do turn out notable, they very likely should not be put at the article's current title, it probably should be at PNVF International Challenge as that's what the event is called. Jumpytoo Talk 22:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I wanted to incubate the article in draft. There is a chance that these warm-up games might gain sustained and far-reaching coverage but it's WP:TOOSOON right now. I usually edit football and I know it's not the same but most warm-up games and exhibition matches are not notable enough for separate articles; see for example here and here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and history-merge to fix the cut-and-paste move. There's barely any textual content here, almost A3. There needs to be some textual content before this can be an article. I don't have any arguments for or against deletion right now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:46, 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!} 23:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a series of friendlies with a name with no trophy at stake.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From above: "The AfD is unfortunately timed in that the first match happens in exactly 7 days". A bit of a conumdrum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't even have articles on random warm-up matches to the FIFA World Cup. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact, I can't think of a sport where exhibition/friendly/warm-up games would be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable series of friendlies. Articles do not exist for friendlies or exhibition games across any sport (the only exception I can think of is the Pro Football Hall of Fame Game and that is more about the festivities surrounding the game rather than the game itself) Frank Anchor 22:08, 24 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. Consensus is for deletion. There is agreement that although well written, this is not an encyclopaedic article. Should the author wish to recover the content, they can request that it be emailed to them. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences between Kazakhstan and Malaysia[edit]

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

This isn't really an article but a discussion on the differences between two very different cultures based on them having signed a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation in Tourism. There is no real encyclopedic content and the Perspectives section is a discussion among fictional characters. The sources do not seem to discuss the subject matter but not really supporting the title. In other words there seems to be no discussion in scholarly works supporting this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Malaysia and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh dear someone has put a huge amount of work into this but it’s a personal essay full of WP:SYNTH. There are probably elements that can be merged into Culture of Malaysia and Culture of Kazakhstan but that’s a huge task. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope this person gets a good grade on their assignment, but they have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. This is not a notable subject discussed in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A brilliant essay, but unfortunately not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be worth informing the creator that they can request a copy of a deleted article if they wish, if/when the article is deleted, seeing as so much work has appeared to of been put into it. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry to see this much effort go to waste, but really, this is a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this could be userfied, in case the author did not keep another copy for whatever this essay is intended for. CMD (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is just WP:SYNTH. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is well-written, but unfortunately the aspect of notability is missing, and I wish there was a way or a process to facilitate articles of this type. No self-promotion is intended here, except for the fact that it appears to be an excellent essay. I especially like the cultural maps! Proton Dental (talk) 14:37, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Andersen[edit]

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

Biography for a non-notable model. damiens.rf 06:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of articles about her in Danish media: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], ... Christian75 (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reluctantly. Article is of poor quality but AFD is not clean-up and having translated the sources the coverage does appear significant. This should stay given notability standards are met and there is scope for improvement with sources in future. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Christian75. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:57, 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EVRYTHNG[edit]

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

Prod was disputed; all references appear to be press releases; insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP due to a lack of notability. Sources include a salary review link likely to have been written by the company itself, trivial press release for an award from a market consulting firm, and other articles from non-reliable sources with questionable independence such as this, this, and this. What little coverage there is from actual news outlets, these outlets do not appear to be sufficiently established to count as a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. The only source I consider to be reliable, independent, and secondary is this from the Guardian. However I do not see multiple of such sources covering the subject significantly. There are plenty of trivial mentions elsewhere about their capital raisings or acquisitions, but these business updates do not really add to notability in my view. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been covered in several analyst reports which meet WP:NCORP's notability criteria. For example this by Proficient Market Insights, this by The Business Research Company and this from Research and Markets. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analyst reports can demonstrate notability of a publicly traded corporation, particularly those listed on major stock markets per WP:LISTED. According to my research, I cannot see that this company is publicly traded? It appears to be traded on the private market and owned by venture capital investors like Dawn Capital and Samsung per Craft. Hence the analysis you link to does not fall within the letter or spirit of that guideline - which seeks to establish that publicly traded companies are likely notable. Not all such traded companies may be discussed in traditional sourcing methods like newspapers - but they may well instead attract stock analysis instead. This allows notable publicly traded companies ability to meet notability standards. I do not see how EVRYTHNG meets notability here. Thoughts? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines are implying that analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies in order to meet notability criteria. Analyst reports meet the requirements of WP:SIRS in that they provide in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of analysis/opinion of a company and therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. They're a gold standard really for meeting NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing. Though I can't see the contents of these reports to verify WP:SIGCOV the fact that EVRYTHNG is mentioned in the abstracts gives me enough confidence. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources provided by HighKing are useless unless someone has access to the full report. I'm not sure why they're being used as an argument to keep when they haven't even been added to the article, and likely will not be given their high cost to purchase. I'd maybe support draftification over delete, but I'm definetely not finding those sources alone to be sufficient justification to keep this PR soup. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude technically per WP:PAYWALL the high ridiculous cost of the reports would not prohibit their use, but I certainly agree with everything else you said! Indeed, I feel the high prices lend to my argument above that the sources are not there for public consumption, they are expensive because the article subject is a privately traded company and so the sources, accessible or not, do not even count as sources for the purpose of meeting WP:NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The high cost can also be used to argue the other side. The information about these companies is important enough to fetch a high price. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's much if any correlation between this company's importance and the prices of those sources. ––FormalDude talk 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so neither of us are making persuasive arguments about the price. In any case, WP:PAYWALL applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity, I'm unable to verify the contents of the reports. But in my experience analyst reports nearly always meet WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed. As a side note, wow, two of the sources presented herein cost $4,000+ USD apiece to access for reading. Maybe some Wikipedians that are a bit affluent can help out here! It's only money, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reports provided by HighKing are not suitable. They are not automatically independent or reliable. And the subject of this AfD is listed there among many other companies, which doesn't make EVRYTHNG a unique or the best or the largest one. Here is the citation from the abstract: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5504908/iot-market-in-uk-2022-2026 "The robust vendor analysis is designed to help clients improve their market position, and in line with this, this report provides a detailed analysis of several leading IoT market vendors in UK that include 8power Ltd., Adaptive Wireless Solutions Ltd., Altiux Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Arm Ltd., AT and T Inc., Eseye, EVRYTHNG Ltd., and Oracle Corp." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSnowWind (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really vague. Not suitable in what way? Because I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. The abstract, for example, says this report provides a detailed analysis on several leading IoT market vendors. So, t is a detailed (CORPDEPTH) analysis (ORGIND) in a RS. And this doesn't meet NCORP criteria because ... ??? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets NCORP criteria per Highking.ChristinaNY (talk) 16:44, 27 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. The first week's worth of comments doesn't seem to show any agreement on what to do with the article, while some of the comments since the relist are somewhat vague and lacking in depth. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Liew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are typically press releases with overwhelmingly promotional tones and suspicious claims from news websites with low reputations. 虹易 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which news websites have "low reputations"? And how are you addressing the sources brought up in the prior AfD that were why it resulted in a Keep decision? As an example, the Chinese Wikipedia article on him is rather extensive in all respects, including sourcing. Here's just a few examples:

Monan, Li (December 28, 2021). "这个"美食家"不一般《食公子经典》传记上线一周年" [This "Gourmet" is not ordinary, the first anniversary of the launch of the biography of "Shi Gongzi Classic"]. China Business Herald (in Chinese).
Mingyuan (May 10, 2022). "食公子的美食家入门-看菜辨味" [Foodie's Introduction to Foodies]. CCTV Fusion (in Chinese).
Ying, Ren (December 16, 2021). "饮水思源的食神始祖食公子" [The ancestor of the god of food who drinks water and thinks of the source, Master Shi]. Xindushiwang (in Chinese).

It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver seren^C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Journalism, and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:Hi! I feel sorry for failing to notice there is a previous AFD. But I did roughly examine sources in the Chinese Wikipedia. The majority of the sources supporting the achievements and awards of the subject are from news websites in mainland China, with which I am pretty familiar. Based on my experience, I am sure that they are just cheap press releases. In mainland China nowadays, news publication is "industrialized", thanks to Xi's crackdown on journalism, in the sense that even those traditional government-backed newspapers tend to sell their news at "transparent" and insanely "low" prices. The first source is from China Business Herald (zh: 中国商报). Its "news" article is sold at as low as 90 CNY (< 15 USD), as listed in a news-selling platform connected with hundreds of state-level or traditional reputable local newspapers[7](scroll down and the search box is on the right side). And from its text,

...he is also listed on Wiki(pedia) in dozens of languages in the world and various Chinese online encyclopedias. As the first person in Malaysia, he was selected as the modern Chinese gourmet who stood side by side with the eight ancient gourmets, Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan and Yuan Mei.

It is ridiculous, far from just praising. The second cctvzyzg.com, even implied by its domain "CCTV", is an unknown website (copycat of cctv.com, I suppose). It has little traffic[8] and no links from zhwiki[9]. The third xindushiwang.com appears to be a content farm with a fake ICP license number. In mainland China, the government requires every website to be licensed before serving. If it was true, [10] should include it (No.豫ICP备19028662号-6 or its domain). It also explains why it is hosted on Hong Kong servers, which is barely possible due to excessive Internet regulation policies and the Great Firewall. The other sources listed in zhwiki are no better, except for some magazines published in Malaysia, which usually do not constitute "significant coverage" or are irrelevant.--虹易 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@虹易 thanks for the additional information. in my opinion, if the subject is really notable, there should be a balance between domestic and international sources. however, this is really skewed towards international sources, and like you have mentioned, many aren't really notable. – robertsky (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That is exactly the point that I tried to express. --虹易 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. and per what I have mentioned before in the first afd, which is similar to what the nominator rationalised. – robertsky (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indeed a notable subject of food critic in Malaysia. The news in mainland China could be he further development in China market newly in the recent years. As mentioned before, other offline sources maybe discovered. There are also some other reliable news report :http://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html. Since he passed Afd, he should be passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrisontan (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, the article from Takungpao is even worse than those listed in zhwiki. The text contains numerous grammar, punctuation errors, and chaotic sentences. It seems to be generated by a broken machine instead of a sane human. --虹易 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is translated from broken machine, because as you know the article contained a lot of prose written in classical Chinese, for me, I can understand it totally. And the translate machine cannot translate the classical Chinese well. Arrisontan (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, what do you mean by "classical Chinese"?--虹易 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

引用了一些典籍、古文类文体，这些都是翻译机器不能翻译的 Arrisontan (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, just in the paragraph: "连仿维基、百科,具大量转载,国外报导都是他", "从他传记获海量人数支撑的六行权重性“全站链接”,智能萃取他与世界美食家并列", "以为他创建各国十数个维基,中国他传式百科,具少不了食公子的履历。 ". These are obviously not valid sentences whether in modern or classical Chinese. I would call them a string of Chinese words chained in chaotic order. --虹易 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is a long sentence that require a high level of understanding to the expression, but it still can be understand. Arrisontan (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if say it is a machine translate article. it seems not. Because Ta Kung Pao is a state-owned newspapers, the editor would not let a machine translate thing published anyway. Arrisontan (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source then. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The takungbao.com is serving mainland China with simplified Chinese and takungpao.com.hk is serving Hong Kong with traditional Chinese. As I explained earlier, such kinds of state-backed newspapers in mainland China are cheap enough nowadays. That article won't cost a few dollars to get posted. And in a poll in November 2019, "Ta Kung Pao once again took the last seat with a credibility score of 3.30, making it the media with the lowest credibility score in Hong Kong"[11][12]. The "article" posted in the "state-backed newspapers" just again proves that someone buys tons of low-quality press releases or advertorial. (I would not like to dive into the problem of the news itself for now. I think a consensus can be established easily in zhwiki, if necessary. There are plenty of editors familiar with or fluent in both modern and classical Chinese.) --虹易 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrisontan if he were to further develop in China, we should have seen sources from the more mainstream/familar online media from China than these random sites, even if they are short articles. – robertsky (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can find some mainstream and online media platform written about his biography and introduce him.

https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)
http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)
http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media)

It indeed have other sources to support him active in China in recent years as there are other familiar and mainstream newspaper reporting him. The above just few examples seem more reliable that exactly report by the official news web and discussing his works and life. Arrisontan (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, Sina is a mainstream portal website with huge traffic. IMO, it is somewhat reputable 10 years ago, but not today. This article in Jan 2022 doesn't even have an author's name. And it shares exactly the same content as the one from zgswcn[13] with some sentences trimmed (almost every sentence in sina can be found in zgswcn). So it is pretty clear that either both the two articles are advertorials paid by the same broker, or Sina blatantly steal the article from zgswcn.com without attribution. In whichever case, it reflects an awful reputation. The second article consists of a bunch of mixed usage of halfwidth and fullwidth Chinese punctutations which indicates the lack of basic proofreading before publishing. Chinareports.org.cn is a state-owned political magazine, which must have an editorial team, but seemingly not the case for the website. Again, no author's name. So is the third one. What's more, except for the one in Takungbao which is incomprehensible, all these reports published in mainland China follow a distinctively unorthodox grammar and write in a special style, which I have never seen before in published Chinese newspapers as a native speaker. Such styles are neither modern nor typical classical Chinese, and neither spoken nor oral. It is absolutely impossible that every website/newspaper just shares this unique grammar and style of writing. I am confident that they are written by a single person or team before getting published on tons of strange websites, which again supports my assumption that they are typical undisclosed press releases or advertorials. Last but not least, these sources in mainland China cover significantly Liew‘s activities, awards, achievements, and titles in Malaysia, instead of China, with a whale of compliments. I fail to find a reasonable explanation of how they learn about and verify these details with no correspondents or journalists in Malaysia if there is little or no coverage by media in Malaysia. Also, it should take no effort to find numerous reports by highly reputable media in Malaysia and the world on "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as claimed by those media in mainland China. --虹易 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you said Sina is steeling articles from the web, but it still not can be regarded as your claims that it is content paid by advertorials. And there has no exact prove that written by the same person. What you have argue just a presumption.

It can't be said that the subject does not have reports from Malaysia newspapers, just that Malaysia medias not uploading their news online, they more focus on offline publishers, which I dig from the previous version of Wikipedia, he indeed have reports https://archive.org/details/20200611_20200611_1640 // https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/sin-chew-daily-melaka-edition/20170906/284283890208084// https://archive.org/details/food-digestbut not coverage, so it got no count as sources.

Malaysia news developed their online media in these years only and they just selectively put what's report offline to online platform. That's why previous Afd concludes offline sources must be somewhere. Arrisontan (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, it is a basic evaluation per WP:RS and common sense. I think it is crystal clear that these tons of extremely low-quality sources in mainland China are cheap press releases and advertorials with countless problems, most of which are obvious enough if it was on zhwiki, such as the chaotic article on Takungpao. Other than those sources in mainland China, most sources in Malaysia are WP:PRIMARY, and so are the three above. And most importantly, none of them support or just mention the claims "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as repeated in every source in mainland China. Among Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, Guangming, Kwongwah have online reports as early as 2007[14][15], Overseas Chinese Daily News and Sin Chew Daily as early as 2009[16][17].--虹易 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find in detail that the above sources I provide did mentioned him is the "World Gourmet Master", the examples of Malaysia news you provide, as I said like some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated. The claims should be focus on whether he is enough [[WP:GNG]] which passed him in previous Afd, but not the statement of "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" etc. The focus of your points is a bit out of the track. Arrisontan (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated indeed, which I am puzzled. If you had ruffled through the edit history of this article, the sourcing of the really promotional versions that had been scrubbed were old articles uploaded/used by the creator of this article, which I can safely say, who has obvious COI (there's off-wiki evidence to collaborate on this as well). If there are old articles about the subject, there's a good chance that she would have an archive of the news articles, and uploaded more. – robertsky (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Can't comment on the quality of the sources listed. I find one listing from the International Business Times, Singapore, which is an unreliable source. I find nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean weak keep. Sources as mentioned by Silverseren are certainly reliable and meets WP:GNG requirements. I would have voted delete if whole article depended on IBT (which is certainly an unreliable source) but this is not the case. Previous AfD discussed these so repeating them is not effective. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144:Regardless of the first one, the latter two listed by Silverseren are just content farms & counterfeit websites. How could they be reliable at all?--虹易 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to change sources, there are no proof that he is not famous in China, some other reliable source that you said from official web can be found

https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)

http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)

http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media) Arrisontan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered above in @虹易's reply. – robertsky (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources, it is consider as original and it is definitely not content farms or counterfeit website. Arrisontan (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i concur with what @虹易 said about these sources (other than the one that needs vpn, which I don't have access at the moment), individually, they are not reliable. I won't comment on the reliability of the sites themselves. Most of these articles were pushed out in Dec 2021 - Jan 2022 period, which to me seems to be a PR/marketing push. If he was truly notable, there should have been continuous stream of news/articles after that, but no, we have yet to see more articles dated after this. – robertsky (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still continuous publishing to April, just then it is just relevant to his opinion, so i didnt put up. However, it can still be consider as in a continuous form until now http://www.cassbase.com/html/Exclusive%20information_1690_4006.html Arrisontan (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted in the article, "the original text is excerpted from 'Food Psychology' published in November 2020 in 食公子经典", an autobiography by Liew. Again, at the bottom of the article, familiar sentences: "a famous world gourmet master in Malaysia, an international judge, the ancestor of the god of gourmet, and "a modern gourmet that is as famous as the eight ancient gourmets in China." It is a financial research institution's homepage, not a newspaper. Certainly, it has nothing to do with food and gourmet. And I don't think it has a reporter. How would they happen to know such a person and how could they verify those claims then? Look at that section called "Exclusive reports", it is full of low-quality press releases about random topics irrelevant to finance or ecnomics[18]. --04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep: He's got a significant amount of coverage in Chinese and Malaysian media such as Ta Kung Pao, and given his long spanning career, there's definitely going to be a lot of offline coverage as well. It would be wrong to dismiss him as being non-notable. Babib90 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Babib90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, a lot of reporters/journalists have/had long spanning careers with no notable coverage. All that have been presented so far are his own writings and promotional pieces of him. If there are offline sources, it is highly likely that these maybe his articles as well. Ta Kung Pao was analysed by @虹易 above, and from what they laid out, doesn't seem to be as reliable as you think it is. – robertsky (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources provided on the article's talk page suggest the topic meets WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FormalDude. As I explained above, none of those sources published in mainland China seems serious at all. I am very confident, as a native Chinese speaker, that they are cheap and extremely low-quality press releases or advertorials written by a single person or a small team in distinctively strange and generally unacceptable Chinese grammar. That's the reason why I raise the second deletion discussion. And I would like to analyse any other source if you find them to look credible. --虹易 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FormalDude and WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG now. 173.179.229.12 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 虹易 thoroughly explains why the sources being cited aren't adequate to establish any notability; I have yet to see anyone refute or even deny their claims. Plus, just read their titles. It's quite clear that none of these sources can be taken seriously. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehttp://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html" actually from 济南网,"最终因其传记为世界维基、中国百科、将他与古代八位美食家及现代五大美食家比肩"really?--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI won't speak to the sourcing (since I don't read chinese), but I trust the chinese readers assessment thereof. Furthermore, despite what at least one person above claims, the only change to the article since its nomination for deletion is changing one source from a live link to an archive. Rockphed (talk) 04:59, 29 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 12:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmoke (group)[edit]

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

fails wp:nband. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 07:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 07:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets WP:NBAND, lacks citations. Since they are from the 70's, I checked Google Books but it didn't bring up anything. Zeddedm (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that their name is sometimes spelled (incorrectly) as two words in modern social media chatter. Anyway, the band seems to have received little notice when they were together, and I can find no evidence that their two singles were "hits" as said in the article. Via Google Books I can find nothing except for a few entries in directories of records released during that period. Online they are only visible in the typical directories like Discogs (and even then without much useful info) and occasional streaming selections. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:59, 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sysbench[edit]

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

Linux benchmark utility, does not meet WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS coverage looking at the application as a stand-alone thing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What about top, ls, cat, as well as other similar benchmarking software such as geekbench? All of these Linux/Unix commands as well as Geekbench can have their own pages. So why can't Sysbench have its own page as well? — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, this is not an argument from policy. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 10:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Fairly recent~~ (misread stable release date, 2004 is not recent, but still having trouble finding RS) software package lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The other software such as top, ls and cat are ubiquitous commands typically used in unix-based operating systems and have coverage in any number of technical manuals / guides and online, so far I have not seen that for this package. ASUKITE 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sysbench is actually in all the major linux repo distributions. Also, do a google search and you will find that it has been reliable articles about sysbench. This is described in article and referenced. Please review this and continue this discussion of the merits of the sysbench software. 2600:1702:10B0:7A30:0:0:0:3A (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further add to the reply above, when searching for sysbench, you can see results from respected Linux sources, such as Linux Hint, as well as wikis from the biggest Linux distros, such as Gentoo and Ubuntu. In addition, there's even a 17-page manual exclusively for sysbench here. Also note that sysbench comes packaged with most Linux distros (Arch Linux, Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, etc.) I will try to add more sources from this list to the Wikipedia page. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Software tends to have very few discussions that are in print and reliable. Most discussion happens on messaging boards between users, and so it is hard to meet the threshold for notability.

Finding uses of sysbench in published papers is trivial. A quick google search of sysbench on arXiv yields more than 3000 uses. Most of those are uses of the tool, rather than sources that have enough coverage to assert notability. One exception I've found is an entire chapter in a book on the subject of sysbench.

[19] Also claims that sysbench is the most used benchmark tool. Paywalled and I don't have access.

I went digging to see what coverage could be found that wasn't trivial in nature. Reliable coverage is drowned out by the numerous uses of sysbench and reporting of benchmark results. I've sifted through and found some things that may or may not be good enough to justify notability. I list them below to generate discussion.

Less good sources, but more coverage than "here are my sysbench results".

[20] conference talk by creator. Arguably primary source, despite non-creator publication mechanism.
[21] multiple uses around pp.70-ish. explanation of the tool and using it to benchmark the Raspberry Pi.
[22] master's thesis with roughly a page of discussion on sysbench.
[23] this paper states that the test is sometimes called "Multi-threaded System Evaluation Benchmark".
[24] Talk named "Practical Sysbench". This link is only the slides, so more research could be done to locate the conference proceedings.

I will report back tomorrow with more findings. I will try to gain access to the chapter, which probably includes some sources, or at least good information that could be used. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:27, 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!} 04:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Bismark Reeves[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD due to 2008 de-PROD by article creator. I don't believe this person meets WP:NPROF. Dean of a college within a university is not a "highest-level" post. Search on Google scholar brings up zero hits for publications. Nothing but Wikipedia mirrors found elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG and I do not believe he meets any other notability requirement. IrishOsita (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even come close to having enough sources. We might be able to work around this if there was any meeting of any of the multiple criteria for notability for academics, but there is not. Not every professor at every university is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a run-of-the-mill professor but former vice president of the University of Liberia, according to our article the oldest degree-granting institution in W Africa. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF gives a pass to highest-level positions, but nothing for second-highest. In fact, the archived staff directory and this AllAfrica article gives his position as "Vice President for Administration", so he's not even the Vice President, he's a Vice President, making it even less relevant to a notability claim.

I couldn't find a single thing other about the guy or his work anywhere. The Mobius archive cited in the article shows exactly one publication, from 1984 ("Selected wood properties of self-straightening black walnut..."), which when searched on G Scholar brings up zero results except itself, indicating that it made little impact. In fact, according to this, it was only his PhD dissertation. I can't find any evidence that he ever after that published anything in a scholarly journal, at least not one that Google, GBooks, or WMF Library has any records of, so he doesn't meet the influential/impactful criteria of NPROF. Without that, there's nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 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!} 23:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:20, 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 procedural close. Article was draftified the minute before AfD was created, so this nom is moot. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 08:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Sharma (YouTube)[edit]

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

not notable and no reliable source found AlexandruAAlu (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:10, 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!} 04:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Zehra case[edit]

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

Normally I wouldn't nominate a page for deletion so soon after creation, but this appears to be an unsalvageable BLP nightmare. ‑ Iridescent 04:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 04:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper...Insight 3 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Insight 3's argument above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Pictures[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 04:05, 24 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 Bbb23. CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Imperium[edit]

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

I've declined a G4 request on this, as the page has almost no similarities to the Western Imperium article deleted in 2010 to which it was claimed to be 'substantially identical'. However, I don't think this is remotely viable as a Wikipedia article. It's not an actual historiographical concept; it's the hyper-fringe notion of a single extremely marginal crackpot, and there's nothing here to suggest this warrants anything more than at most a couple of sentences at Francis Parker Yockey. ‑ Iridescent 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. ‑ Iridescent 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, the book which sets forth this concept, and ECP-protect the redirect. This crackpot notion was the subject of a book that we, properly, have an article on. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete' because it was made by a sock. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:38, 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 02:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Bharti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If anything has changed since 2016, it is a single significant role in a drama film. Nonetheless, this fails GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR either. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 09:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 09:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 12 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!} 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some of the refs in the article are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Others are interviews and typical churnalism content. Hemantha (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria Proton Dental (talk) 02:26, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duqm Port[edit]

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

Notability of the port seems to be inherited from the UK Joint Logistics Support Base located within it. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No deletion rationale (let alone a valid one) provided. The sources in the article seem to be specifically about the port (and the UK logistics base located within it), thus clearly satisfying requirements for SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of reliable sources about this port, such as [25], [26], [27] and [28], and have not yet seen one that even mentions the UK base there, so I'm finding it difficult to work out what the nominator is talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 16 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, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it’s a major port with plenty of coverage. Mccapra (talk) 14:21, 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Christmas (Jessie James Decker EP)[edit]

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

While it charted, I was unable to find a single review or even the most superficial of coverage. The current sources are a gossip piece about Jessie James Decker that mentions the album in passing, combined with the chart positions and a blank directory listing on AllMusic. Redirect and PROD were both contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. For what reason do you want it kept? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Whatever keeps the history of this decently sourced article in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out here that if preserving history is the basis of the argument, then the recommendation should be to redirect to the musician's article (or their discography article if there is one) rather than merge. Imagine the ramifications of a musician's biography article in which the details, tracklist, etc. of one album are crammed into the history awkwardly while their other albums have separate articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it that you always comment that things were "contested without comment" when that is not true? User:Jax 0677 removed the PROD with the comment "can be redirected" and I reversed the redirect with the comment "AfD it". Both of those are COMMENTS. Stop lying in your deletion rationale please. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Jessie James Decker, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep - The album is indeed low on reviews but it reached respectable levels in the Billboard charts and has a few moderately in-depth announcements in the valid country music press like this: [29]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Charting album, and I added one review from the London Free Press which was also republished in the Sun chain newspapers: the Toronto Sun (December 15, 2015), the Ottawa Sun, the Winnipeg Sun and the Edmonton Sun (all on December 13, 2015). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 09:01, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Metallidou[edit]

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

Not a notable player Emery Cool21 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she was not a medalist, meaning she isn't notable. versacespaceleave a message! 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not winning a medal doesn't mean someone is non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - what i meant was that she (likely) doesn't meet WP:GYMNAST as she didn't win a medal. In fact she was eliminated in the qualifiers, which imv strengthens my rationale. it's very unlikely for there to be coverage on a non-qualifier. versacespace leave a message! 17:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seems to be a lot of matches on google with the Greek spelling of her name (Μιχαέλα Μεταλλίδου), but I don't speak that language so I can't tell if its significant enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective refencing.Unable to verify WP:V or WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only did this person not win a medal, she was eliminated in the qualification round. That sounds like a strong indicator of non-notability for that competition, and we have nothing else to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are many news articles about her, mostly about one event, all the following largely relying on quotes from her or her coach:

https://www.sport24.gr/gymnastiki/i-klironomos-michaela-metallidoy.7859409.html
https://www.sport-fm.gr/article/sports/191893
https://www.novasports.gr/alla-spor/article/1001790/epanerxetai-i-mixaela-metallidoy/

I think in the context of them being about one event and being primary sources, I lean delete, but don't have enough info to !vote that way CT55555 (talk) 03:35, 23 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Channa[edit]

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

I don't think this young artist is notable at this time. The only clearly reliable source in the article ([30]) is a single-sentence mention in a piece about an exhibition by "emerging artists"; the remaining sources are mostly unreliable and/or non-independent, and my WP:BEFORE search in several relevant languages found no sources that would satisfy the GNG. None of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met either, in my view. Too soon, perhaps. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Pakistan. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, although I'm only able to search in English. As others have stated, no other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One sentence is not significant coverage, as Writ says. I cannot locate anything on Wayback or Newspapers. Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. Article is essentially a resume with no indication of notability. Not finding anything on BEFORE.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 23 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 William Farley (director)#Film career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen: I'm Not Losing My Mind, I'm Giving It Away[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing at Newspapers.com.

The fact that it’s Whoopi Goldberg’s debut film appearance doesn’t make it notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if she had significant involvement in the film per WP:NFO, the article lacks reliable source coverage. The Film Creator (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No sources for the film, zillions of hits for Whoopi in connection to the film. Non-notable film. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William_Farley_(director)#Film_career. The individual film doesn't seem to be notable, but it's covered enough in his article to justify redirecting it there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William_Farley_(director)#Film_career. I am in agreement with ReaderofthePack on this, although I would not be opposed to maintaining the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, seems the most logical. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 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.